Most of us have heard of the recent riots in France. There are also riots in Denmark, and much of Europe seems to be embroiled in either low or high level confrontation with some Muslim immigrants and their descendants. Disenfranchised and living in poverty with low levels of education, they have taken to violence against their host countries and the west. This is happening even in countries that have done much to accommodate Muslim immigrants, offering generous welfare and housing benefits, an affirmative-action hiring policy, free language courses, taxpayer funded Muslim schools and mosques, ect. By juxtaposition, American Muslims are comparatively prosperous and well assimilated, but we have a history of such ethnic tension in the past.

1) What are the reasons behind the anger and divide?
2) What can be done to correct the situation, if anything?
3) Are there any lessons from the American experience with racial problems in the past that might be implemented to combat the problem?
4) Or are these problems unique to Europe with little in common with the US and why?

I personally believe that the Muslim outrage should be confronted with a stiff upper lip and a strong resolve.

Frankly, as you've stated, most European nations have made a significant attempt to assimilate the muslims into their communities and societies, spending tax dollars often on non-citizens for pure reasons of accomodation. I personally am grateful that our tax dollars aren't going to Mosques, but can't imagine what else a country can do.

If European nations bow to militant muslim pressure, all they will do is set a precedent for future muslim relations. The poor in any nation will consistently be disenfranchised. If the muslim population of these nations don't care for their financial situations, they ought to find a solution to these woes. I'm confident that in western Europe that these riots have little to do with true discrimination or oppression, but more to do with apathy and cynicism coupled with living in a predominantly secular society far removed from what they're used to.

A solution? It could range from ensuring educational rights or small business loans to the muslims to using the military to disperse riots. I believe that diplomacy should be attempted first, as even if there is a slight financial burden on the host country, it's probably far less than it would be if there were future riots.

Can Europe learn from the US? I would imagine that the answer is undoubtedly yes, but am very apprehensive about Western Europeans admitting to learning anything from Americans...even though it's apparent that we've done something right here. We'll see I suppose...

I believe most of the questions here were already addressed in the, now closed thread, regarding the Paris riots.
However, I was never one to hold back my opinions....


First and foremost is the problem of Islamic culture. It hinders Muslims in adapting to their new countries because it seeks to control their lives to so great a degree that they are unable to adapt. Stuck in the clutches of this ideology the Muslims of Europe have congregated together in self imposed ghetto's forming a sort of mental apartheit between themselves and all non Muslims.

A Danish news paper called Kristeligt Dagblad (Christian Daily Paper) recently ran a poll which found that only 13% of Danes were 'seriously concerned' that European culture was at risk from immigration. The vast majority of Danes were unconcerned that the advent of foreign cultures into Europe would inevitably change European culture. Link. (Its in Danish)

This mirrors the continued inability of any of Europe's nationalist parties to get into power. Here in Denmark, the Danish Peoples Party is at an all time high but although it can take advantage of the weak minority government, it still has no real power to effect the changes it seeks.

It is aparent to me that Danes, like most Europeans, are willing to allow Muslims to enter and live in Europe... we'd hardly have allowed 20 million of them in if we had such hatred towards them as some have suggested! It is equally apparent to me that those Muslims who adapt to European law and culture are those that succeed. Those who fail are those who congeal into stagnent ghetto's where unemployment, crime and corruption soon become the norm.

The Muslims need not give up their religion or adopt European culture as their own, but in order to succeed they must accept the same basic conditions as all the other religions and cultures of Europe. Islam must come second to the law.


Only one thing will stop the process we are witnessing today and that is an understanding amongst the Muslims that they are no longer in their old countries. If they wish to be Europeans then they must act like Europeans. By this I mean they must put the law before their religion.

Poverty is not an excuse for violence. Muslim, and any other immigrants are no worse off than other poor Europeans. Poverty is not some sort of mental ghetto for these people.

They must understand also the reasons for their prediciment is lies in their religious culture and in the fact that a good many of them are here illegally and as such they have no right to complain about anything.

How the ethnic minorities deal with this is their problem, but deal with it they must. They cannot continue to allow their religion or the illegal immigrants hiding amongst them to dictate how to live their lives to them. They must understand that in Europe, the law has pre-eminance, not Islam and not any consideration for personal economic gain.

They must also understand that Europe rewards cooperation. That there is no hatred of any one that cannot be bridged by showing a willingness to adapt. This doesn't mean any one must submit to anything horrible or give up any human rights. It simply means that there is a way if they have the will.

The Muslims must be prepared to adapt. They cannot come to Denmark (for example) and expect to carry on with their lives as they would back in Somalia or Turkey.

An example of what I mean is certain schools in Copenhagen are now comprised of 95% children from families of a non Danish background. Last night I watched a news item on this problem and the journalists interviewed some of the parents to the children. They all expressed uniform disapointment that their children were not in school with Danish children, because they knew their children would grow up in isolation.

None of them showed any understanding that in order to integrate their children their best move was to move away from the congregation of ethnic minorities who have turned parts of Copenhagen into self imposed 'aparteit ghetto's' and take their children out into the rest of Denmark where many schools don't have any ethnic minorities at all.


I think there are some parrallels between what happened and is still happening in the USA and what we are seeing in Europe. There are also great differences as well, but essentially both problems rest in the same basic flaw of humanity.

The only way for equality to exist is for both parties to adapt to each other. This is true regardless of who the people are or why they are at odds. Unfortunately I do not believe adapting to European culture is at all permissible by any literal interpretation of Islam and this is where the European issue differs from the American civil rights experience.

The tension in Europe is not really a racist issue but rather a very old clash of culture's that carries over a thousand years of history on its back. Some people might go so far as to describe it as a religious war though this ignores the non religious attitudes of many Europeans. I prefer to regard the problems we are facing as cultural and to regard Islam as an ideology rather than a religion.

The reason for this is simple. Faith is individiual. People have the right to beleive what they will and to join together to worship under a set of rules they wish to follow. This is true of all organized religions. Islam however goes one step further and seeks to control every single aspect of life, and not only for its believers. For as long as Islam exists in its current form, then it can never adapt to any other culture, no matter how much the other culture tries to accomidate Islam.

Individual Muslims understand this, indeed we've seen several speak out against the Imams and Mullahs (there was just such an example in todays Jyllandsposten) but its going to take more than just a few courageous individuals. The Muslim immigrants need to decide for themselves what their religion is good for and whether or not the old Arab dominated interpretation of Islam will continue to have its current pre-eminence in their lives.

Europe once faced a similar dilemma with the Catholic church and this led to the Protestant churchs that now dot the Northern European landscape as well as centuries of religious war and persecution.

I hope we can get through this current dilemma with less war and death than we saw then (or in Bosnia). I believe we can, if the Muslims are really prepared to accept their new homelands as being home and not just colonies for future islamification or easy gold mines for personal ambitions.


