France's Muslim no-go zones

[dialamah]

15 minutes ago, Goddess said:

You may not want that talked about, but some of us think that is pretty important

Why do you characterize disagreeing with you about the threat Islam presentd as "don't want it talked about"?  I am allowed to think you are misinformed without being accused of wanting to shut you up.  I'm even allowed to think you are wrong, crazy, fearful or dishonest without being accused of wanting to shut you up.

20 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Yes, Dia - we all "get" that not ALL Muslims are the same.  But there are far more bad ones out there than apologists like to admit.

Well, from my side there are a lot more good ones out there than Islamophobes want to admit - but you don't want us to talk about that, do you. 

[Abies]

Low socio-economic status areas tend to have a high crime rate. It isn’t anything to do with being Muslim or having dark skin.

[Hudson Jones]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

 the most popular tshirt for Muslims is a shirt that says "2030 - then we take over"

How is this validated?

Show some link.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Well, from my side there are a lot more good ones out there than Islamophobes want to admit - but you don't want us to talk about that, do you. 

Sure there are. But so what. If only a quarter of them taunt, insult and maybe beat up any Jew they see on the streets does that make the Jews feel safer? Do you think the Jews who have stopped wearing their kippah because it's too dangerous, who have to have cops with machineguns outside their synagogues, whose kids have to have cops with machineguns outside their doors feel better because MOST Muslims don't hate them, or at least, don't hate them enough to attack them? Do you think the women told not to go out at night because of the attacks on women are encouraged that it's not ALL Muslims attacking women, just a strong minority (while the rest just think they deserve it because they're sluts)?

Edited September 16, 2019 by Argus

[Argus]

33 minutes ago, Abies said:

Low socio-economic status areas tend to have a high crime rate. It isn’t anything to do with being Muslim or having dark skin.

Isn't it? Most families have two bread winners today, but Muslims prefer the tradition of women staying at home. Thus Muslims are more likely to be poor because they are Muslims. Also, most Muslims are immigrants, which means they have poorer language skills, and most came in as refugees, not through any immigration system which only accepts the highly skilled, so again, are more likely to be poor.

Also, not all immigrant/refugee groups have a high crime rate. Certain groups do, and certain groups do not. Some groups come from peaceful societies in which violence is frowned upon. Others come from societies where violence is the norm. Muslim countries tend towards the latter.

[Abies]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Isn't it? Most families have two bread winners today, but Muslims prefer the tradition of women staying at home. Thus Muslims are more likely to be poor because they are Muslims. Also, most Muslims are immigrants, which means they have poorer language skills, and most came in as refugees, not through any immigration system which only accepts the highly skilled, so again, are more likely to be poor.

Also, not all immigrant/refugee groups have a high crime rate. Certain groups do, and certain groups do not. Some groups come from peaceful societies in which violence is frowned upon. Others come from societies where violence is the norm. Muslim countries tend towards the latter.

Muslims are not poor because they are Muslim and you contradicted that by pointing out they tend to have poor language skills as refugees and likely not economically well off or skilled. 

[Goddess]

15 hours ago, Hudson Jones said:

How is this validated?

Show some link.

I first saw it in the book "While Europe Slept".  Here is the excerpt.  The links are in the back of the book, which I don't have with me right now.  

You won't get the context of what is being discussed but it's happening in many countries of Europe (France, for example, as shown in the article linked above) - Muslims taunting citizens with a take-over of their own country and backing it up with no-go zones, terrorism  and legal wranglings.

 

[Argus]

17 hours ago, Abies said:

Muslims are not poor because they are Muslim and you contradicted that by pointing out they tend to have poor language skills as refugees and likely not economically well off or skilled. 

That their women (mostly immigrants) are rarely well-educated and don't tend to work is also a function of Islam.

And you left off the second paragraph. I might add we really don't have any local statistics about criminality since we don't take them, but in other countries Muslims have indeed shown a marked criminality. Now you could say this was a result of the  hardscrabble, rough and violent cultures most of them come from, especially since most are refugees. I would point out that a large part of the reason why those nations are rough, violent and backwards is because of Islam.

[taxme]

On 9/15/2019 at 6:32 PM, marcus said:

Always trying to blame Islam. You poor scared little boys. 

These are ghettos. Kind of like what South Central L.A. was in the 80s and 90s. Or the Bronx in the 60s, 70s and 80s. 

Issues in the ghettos are all about poverty and economics and not about religion. 

There are plenty of British people in fear and are scared as hell of being injured or killed by one of those Islamic thugs in Britain. In Germany it is just as bad with the Muslims. Those people offer nothing but chaos and grief for their host countries home grown victims. When your life is in danger one has every right to be "scared little boys and girls". 