I don't believe the USA is exempt from what is happening here. As the numbers of Muslim immigrants in Europe rises, so has the tension between Islam and the 'less religous' Europe.

By comparison the USA has a very small Muslim community which faces a very conservative religious culture. I have no doubt that as the number of Muslims immigrants into the USA rises though, so the tension will develop there also.

There is another difference to which I should draw note. Europe is landlocked to Arabia, Africa and Asia and it is much easier and cheaper for illegal immigrants from those parts of the world to enter Europe. France, Holland and Britain with extensive former empires have borne the brunt of this influx and it is no surprise that most of the examples of tension have occured in these nations.

America is neither land locked to any Muslim nations or beholden to former colonies.

I don't think that you and I disagree as much as we might have though moif. There are some very good point that you've brought here, but I think some others are less important that you may think.

For instance:

I think you are simply wrong if you believe it is "Islamic culture" that causes Muslim's to "self-segregate".

I think you a jumping to conclusion by blaming Islam as a religion for causing behavior common to the vast majority of large immigrant communities in the West for a long time.

Religion is largely coincidental in all this, the real factors are shared language and ancestry.

In large cities in the US you can usually find areas that each city calls "Chinatown."

When large amounts of Chinese immigrants began arriving in America they naturally set up communities in each city they inhabited.

There's one in New York, Washington DC, Los Angeles, etc.

Likewise there's "Little Italy" or "Little Jamaica" or any other large immigrant group you can think of.

What causes these communities to spring up is not a necessarily radically different culture form the one they have immigrated to, but rather than ease and comfort of being able to go home to speak one's own language and enjoy other small comforts.

This is not a function of disdain for a host country, but simply a matter is preference.

Muslims don't live apart because they "don't like" Europeans, but for they same reasons that Americans tend to live together when they go abroad: shared language, food, etc.

I think I'll deal with his point first as it's a big one and I have to go, but I think there is basis for an understanding here once people begin to realize that immigrants largely behave in recognizable patterns regardless of culture.

Islam says otherwise:

"Humiliate the non-Muslims." -Repentance: 29

"Certainly, God is an enemy to the unbelievers." -The Cow: 90

"Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends.... whoso does that belongs not to God." -The House of Imram: 60

98:6 Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Qur’an and Prophet Muhammad) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

5:51 O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliya' (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but Auliya' to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as Auliya', then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong­doers and unjust).

"O believers, do not treat your fathers and brothers as your friends, if they prefer unbelief to belief, whosoever of you takes them for friends, they are evil-doers." (Repentance: 20)

"O believers, do not make friends with the Jews and Christians; whoso of you makes them his friend is one of them." (The Table: 55)

"ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers ...and let them find harshness in you." -Repentance: 123

Just sayin' - I saw a program on Saudi TV where they interviewed 10 or 15 people on the street and to a man they all said that shaking hands with a Jew would be against Islam. When they move to France, all of a sudden they are looking to assimilate? Don't think so.

North Africans from the maghreb and black Africans from Senegal don't exactly share a taste for the same food. They live together in France because that's where the government houses them. A shining example of the welfare state creating the very problems it was created to alleviate - hopelessness, poverty...

Are you getting at the effects, expectations, and opinions capitalist v. socialist economic systems engender in different populaces, Mrs. P? That’s how I read your post, anyway.

Oil rich nations offer a commodity that generates tremendous wealth. The commodity is also a drawback inviting international interests and pressures. In addition to an entitlement society through free health care, tuition, a plot of land for a house, and hiring cheap foreign laborers (whose chances of improving their situation in the host country largely depends on their ethnicity and cultural similarities to Arabic society) thanks to demand for oil, I’ve wondered if this double-edged commodity has bounced the identity of a people with a crisis after “losing face” in the subjugation of imperial powers to a summit no other nation or cultural identity can placate.

Of course, it’s been said that most (or many) of the Muslim immigrants in France came from North Africa. I’ll have to look up some statistics on the nationalities and circumstances of Muslims immigrating to the U.S.

Wow, interesting topic, full of possibility of claims of racism and such. I read all these posts and was intrigued by the various opinions. I may be simplifying things, but could this be a case of the French just wanting to maintain the Good Old Boys Club. The French, so easily made fun of because of their ineptitude economically, militarily, and the fact that they spray on perfume instead of showering, are to blame for this mess. They have a large population of Algerian and Tunisian Muslims living there. I believe that native Frenchies keep them in certain areas of the cities, like the American South did from Recontruction till the Civil Rights movements of the '50's and '60's. In America the blacks used non violent protest and enlightened politicians to eventually end Jim Crow and give themselves more rights and opportunities. Well the French-Algerian conflict ended in the early 1960's, so maybe the second and third generation of the original immigrants from Algeria finally have had enough and are popping like corn to get some equality. I discount the religious aspect of this, though I could be wrong, France is so pervasively secular that they would go out of their way to not offend other religions. I think most people want a better like, religion is like icing on the cake, but you have to have jobs, diversions, security, education first. I think all the 20 year old men in France that are unemployed are simply angry at that situation, the fact that they are Muslim is a coincidence. Now, because they are Muslim and treated as outsiders, may add to their disaffection. But though I believe that Wahabism and Shia Islam are causing problems all over the world, lets look at economic factors first before we say the Muslims of France just don't like their adopted countrymen and are striking out due to religious reasons. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt.

I think both Moif and Turnea have hit critical points regarding the recent violence in Europe, particularly in France.

But I think that, while possible cultural roots of the violence have been outlined, I think that socio-economic strife has just as much a role to play. Now, many of you are saying, "Well, duh.", but this thread (as young as it is) has focused too much on Islam as a faith and culture.

This could be any faith, any ethnic group. (If anyone has ethnic demographics for the cities involved in the rioting, that would be a great asset in this thread, showing that the unrest may not entirely the result of angry musilims.)

The largest common denominator is poverty. Has affirmative-action style hiring policies in Europe done much to remedy the unemployment issues? If it's having the same kind of results as it has here, I'm not so sure.

Having tax-payer funded mosques sound like a great idea, but if the government is footing the bill, they're going to dictate how those mosques are run one way or another, to the shegrin of certain muslims.

In those countries that do offer "generous welfare and housing benefits" (sic) as Mrs. P mentioned, how generous are they? Is it adequate temporary financial support, or just enough for the government to sleep at night?

The answers to these questions are just as vital as concerns about ethnicity or faith.

As far as the "Little China Syndrome" is concerned, while muslim communities may differ in some regards, there are examples of some immigrant communities that thrive in America. Little Saigon, about an hour away from where I am currently is home to the largest population of Vietnamese outside Vietnam. While their culture and ours are vastly different, and though the mental wounds of a divisive and heart-wrenching war are still present, Little Saigon is home to some of the most patriotic Americans in the nation...and they don't sport round bellies at the barbecue with an apron that says "Kiss The Cook".

All that said, there was one point here made that I think paints with too large a brush to be ignored.



I'd like to respond to that statement with a few more passasges:

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. Leviticus 20:13

Or if a person touches anything ceremonially unclean—whether the carcasses of unclean wild animals or of unclean livestock or of unclean creatures that move along the ground—even though he is unaware of it, he has become unclean and is guilty. Leviticus 5:2

Now most Christians obviously don't seek out the death of homosexuals and often touch "unclean" animals. The same can be said for most Muslims that they do not adhere to the strictest interpretation of dated religious doctrine. I would so far as to say that if there were Muslims on this board, they'd be inclined to agree with me.

So make sure the brush you paint others with isn't one that others could broadly use against you.

Your message is high on ethnic stereotypes (and incorrect ones, too - France dominated Europe through large part of its existence), and very low on facts. Any proof that French "keep them" in certain areas of the cities? Most of them are second-generation French citizens and enjoy the same basic freedoms like everyone else. They're free to move out of ghettos (and many do). As for getting more opportunities, these people apparently hate the guts of the very politician who wanted to give it to them:

From Guardian:

Your message is high on ethnic stereotypes (and incorrect ones, too - France dominated Europe through large part of its existence), and very low on facts. Any proof that French "keep them" in certain areas of the cities? Most of them are second-generation French citizens and enjoy the same basic freedoms like everyone else. They're free to move out of ghettos (and many do). As for getting more opportunities, these people apparently hate the guts of the very politician who wanted to give it to them:

Actually you are the incorrect one, show me any ethnic stereotyoe I used in my prior post, I defy you. France most certainly did not "dominate" Europe as you claim, your knowledge of European history is obviously quite shallow. Except for less than 15 years during the Napoleonic period, France never dominated Europe. The english had far more time dominating, as did the Spanish and Germans. Your claims that the muslims are free to move about as they wish sound eerily familiar as what was sasid about American blacks during the time period I elaborated on in the prior post. As for your reference to the French Interior Minister, so what, he is a lone voice of responsibility in an otherwise vacuous and morally rudderless French government. The Prime Minister of France is a better example of the French response to this huge crisis, downplay the catastrophe, scapegoat the Interior Minister and put a news blackout in effect. Again, next time you want to get into a debate with me about European history, bring some better ammunition

Titus, what you say is true. However, you must acknowledge the fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam. Christianity reformed after the 30 years war and the 'enlightenment' and we have endeavored to separate our governments from our religion. Aside from Fred Phelps and assorted wackos, there is no one suggesting that we take much of Leviticus literally.

Islam has no such qualms. As such, there are hundreds of millions of adherents who are governed - quite literally - by their religion. A religion that has NOT denounced the sort of inflammatory passages in the Koran which I cited. But rather these edicts are preached on a weekly basis in mosques across not just the Eastern world but here in the west as well.

Here you can find an extensive pdf document which lists the Saudi-produced hatred found in American mosques. Some highlights:

page 26 - maintaining the wall of separation with non-Muslims - Those who reside in the land of unbelief out of their own choice and desire to be with the people of that land ... they become unbelievers and enemies to Allah and his messenger.

page 27 - reasons not to turn in the terrorist next door - There is consensus on this matter, that whoever helps unbelievers against Muslims, regardless of what type of support he lends to them, he is an unbeliever himself

page 28 - a "root cause" of unemployment? - "For a Muslim to be employed in the service of an unbeliever is something forbidden..."

page 30 - an update on the Koranic verses I cited - It is forbidden for a Muslim to be first in greeting an unbeliever, even if he has a prestigious position."

page 44 - anti-assimilation - It is forbidden for a Muslim to become a citizen of a country governed by infidels

The above passages were from official Wahhabi documents sanctioned by the government of Saudi Arabia and found in American mosques. Many of which were paid for by the Saudi government or its royalty. The House of Saud controls Mecca and Medina, and thus the haj, or pilgrimage which is a pillar of Islam. I'm not even going to bother posting the obvious passages on the necessity for jihad or the suppression of women (which would fill volumes).

I ask you all - what would you say if the Pope and the Vatican funded churches in the USA which urged catholics to disassociate themselves with other Christians and Jews, to train for violent overthrow of the US government, not to work for or even shake hands with non-Catholics, to renounce their citizenship and move back to Catholic lands. Really.

As the 9/11 commission noted -
Usama Bin Ladin and other Islamist terrorist leaders draw on a long tradition of extreme intolerance within one stream of Islam (a minority tradition), from at least Ibn Taimiyyah, through the founders of Wahhabism, through the Muslim Brotherhood, to Sayyid Qutb. That stream is motivated by religion and does not distinguish politics from religion, thus distorting both.

So when I read "I think you are simply wrong if you believe it is "Islamic culture" that causes Muslim's to "self-segregate" I think I have strong evidence that Islam has something quite material to do with the self-segregation of Muslims. I welcome evidence to the contrary.

Not to take this off-topic, but:
Philip IV took on the Pope himself; the pope Benedict XI was briefly captured, "roughed up" by French soldiers and died soon thereafter. Philip moved the Papal seat to Avignon and installed his own pope. Which country was more powerful in Europe at the time? None.
Also, during the reign of Louis XIV (70+ years) France was certainly the most powerful nation in Europe.
Not to mention reigns of Louis XIII (Richellieu), Francis I, Philippe-Auguste...

These are just off the top of my head. As for French surrender to Germans in 1940, I'd like to point out that during three weeks between German invasion and capitulation, 300,000 French soldiers died defending their country. If anything, that shows their heroism and bravery. I am not going to debate "perfume vs. showering" remark since it's not worthy of debate. If you'd like to debate French history, however, be my guest - open up a thread in a history section.

I'd probably say that we can point to equally bad statements from the Pope, the Vatican and Christian leaders right here in the United States. If you want me to start providing examples I will but I feel that might take this off topic. Not exactly the same words but the exact same sentiment is there which was what Titus' point was in the first place.

Well why would it be safe to suggest that all Muslims take the aforementioned passages you listed literaly?

From your own cited quote:



A minority tradition.

An yet you assert that European Muslims live the life they live because of literature found in American (and I imagine European) mosques that tell their followers "For a Muslim to be employed in the service of an unbeliever is something forbidden..." and that "Those who reside in the land of unbelief out of their own choice and desire to be with the people of that land ... they become unbelievers and enemies to Allah and his messenger."

That's an awfuly large militant minority in Europe if we are to believe your assertions, Carlitoswhey. Perhaps those in Denamrk and eslewhere are wrong to believe that the influx of immigrants from the Middle East and other predominantly Islamic countries is nothing to be concerned about.

As Hurricane Katrina exposed the economic plight of the South, New Orleans, and particularly the African-American community thereof, the unrest in Paris and perhaps elsewhere (some unrest has been deemed copycat, as it has been in Brussels) has exposed the economic plight of not just Muslim, but all immigrants in Europe.