Maybe you should find out as to what is going on in Britain as far as Muslim no go zones are going? They do exist and Tommy Robinson can tell you all about them. Tommy has been attacked by radical Muslims and beaten by the Islamic thugs when reporting from one of those no go Islamic zones. How did these no go zones ever get set up in the first place? Muslims demonstrating have said that in time Britain will be an Islamic country. The nerve of these batards who were offered a home in Britain. A bunch of ungrateful aholes. The poor British scared people who do still live in one of those no go Islamic zones are always in fear of their lives now. Those Islamic no go zones do not even look like a city in Britain anymore. They are full of ungrateful batards who seem to feel that old British whitey owes them a living. What old whitey needs to do is give them all free plane tickets out of Britain. Dam politically correct leftist liberal politicians will destroy everything when given a chance. They are the ones that helped create and are responsible for those newly Islamic ghettos. Those aholes brought them to Britain. Deplorable.  

 

 

[Charles Anthony]

Folks,  

Avoid thread derailment syndrome.  

[Hudson Jones]

On 9/17/2019 at 7:42 AM, Goddess said:

I first saw it in the book "While Europe Slept".  Here is the excerpt.  The links are in the back of the book, which I don't have with me right now.  

You won't get the context of what is being discussed but it's happening in many countries of Europe (France, for example, as shown in the article linked above) - Muslims taunting citizens with a take-over of their own country and backing it up with no-go zones, terrorism  and legal wranglings.

 

Finding a comment in a book does not validate your comment: "the most popular tshirt for Muslims is a shirt that says "2030 - then we take over"

You seem to have an agenda to smear Muslims by any way possible. This includes with your allegation above that you cannot back up.

Edited September 19, 2019 by Hudson Jones

[Michael Hardner]

41 minutes ago, Hudson Jones said:

Finding a comment in a book does not validate your comment: "the most popular tshirt for Muslims is a shirt that says "2030 - then we take over"

You seem to have an agenda to smear Muslims by any way possible. This includes with your allegation above that you cannot back up.

This is what passes for discussion these days... "an official met with..." no details, no date or names.  The whole thing is a long opinion piece from one guy.  It's like pulling teeth to ask for cites from people and when you get them, it's just opinion.  It's just sad to me that there's no real discussion anymore.  

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is what passes for discussion these days... "an official met with..." no details, no date or names.  The whole thing is a long opinion piece from one guy.  It's like pulling teeth to ask for cites from people and when you get them, it's just opinion.  It's just sad to me that there's no real discussion anymore.  

What's sad is that one needs cites to have a discussion.  I don't remember ever needing them before.

I could discuss Muslim no go zones in Bradford (mentioned in the book excerpt there), but it would be anecdotal stuff told to me by people who live there.  I have no reason to think they would lie to me.  I didn't ask for cites though.

[marcus]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

What's sad is that one needs cites to have a discussion.  I don't remember ever needing them before.

You mean a comment like this, without citing, should go unchallenged? 

"the most popular tshirt for Muslims is a shirt that says "2030 - then we take over"

You have a chance here to be noticed as a person with integrity by speaking out against bullshit and instead, you choose to apologize for it. Shame on you.

[marcus]

On 9/17/2019 at 5:16 PM, taxme said:

There are plenty of British people in fear and are scared as hell of being injured or killed by one of those Islamic thugs in Britain.

What can I say little buddy? You're a victim of accepting everything that is fed to you. You need to go beyond the facebook memes. There is SO MUCH information out there, challenging with precision, how this "NO GO ZONE" is all bullshit.

Check this link for example. There are many others as well. Like here and here. 

Here is an excerpt:
 

Overall Conclusions

When one delves beyond the realm of maps and dives into social media, there are clearly many other examples of claims of “no go zones” in London.Perhaps a future post can delve into these if there are sufficient interest. These examples cited above broadly cover the majority of the claims. Indeed, claims based on these maps are generally more detailed than many claims on Twitter, which often use vague terms like “East London” or absurd terms like “Eastern London” (nobody in London uses this term) or “Londonistan.”

Several general trends emerge upon examination. While some claims are fabricated entirely out of whole cloth, others take actual events and either draw odd conclusions or twist them out of proportion. The fact that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets had a Muslim mayor for some years led to odd claims that the area was under Sharia law, deliberately muddling the religion of the mayor with the legal framework of governance. The election of Sadiq Khan as Mayor of Greater London has furthered such claims.

In addition, isolated examples have been taken out of context and purported to be representative of widespread circumstances. For example, three extremists formed an unsanctioned “Sharia patrol” and harrassed people in Bethnal Green, Stepney, and Shoreditch (all areas in East London). These individuals were arrested, tried, and jailed. In another incident, the so-called “Ginger Jihadi” was jailed for similar conduct. Videos of both are routinely circulated as evidence.

The best way to debunk the “no go zone” phenomenon is to go to these areas and either observe or engage in conduct that is obviously not in accordance with strict application of Sharia laws. This author’s own efforts in this area have been well noted in the last year, as shown by this example and this one.

[Charles Anthony]

Folks, 

Stay on topic.  

[Guest]

8 hours ago, marcus said:

You mean a comment like this, without citing, should go unchallenged? 

"the most popular tshirt for Muslims is a shirt that says "2030 - then we take over"

You have a chance here to be noticed as a person with integrity by speaking out against bullshit and instead, you choose to apologize for it. Shame on you.