Well, wherever you read it, it wasn't by my hand.



Just for the record...

Now if the literary rhetoric of a minority within a faith is "strong evidence of self-segregation", well then we're all in trouble.

If this was a full-blown Eurabian Jihad against infidel oppressors, we'd see a lot more than burning cars and damaged police stations.

I don't think that "equally bad statements" from the Pope exist. Certainly nothing that urges his followers to train up on and manufacture weapons with which to overthrow the infidel armies. Unless the pope's pro-life statements are "equally as bad" as imams condoning suicide bombing?

Yes it's a minority. I left that sentence in on purpose. However, it's an important minority. Saudi Arabia is the keeper of the holy places. This is kind of a big deal as one of the five pillars of Islam is the pilgrimage to Mecca. The Wahhabis run Saudi. Their voice, while a minority, is being spread through official channels, including through Saudi funding of mosques in Europe and America. They approve teachers of Islam, including those working in our prisons, schools and armed services.


You mean like banning of pork in schools in Denmark, de facto legalization of polygamy, banning of piggy banks and Christmas lights in England, gang raping women across Europe, importation of shoulder-launched missles to France to blow up airliners, recruiting suicide bombers in England, murder of "anti-Muslim" filmmakers, "honor killings" in broad daylight in Denmark, blowing up train stations in London and Madrid, murdering school children in Russia, bombing the Indonesian embassy in Paris, that sort of thing?

We have just seen two more nights of violence in the suburbs of Rosenhøj and Viby, but the enthusiasm appears to be waning now. Last night several cars and a school were torched and tonight a small shopping centre was unsuccessfully attacked with an incendary.


I don't believe I am 'jumping' to a conclusion since this implies I have grasped the first and most convenient cause I could think of. Rather, my conclusion has been reached after two decades of curious observation.


Really? And just what shared language and ancestry does a Bosnian share with a Somali? or a Malay with a Morrocan?


I grant that this is true, but so what?

First of all, previous examples of bad integration do not justify the continuation of the practice of what is at best, tribalism.

Second, these examples are all American and only loosely translate to Europe where the modern social system does not resemble America in 19th and early 20th century.

Third, this form of tribalism is what gave America its rich history of organised crime. Men like Dutch Schultz, Al Capone and Meyer Lansky all came to power because large groups of immigrants banded together in ghetto's providing them with a power base from which to expand in a way they never could back in Europe.

Fourth, and most important, Chinatown, Little Italy and the other ethnic quarters were the product of national identity. What we have in Europe today is an ideology that transcends national identity and unites all Muslims into one single ethnic block.

Whilst I am informed that within the Islamic community (here in Århus at least) there exists a pecking order with the Turks and Arabs at the top and the Somali's and other African Muslims at the bottom, this doesn't change the fact that people of various nationalities, who might otherwise be engaged in internal feuds against each other had they been European minorities in the USA, are banding together under a shared Islamic identity to carry out acts of violence.

This is backed up by the Police reports, and interviews on the ground by journalists, that both the riots in France and in Denmark (and where ever else we are not hearing about) are pre planned attacks and not spontaneaous eruptions of justifiable anger.

I should also add for the sake of being fair that I don't think these riots represent any over riding Muslim agenda though, in this I agree with the Danish PM who has made it clear Denmark does not regard the violence in Rosenhøj and Viby as terrorism but rather an example of an organised attempt to take advantage of what is happening in France. I am also sensible to the efforts on the ground (in France at least) of Islamic groups who tried to prevent the violence as well as the fact that here in Denmark, Danish youths joined in the violence alongside their Muslim friends.

Where I think Islam plays a role is in the actual creation of a volatile sub culture that is spreading into the environment around it and which actively promotes division.


Again, I disagree that this is what we are seeing here. The truth of the matter here in Denmark is that most 3G's do not speak any common language than Danish (3G is how the third generation of immigrants born in Denmark refer to themselves) they are turning to radical Islam because they do not feel at home in Denmark despite being Danish.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I've seen Muslims here in Denmark say this in interviews as well. Being half Jewish, you can imagine how much this reasures me as to the claim that Islam is a religion of peace...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


It probably isn't. I wrote as much in my opening post in the Paris Riots thread. I believe the actual rioting is being undertaken, like most riots, by any body and everybody in the immediete vicinity who fancies a bit of fun and mayhem. Riots are hardly exclusive affairs that require membership.

But this thread is not just about the riots, or ghetto's it is about the entire range of problems associated with Islamic intergration in Europe and these are extensive ranging from minor points of contention and education to rape, riots, murder and terrorism.


I can't answer this because I don't know how the other countries in Europe try to get their ethnic minorities in the job market.

What I do know is that there has been a wide range of initiatives from the Danish state, under both conservative and social democratic governments, and none of them have succeeded. Time and again the initiative has failed due to an unwillingness on the part of many Danish employers to hire Muslims and unwillingness amongst the Muslims to work in the way Danes do.


The Danish state has refused, point blank to pay for any mosques.


The Danish state is generous in a way that few Americans can understand until they have seen it first hand. Immigrants granted citizenship or residence in Denmark are given the exact same benefits all other Danes are. The Danish state does not record religious affiliation so it makes no official distinction between Muslims and any one else. Unofficially, it has been found that immigrants are often given leave by the state to mind their own business if they fail to accept work, which is not the case for a Dane.
Any one who is unemployed but paid by a union however is not under the jurisdiction of the state and thus obliged to accept work or lose their benefits and go to the state and apply for state benefits. This means a lowering in the amount, but lesser pressure to find work.

I have seen studies that show examples of highly educated Arabs, often from Iran or Iraq who have applied for hundreds of jobs and never been granted so much as an interview.

But I have also seen examples where the qualifications granted by Iraqi or Iranian universties were not considered worth the paper they were printed on. There seems to be a consensus in Denmark that qualifications gained outside of Denmark are near worthless, even if the schools in question were British or American.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Thats not hard since you wrote:If thats not an ethnic stereotype then I don't know what is.

Near the end of the previous topic on the French riots I posted the translation of an article by a French police official attempting to analyze the situation in France. It is the nearest thing I have seen to a dispassionate examination of the situation. I would appreciate some reaction to the article, particularly by turnea and moif.

Here is the article translation.
Here is my original post.
Below is the excerpt from the article I quoted previously.

None, and I suspect you won't find them living together in numbers as great as the North African immigrants in France, or Turks in Denmark.



So London doesn't have a Carribean community, a Pakistani community, and Indian community?

Yes, this natural tendency does have its disadvatages. Of course these also gave America some of it greatest advantages. Well-organized immigrant groups with positive agendas that by and large prevented the type of wide-scale random destruction we're seeing in Europe.

America has learned to pick its battles. Not over such trivialities as food and drink or religious symbols.

I agree the law must come first, but the law must never overstep it's bounds.


That's not the story we're hearing from France.

Many of the rioters aren't even Muslim. Some are Sub-Saharan Africans without Islamic beliefs.

What unites them is the poverty they face, not necessarily religion.


Here another point I wanted to get to.

You are right to point out that it is the youth, many born in Europe, that pose the greatest challenge.

The fact is that these youth are not scattering from their predecessors places (literal and figurative) in Europe.

That is less a sign of disdain, for even the disdainful will seek to be prosperous, and more a symptom of social immobility.

In France, the schools for immigrants commuties are worse than the national average, they face job discrmination, and are viewed with wide suspicion.

The results is that relative poverty becomes generational rather than temporary.


They article makes some good point as to how, but it doesn't really begin to explain my.

Why these neighborhoods are drug gang riden?
(yet another sign of the non-Islamic nature of the violence, the drug trade is discouraged in Islam)

Why the inhabitants are anti-establishment?

Although the following is a bit long and may appear to be off topic, I promise it will all tie in to the subject at hand.



And again, I see no overt and widespread effect that any of these few are having on the Muslims of Europe as a whole. There are imams who actually preach against the Wahabbist lieterature that has been found floating in and around mosques in Europe.



As far as "de facto" legalization of polygamy in Britain is concerned:

Muslim men use law loophole to get a harem of 'wives'



I've scoured Google and Yahoo for articles relating to the banning of pork in Danish schools and have found nothing. (Perhaps Moif could shed some light there).

As far as the gang-raping of women across Europe by Muslims, I'd imagine that's news to all of us. I have heard no such accounts and would imagine that I would if it were as widespread as you claim it to be.

As far as your link on the smuggling of S/A missiles into France goes, unless you're willing to claim that all Muslims in Europe are in terror cells and the terror groups they belong to, that link is irrelevant.

As is your link about recruting suicide bombers in England. I think it would be prudent to highlight this section of the article:



Yeah, I'm sure the Muslim community there were snatching up that video, eager to follow the tape's messenger into Paradise...

Your allusion to the murder of the Dutch director Van Gogh is interesting because you left out that it included a possible attempt on a prominent Dutch Muslim woman lawmaker as well. Aside from the fact that it was an isolated incident...

Also part of a few isolated incidents was your "honor killing" story, which prompted the Danish-Pakistani community in which the incident occured to discuss ways to halt the practice.

The ones I have to really call you out on is your allusion to the Beslan School Massacre which was organized and carried out by natives of the neighboring Chechnya region in Russia and the Madrid and London attacks by members of Al-Qaeda.

The first one didn't involve any imnmigrants and was primarily staged for geo-political reasons (Russians out of Chechnya, etc.) and the last two were terror attacks who, unless you want to label all European Muslims as terrorists, were by a group of young British Muslims who's link to terror groups is unknown at present (London's attack), and by Al-Qaeda operatives who sought to influence an election and effect geo-political change (Spain's involvement in Iraq).

All of the "things like that" seem to be part of a thin case you make for the whole of Europe's Muslims to be involved in some sort of Eurabian Jihad that, in actuality, is a series of isolated incidents and desires of a disturbed few.

The unrest in Europe is not some jihad or some immigrant intifadah unfolding before our eyes, and the links you provided do nothing to support your claim to the contrary. In my opinion, all they show is an attempt to paint all European Muslims with the same brush that Al-Qaeda alone deserves. This is reckless and dangerous.

You're gonna have people like that one in Denmark who are gonna say "I'm 100% Palestinian" and make a huge deal about it. But what are the people in France and elsewhere really upset about? That pork is leagal? That polygamy is banned? That "unbelievers" roam free throught Europe?

Or is it that many of these people are upset that they are poor and/or jobless, or feel that they are being forced into a tough spot in certain cases by the policies of their respective governments?

I don't believe that their rationale gives them the right to act in violence against their fellow countrymen, and maybe ethnic differences are a catalyst in the strife, but I do not believe that they're part of a continental intifada.

1) What are the reasons behind the anger and divide?
2) What can be done to correct the situation, if anything?
3) Are there any lessons from the American experience with racial problems in the past that might be implemented to combat the problem?
4) Or are these problems unique to Europe with little in common with the US and why?
These are some tough questions. I have been attempting to do a lot more research on the problems, especially in light of numerous examples from our European ADers. What I have found is very disturbing to say the least.

I will give a small sample of the some of the things going on in the field of European Muslim music.

This is by Olivier Guitta writing for the Weekly Standard "some of the most successful bands in France are made up "mostly of French citizens of Arab or African descent" — like our pals in the French projects, or "cites." But where so-called gangsta rap, American style, glorifies senseless violence and sexual bestiality, Muslim rap, French style, fuses that same violence and sexuality to attack the State"

Mr. Guitta has translated some choice examples. There is the rap band Sniper (nice), which, not incidentally, was unsuccessfully sued in 2004 by Mr. Sarkozy for violence and incitement in the song "La France." Sniper sings: "We're all hot for a mission to exterminate the government and the fascists. ... France is a b—— and we've been betrayed ... We f— — France, we don't care about the Republic and freedom of speech. We should change the laws so we can see Arabs and Blacks in power in the Elysee Palace. Things have to explode." Well, of course, things did. But not, our elites instruct us, because of Islamic attitudes toward a non-Islamic country, but because of establishment attitudes toward a downtrodden minority. Integration, we hear, or the lack thereof, is the problem, so integration is also the answer. But how will France — or "FranSSe," as rapper Mr. R has titled this song — integrate this? "France is a b——, don't forget to f—— her to exhaustion. You have to treat her like a whore, man! ... France is one of the b——— who gave birth to you ... I am not at home and I don't give a d——, and besides the state can go f—— itself. I pee on Napoleon and General de Gaulle ... F——— cops, sons of whores ...." It goes on, lashing out in a similarly poisonous vein. Not that this stopped Fnac, the largest chain of French music stores, from praising the popular Mr. R as "a revelation."

Yet the media has given a pass to this issue The Washington Post editorial page, for example, said — no, it insisted: "Islamic ideology and leaders have played no part in the disturbances and many of those who are participating are not Muslim." Writing in The New York Times, Olivier Roy ruled Islam out with equally categorical and doctrinal confidence. My only question is why? Has not Amman, Amsterdam, Baghdad, Bali, Beslan, Davao, Hadera, Haifa, Jakarta, Jerusalem, Nairobi, New Dehli, Sharm al-Sheik, Tel Aviv and Tunisia been turned into hallowed outposts of mass murder, the rioting that has convulsed France has nothing to do with Islam?

We have a major problem that is going to spread.

This account, though slightly difficult to understand, seems to match some comments made by the Danish police.

It seems to indicate that the French police believe the violence of the recent riots does not belong to any isolated outburst of justified anger, but rather is a part of a much larger trend towards using violence for criminal means.

To me, the article reinforces the notion that Europe is in danger of being targetted by an ever growing Islamic movement using criminal acts and violence to sow discord and push forwards the islamification of Europe.

edited to add:
This page from the EU Observer mentions more unrest, in Belgium and Germany, that I had not heard of until now.