I never said a comment should go unchallenged.  Challenge it until you are blue in the face.  I said it is sad that discussion needs cites.  I don't remember running off to the Google teat whenever I wanted to talk to someone about something in the past. 

So challenge it.  Challenge my comment that there are no go areas in Bradford.  (Granted I have never heard of the police being chased out of one.  France is ahead of us in that regard) I have no cites.  Just the word of people I like and trust that there are places they are afraid to go in the City we grew up in.  Especially the females.  Challenge the notion that females have anything to be afraid of in primarily Islamic areas if they dress in a western manner.  I have no cites.  I don't need cites.  You see how discussion works?

Edited September 19, 2019 by bcsapper

[dialamah]

10 hours ago, bcsapper said:

What's sad is that one needs cites to have a discussion.  I don't remember ever needing them before.

It's actually in the guidelines, along with "don't be a troll", and "don't insult other posters":

"Research Your Post:

If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (website links etc).....Therefore, it is in your best interest to make sure that your post includes sufficient sources and contains a well-researched and well-organized argument"

10 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I could discuss Muslim no go zones in Bradford (mentioned in the book excerpt there), but it would be anecdotal stuff told to me by people who live there

Anecdotal stuff generally holds more emotional weight for people than facts, just the way humans are.  I live in Surrey BC and some people who live here believe Surrey has the highest gun crime in Canads, but it's actually way down the list, 60th according to Macleans.

Marcus's link provides an analysis of several claimed Muslim no-go zones, by someone who lives in London.  Some of the claimed no-go zones include financial districts, malls, airports and the Tower of London.  Data of comings and goings via public transport show 10s of millions of people entering and leaving these "no-go zones".  Cameras in these areas also show a diversity of people.  The origin of these claims, when traced back, originates from far right sources. 

[dialamah]

19 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I have no cites.  I don't need cites.  You see how discussion works?

Except you are not sitting around a kitchen table having a few beer.  This is a forum where opinions are expected to be supported through the use of cites.  You are the one doing it wrong, not the people who provide and expect to see cites.

[DogOnPorch]

35 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Except you are not sitting around a kitchen table having a few beer.  This is a forum where opinions are expected to be supported through the use of cites.  You are the one doing it wrong, not the people who provide and expect to see cites.

 

Sealioning. You have no intention of agreeing with the poster no matter how many cites he or she could provide.

[Goddess]

I can't reply on the other topic, but here is another source that talks about the popular Muslim t-shirt from Stockholm - "2030 - Then We Take Over":

The book, "Religion, Terror and Error: US Foreign Policy and the Challenge of Spiritual Engagement" by Douglas M. Johnson.

I guess if you choose to continue to believe that everyone is lying about this and that it's just a smear campaign against Muslims, that's up to you.  

 

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I guess if you choose to continue to believe that everyone is lying about this and that it's just a smear campaign against Muslims, that's up to you.  

Just as it's your choice to believe every claim that puts Muslims in a bad light,  and everybody who disagrees with that based on their own research are apologists for the evil of Islam.

Why can't you post on the other thread?  Have you been banned just from that thread?

 

[DogOnPorch]

5 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I can't reply on the other topic, but here is another source that talks about the popular Muslim t-shirt from Stockholm - "2030 - Then We Take Over":

The book, "Religion, Terror and Error: US Foreign Policy and the Challenge of Spiritual Engagement" by Douglas M. Johnson.

I guess if you choose to continue to believe that everyone is lying about this and that it's just a smear campaign against Muslims, that's up to you.  

 

The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers.

---Erdogan

Such a peaceful religion. 

[dialamah]

7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I can't reply on the other topic, but here is another source that talks about the popular Muslim t-shirt from Stockholm - "2030 - Then We Take Over":

Neither of your links support your initial statement that these t-shirts were the most popular ones among Muslims, btw.  Both of them talk about the t-shirt being "popular among young Muslims" at a certain place.  Neither of these claim "most popular" or "among (all) Muslins".

Also, this was around the time research from Pew suggested Muslims would become a majority in 2030 in Europe by 2030 and in UK by 2050. I can certainly see a trend among young Muslims wearing such a t-shirt to poke fun at/piss off a certain segment of the population.  Kinda like the shirt popular among some Republucans that says "Better to be Russian than Democrat".

I went looking for that "30-year t-Shirt, btw, and didn't find it.  Perhaps the trend has run its course.  

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I can certainly see a trend among young Muslims wearing such a t-shirt to poke fun at/piss off a certain segment of the population.

In the age of Islamic terrorism, the excuse you make for this doesn't seem like a smart move.

 

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Neither of your links support your initial statement that these t-shirts were the most popular ones among Muslims, btw.  Both of them talk about the t-shirt being "popular among young Muslims" at a certain place.  Neither of these claim "most popular" or "among (all) Muslins".

I notice you - again - have to twist and insert words to excuse this.

Please note: 

I did not make it up that this shirt exists and is popular.

I did not force Muslims to wear it.  They chose to wear it.  They chose to wear it during this age when Islam's "peacefulness" is being questioned.

I am not the only one questioning Islam being "the religion of peace."