Now you are both contradicting yourself and missing the point of the debate at hand.
Firstly you say religion is not an issue because religion is largely coincidental in all this, the real factors are shared language and ancestry ...then you go on to claim that the various ethnic groups are divided into national groups and it is poverty that unites them. Well, it can't be both, either they are united through national groups or by an over riding poverty... the only way this makes sense to me is if you are making the claim that France keeps all its various ethnic groups in segregated poverty.

...which is exactly what I thought you were saying in the Paris Riots thread. The thrust of your arguments seems to rest all blame for what has happened on the French.

However, we are not debating the riots in Paris any more. We are debating the issue of Muslim anger in Europe and this is an issue that dwarfs the Paris riots and includes everything from serial gang rape, honour killings, drug wars and terrrorism.


Yes it does but London is not 19th century America either.


You are seriously missing the point if you think this is just about food, drink or religious symbols.

These are merely the points in my posts which you have clung to in order to make your responses. The truth is you haven't addressed any of the major questions raised by this debate because you've purposefully chosen to stay at the safer level of criticising these individual points instead of looking at the reality of a thousand year culture clash between Islam and Europe.

You keep trying to tie whats going on here to the civil rights movement in America and whilst this might make you feel nice and superior, it doesn't address the real issue of why Muslims, right across the globe, but especially in Europe, are unable to adapt.

So far, the only response you've made that regards this question is your example of your Muslim friends who are getting along fine in the USA, and 'why can't the Europeans accept the Muslims?'

The truth, as I've pointed out already, is Europe has accepted Islam, to the tune of twenty million Muslim immigrants in less than fifty years. The countries of Europe have done all they possibly could to integrate these people but to no avail. The violence and 'Muslim anger' is at an all time high and the reality is a terrorist campaign that has seen bombings in London and multiple terrorist attempts thwarted by the security services.

The latest here in Denmark (and in Australia)

For my part turnea, I am at a loss as to how your explanations of ethnic poverty in France explains why Muslim terrorists twice attacked the London underground, are under arrest in Copenhagen (and Perth?) and yesterday detonated three suicide bombers in Jordan.

Nor do I understand how your explanations of individual national groups shared language and ancestry explains how these terrorists (most of whom are recruited from Western Islamic communities) band together in small suicide squads comprising of many different nationalities.

Your explanations may fit your perception of the Paris rioters, but they do nothing to explain the wave of Islamic violence that has swept the globe in the last five years.


Really... and what are these bounds of which you speak? ...other than your claims regarding the religious artifacts ban in French state institution.


Can you back that up? I have not seen anything to break down the ethnic or religious denominations of the Paris rioters yet and I'm interested to see where you got this information from.


On this much we can agree.

Where I fear we differ is on why this set of affairs has come to pass.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


What do you want me to say other than its true?

Its not exactly something that gets advirtised. I only know about it because my GF was part time employed last year in a kindergarten kitchen and she was told never to use pork because it was against 'the rules'.

To further emphasise the point the kitchen area had a big crossed out pig symbol and a sign in Arabic explaining to the Muslim parents that they need not worry about their children being fed pork.

At no point have I seen this issue taken up in a national debate however. The effects Islam is having on our state is never debated unless a terrorist action makes the debate inevitable. The Danish state does not even compile statistics on the basis of religious break down so its impossible to know for sure how far reaching Islam has become, or even how many Muslims there are in Denmark.

Its almost as if we are witness to a deliberate information black out


This is real enough. Denmark has seen a spate of such incidents concerning young immigrant men, or boys gang raping Danish girls, and women in recent years. Like all else in this debate, the rapists are never refered to as 'Muslims' by the media, but as being of 'middle eastern back ground'.

Not all such incidents are reported either, I know of one fellow who's daughter was raped by a group of ethnic Turkish teenagers (including two girls) at a local ice stadium. The girl did not report the crime but rather told her fathers GF what had happened. By the time they persuaded her to go to the police a week had passed and no evidence remained so no charges were raised.

2001 and 2002 saw a rash of gang rapes but only recently a woman was raped by several illegal immigrants in Copenhagen. Fortunately, in this and most other cases the rapists were caught. It appears that often the victims know the attackers in these crimes. Unfortunately this is not always the case and several Danish women have been snatched from the street by gangs in vans, driven to some remote location and serial raped and battered. Often, these cases do not make national news and are only reported by the local media.

There have also been a few cases of rape leading to murder. A current case here in Århus revolves around two woman, a mother and her daughter who gave refuge to an illegal African immigrant. For a while the daughter and the African were lovers, but when she broke off the romance, he returned with an Arab friend, attacked the mother, bound, gagged and sexually assaulted her, then strangled her with a cord he had brought especially for the purpose. Both men are currently under arrest. This case did not make it beyond the local news media either.

At no point have the media made any mention of the religious convictions of any of these rapists and murderers. Criminal acts are regarded only as the actions of individuals and the politicians will not comment on individual cases.

The pattern however is clear for all the population to see. The crime rates for those parts of the country where the Islamic immigrants congregate are 800 reported crimes per 1,000 citizens per month.
The national average for the rest of the country is 7 reported crimes per 1,000 citizens per month.
Nor am I aware of any reported incidents where Muslim girls were raped by gangs of Danish youths, nor any incident where a Dane murdered a Muslim, nor examples of Danes planning to carry out pre planned riots, suicide bombings or any other violent or terrorist acts.


Renger already informed us that the woman in question renounced Islam thus she is not a Muslim at all.


Which means what exactly?

Every time we have one of these 'honour killings' the ethnic community involved makes these statements and loudly proclaims 'never again but int he mean while the forced marriages continue and then six months or a year down the line, there is another honour killing when some daughter once more refused to follow her parents orders as to who she is too marry.

Actions speak far far louder than words.


The point is not that the Islamic community is directly involved in some vast conspiracy or Jihad against Europe.

The point is the Islamic community, despite all they say, tolerates or even celebrates all these crimes and acts of violence.

Many Muslims questioned by the media do not hide their contempt and hatred.

When Theo Van Gogh was murdered in Holland, Danish Muslims openly admitted to the camera's their approval of the action. Other Muslims tried to condemn the killing but often their condemnations would come with accusations of 'Dutch racism'.
The argument that Van Gogh brought his own death upon himself for his 'disrespect' for Islam was ever present and I noted that in the Paris Riots thread, turnea himself made a similar remark.


If you stand aside and do nothing when you know a crime is being committed, then you are guilty.

If you know a Mullah or an community leader is quietly recruiting young people for obscure purposes and you say or do nothing about it, then again, you share in the guilt when those young people commit a crime.

The idea that the vast majority of Muslims are merely innocent bystanders who are unaware of what is done in their names does not stand up to the accusations brought upon them by their own words and actions.

When a Muslim terrorist attack like the 11 Sept, or the London bombings happens, we do not see the Islamic community outraged or saddened. We see them celebrating.

When an Italian back packer got off the train in Copenhagen and was stabbed fifteen minutes later by two Muslim youths who thought he was an American, we did not see mass condemnation then either. What we saw were scenes of anger and accusations of Danish racoism when the two murderers were sentenced to 8 years each followed by expulsion from Denmark.

There may not be a Europe wide intifada, but there is, open, undisguised, Europe wide backing for Islamic violence.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


loreng59

You might try looking at a British group called Fundamental as well...

moif & loreng59

On the specifics of underground Islamist musical trends, these bands are neither edifying nor inspiring to me, but I'm not going to quake in my boots because there are rap or rock groups made up of Muslims who rail against the West.

Firstly, the very fact that they have adopted Western musical forms to express their dissatisfaction indicates that they are maybe more integrated and assimilated than some people fear.

Secondly, there are Neo-Nazi skinhead bands around, some of whom command large audiences, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the Fourth Riech is imminent. Similarly, a couple of Islamofascist rappper doesn't mean we'll all be living in the ummah any time soon.

And thirdly, (or maybe this is just a ramification of the first point), Western underground musical cultures pretty much all demand or exhort some kind of violent overthrow or destruction. NWA urged police murders. Even the hoary old Sex Pistols urged British teens to "destroy passers by". Few, if any, listeners actually acted on this advice.

Onto the debate questions:

1) What are the reasons behind the anger and divide?
Unlike some here, I don't think there is a single reason, any more than I think the anger is universal or the divide unbridgeable. And, I don't think that there is a single problem called "Islam" that is causing all of the others. One of the reasons is poisonous Islamic extremism. No argument there. But I don't think it is the most important reason.

I think that there are TWO underlying reasons that cause ALL of the others, in both the Muslim diaspora across Europe, and in the other populations, both native and immigrant. These two linked problems are IGNORANCE and FEAR.

Ignorance on the Muslim side stems from lack of education in the culture and language of their host population, not least the longstanding secular tradition of treating religion as separate, subordinate, or downright irrelevant in daily considerations. And from the structure of the religious institutions of Islam, and the origins of the imams that run them - with 20 million Muslims in Europe already, surprisingly few religious leaders or scholars in European Islam were born or raised here (which suits some of the extremists).

On the "European" side (here I include other non-Muslim racial or ethnic groups), ignorance can mainfest itself through characterising geographically specific cultural practices as "Muslim". For example, sub-Saharan Africans of all religions commonly practice female genital mutilation (laughingly called "circumcision"). Most of the sub-Saharan Africans in Europe came from war zones such as Ethiopia, Sudan or Somalia, which happen to have large Muslim populations. The barbaric practice comes with them not beacuase they are Muslim, but because of where they come from.

The same can be said for forced marriages (and to a lesser extent, "honour" killings), which is common throughout the Indian subcontinent.

In Arab minorities, it's harder to separate culture from religion, because (of course) Islam is essentially an outgrowth of Arab culture anyway.

2) What can be done to correct the situation, if anything?

I don't think it is helpful to direct attention towards Islam per se. Certainly not alone, and especially not now; many Muslims feel defensive anyway. For a number of reasons, not least because the only nations that supposedly harbour or sponsor terrorists that have actually been attacked in the War or Terror are Islamic ones. We may not think we're fighting a war on Islam, but its not hard to see how it could be sold that way, with enough selective quotations (like presidents talking about "crusades", just as an example), misinformation and paranoia.

If we focus on the "problems of Islam" individually (the poor treatment of women, lack of respect for other faiths, isolationism, etc), while simultaneously addressing the problems faced by Islam (racism*, unemployment, poor educational attainment) I think we'll make better headway than if we lump them all together and treat the religion itself as the problem. My historical knowledge is sketchy, but as far as I know the only "problem" religion ever "successfully" dealt with by focusing on the faith alone was the Cathar heresy, which Catholic Europe solved by killing all the Cathars it could get its hands on. The "problem" went away, but so did all the people.

*This is still a huge problem. Our institutions may be officially colour-blind these days, but our people are very far from non-racist much of the time. France, in particular, has BIG problems in it's republican approach - every French citizen is officially French, not matter what their race or religion. So, no statistics on different rates of unemployment, health metrics, and so on, broken down by racial or relgious background are officially collected (for example), which has contributed, at least in part, to the recent French rioting (I think).

And here in the UK, anyone brown can be shot on a Tube train if they behave a bit oddly because brown people behaving oddly are BOUND to be terrorists, aren't they? Anyone who's travelled on the Tube recently will know that every carriage in the rush hour has at least one white person behaving oddly, but none of them (us? ) get shot.

3) Are there any lessons from the American experience with racial problems in the past that might be implemented to combat the problem?

The simple answer is I don't know, but my gut says that there is no direct parallel to American history save for the very origins of America - the religious conflict in Europe is what drove the first white settlers to up sticks and go to the New World in the first place.

Europe's history of religious warfare holds the key, I think, and as a warning - if we allow isolation and hostility to settle in as the norm in different religious communities, we can expect it to produce the same outcomes that it produced last time; war and strife. We may be fighting against human nature, but we know what happens when we leave human nature to its own devices.

4) Or are these problems unique to Europe with little in common with the US and why?

I don't think America has solved it's own internal cultural / racial problems to anyone's great satisfaction yet. The greatest progress has come since the 1960s, and has been built on foundations of openness and mutual respect; foundations which are even now more institutional than universal. These foundations will eventually be the key to progress in Europe, but after that lessons from America will have to be found there before they can be learned anywhere else.

I'm not trying to say there's anything wrong with America in this regard, just that America's approach to (racial) harmony is a work in progress, and I don't think Europe can afford to wait a century or so to see how it turns out before embarking on our own journey towards (religious) harmony.

1) What are the reasons behind the anger and divide?

The same as any other riot or unrest. A portion of the population (often the adolescents, who have poor impulse control to begin with) feel disenfranchised and angry, whether because of race, poverty, isolation, religion, a feeling of persecution or entitlement or any combination of these and/or other issues. A precipitating event occurs (even if the facts are distorted, as they were in Paris), and the fire is lit. At some point, the riot ceases to be about the so-called “event” and fuels itself.

2) What can be done to correct the situation, if anything?
3) Are there any lessons from the American experience with racial problems in the past that might be implemented to combat the problem?

The chance to correct the problem has passed. It’s not as if the French government wasn’t aware of the issues leading up to the violence.

We in the US haven’t had such a terrific record of dealing with the same sort of problems. And in these particular cases in Europe, the US has exacerbated the problem with the worldwide Muslim population's perception of its war “on Islam”.

4) Or are these problems unique to Europe with little in common with the US and why?

They have everything in common with the US. The only difference is the race of the rioter, and/or the language they speak. The psychology of riots is a human issue, not a nationality issue.

And when was the last time a gang of punks carried out a suicide attack that killed 50 people?

Do you believe there are 20 million neo nazi's in Europe? When was the last time you actually saw a neo nazi? or saw one elected to parliament?

What exactly is the difference between nazism and Islam? Both are ideologies that preach some form of superiority for their followers. Both advocate violence to achieve political goals. Both are comprised mainly of followers who don't ask difficult questions. Neither has a forgiving aspect.

The only difference between them is that one is protected from responsibility because it is a religion. Sure we can point the finger at Osama Bin Laden and his extremists, but heaven forbid that any one should hold the mass of Islamic followers who support them to account.

Its just like Germany once the Nazi's were no longer invulnerable. Suddenly there were no Nazi's and it was 'not done' to call people out on their crimes. It got so bad that Israel had to start kidnapping nazi war criminals just to bring them to trial and Germany still refuses to extradite SS murderers to Denmark!

Well to hell with that. The German people were responsible for the rise of the Nazi's just as the Muslim people are responsible for the rise of the extremists amongst them.

If Islam really is a religion of peace then lets see the proof of it!

Lets see action, not words.


Can you explain then how Islamic extremism is able to exist and go undetected for so long... or why is it so many 'ordinary Muslims' openly celebrate the actions of these 'extremists'?


Well, you see, here is the crux of the matter. Here, in Denmark, it is the Muslims who are responsible for 90% of the organized and cultural violence we are seeing but we are constantly told to not regard Muslims as a group...

...and yet, when its the other way around, then suddenly its alright for the Muslims to lump themselves into one group in order to 'protect themselves'.

Just why is it that these Muslims feel so defensive? Because Iraq is attacked? Afghanistan? Palestina? What does that matter to Rosenhøj in Århus?

How does burning down a Danish school defend the Palestinians?

How does trashing a pizza joint (owned by a Turk) defend Muslims from European racism?

In fact, how does cheering in the street of Copenhagen after the WTC attack, the beheadings in Iraq or the London bombings NOT come under the heading: Islam?

How much aid and assistance has Europe not given to the Palestinians to help them in their troubles and whats the reward? rape, murder and terrorism.


All I can say to this is wake up and smell the coffee.

War is not just fought with bullets and tanks. Its not just men in far away fields dying so we can be grateful.

Europe has been at war with Islam for over a thousand years and that fact doesn't change just because its no longer fashionable in good old blighty 'where we don't want to be colonialists any more'.

GW Bush might have stuck his foot in his mouth, but that single word wouldn't matter if it wasn't relevant!

Yes, we have attacked Iraq and Afghanistan and we did so because the leadership of the west had no better alternative to the attacks that were launched against the USA. Iraq is often characterized as a pre-emptive attack, and perhaps it was. But an attack is often the best course of defence... or would you rather have the battle take place in Europe?

We ARE at war with Islam and we always have been.
They've attacked and invaded us before and they're trying to do it again because their religious ideology decree's it.


Give me a break Julian!

anyone brown can be shot on a Tube train if they behave a bit oddly



Anyone?

One man is accidently shot by the police and this translates to anyone. Just how many death squads do you suppose the met has operating in the tubes these days?

One Brazilian man got killed by paranoid police, a day after a major terrorist attack, but to judge by some of the responses I've been witness to from the UK, any one might be forgiven for forgetting that 50 odd people had just been slaughtered by Muslim suicide bombers.

I think it says a lot about the post colonial guilt complex that reigns in the UK that one man's accidental death can over shadow 50 deliberate murders and countless other attempted murders.


Have you read the police report TedN5 posted or the article posted by Carlito'swhey in the Paris riot thread?

There is every indication, right down to admissions from rioters to journalists that these riots were carefully planned and coordinated in advance. That the violence didn't just flare up out of no where in Paris but comes from a long campaign of ever escalating violence that started many years ago.


Yes, once a riot kicks off it becomes a free for all. We've seen this in Denmark in the last few days with Danish youths joining in.

But that doesn't change the fact that the riots were not isolated incidents but were the culmination of a long campaign of low intensity warfareagainst the state of France.

I wish to first address earlier posts regarding religion...

Every religion has gone through a process of devolution and radicalism (these were either small or large movements and not necessarily universal to the religion). Sometimes it is an effort to modernize (like the Protestant reformation), and other times it is an effort to bring back the past (I think that’s called a ‘premodern movement’). Modern movements aren’t always good, either. The Spanish Inquisition was a modernizing movement (it was actually an effort by the Monarchs to create national unity). What we are seeing now with Islam might be a modernizing movement. I don’t know enough about the religion to form a conclusion, but obviously something is going on here. Rap music, violence, drugs….some of the Islamic youth are pushing out in rather un-Islamic (but modern) and destructive ways. I don’t see the value in bringing up Biblical text quotes to counter what is happening here. Clearly every religion has gone through a violent and destructive process. Islamic fundamentalists (okay, some) are going through this process now, which makes it a much more compelling concern than what the televangelist with a bad wig and his ugly wife have to say to the zombies watching their shows on US television.

1) What are the reasons behind the anger and divide?

If you look at the countries with vast oil reserves and a small enough population that all citizens benefit from the wealth (example the Gulf states), the populations are happy, rich, and relatively secular. In countries with high populations and oil reserves that are large enough to benefit only a few (like Iran) laws are heavy and the system of government more oppressive and theocratic. It isn’t an accident that we are seeing growing fundamentalism in Saudi as the average incomes afforded by the oil fields has been decreasing further and further. When the people are content they tend to follow religious laws more flexibly. Even the discontent don’t necessarily lash out like this. I’d say it’s a combination of discontent and isolation (even if it is self-imposed). People grouping together in huge clusters and creating their own society in a Western world might work if they are prosperous, but in an environment of escalating crime and poverty (combined with religion) it is divisive. In starting this thread, I attempted to come up with a series of questions that can address these issues.

My suspicion is that part of this has to do with the Muslim ban on usury. I have tried to find demographic statistics for homeowners and business owners in Europe and couldn’t. It is virtually impossible in the western world to finance a business or own a home without borrowing something on interest. It seems to me that this would lead to isolationism in itself…any business owned by a Muslim in existence (if they are following their laws) would likely exist due to pooled incomes. The society would have a vested interest in those businesses and frequent only Muslim establishments. Also, it seems to me the more property owners there are in a society, the more of a stake the people have in a society. Property is unifying. What happens after several generations of a people are born with little stake in that society?

I’m simply guessing (based on what I know of the usury ban in Islamic faith) with respect to property and business ownership, so I might be wrong. I have never seen the issue addressed from this angle, so I’m just throwing it out here. I know that Great Britain opened their first Muslim banks recently to deal with this problem. If the rest of Europe follows suit this might help things out over time.

Anyway, there is an airshow today so I don’t have time to answer the rest of my questions right now.