DescentBB

They might already be here...



http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/ ... are-stoned

Freedom of speech...separation of church and state? They don't exist in these no-go zones. Sovereignty has been ceded to muslims that ignore our laws and the laws of western countries to impose their own savage and backward 7th century form of theocracy.

Why do so-called 'free thinking' liberals and progessives side with islamic intolerance and essentially destruction of the secular states they fester in?

Islam is a religion of peace so the zones are O.K.

pure BS. Fanatical extremism pointing the fingers to distract from their agenda. No amount of made-up fear mongering is going to overcome reality.

what was made up in TB's OP.

callmeslick wrote:pure BS. Fanatical extremism pointing the fingers to distract from their agenda. No amount of made-up fear mongering is going to overcome reality.

Maybe slick should go strolling in one of these 'non-existant' no-go zones in Paris wearing a picture of mohammed on his shirt and find out for himself.

for over a decade, right-wing loons have attempted to convince me, and others, that what happens in Paris or other European Muslim enclaves is just around the corner for the US. One of the above articles does so. It hasn't happened, nor anything remotely of the sort. It hasn't come close, even. It isn't going to, not soon, not EVER. It just isn't, so get over it. Sometimes, the Bill of Rights is your friend.

oh look at that, another "look at the scaaaaaary muslims' thread.

nothing to see here people, it's just noise.

callmeslick wrote:It hasn't happened, nor anything remotely of the sort. It hasn't come close, even. It isn't going to, not soon, not EVER. It just isn't, so get over it. Sometimes, the Bill of Rights is your friend.

Keep telling yourself that slick- even if you really don't believe it.

ThunderBunny wrote:

callmeslick wrote:It hasn't happened, nor anything remotely of the sort. It hasn't come close, even. It isn't going to, not soon, not EVER. It just isn't, so get over it. Sometimes, the Bill of Rights is your friend.

Keep telling yourself that slick- even if you really don't believe it.

sorry, but I'm convinced I'm right, and reality supports my belief.

Biggest mistake in history:

“It can’t happen here”.

Second biggest mistake in history:

“It won’t happen because it hasn’t happened yet”.

most common right-wing talking point, 'let's make up something far-fetched and make it seem like a real possibility'. I'm all for vigilance to protect our rights, and freedoms, but sheesh!

No, my point is more of the generic precautionary type.

Spidey wrote:No, my point is more of the generic precautionary type.

and, leaving it at that, precaution is ALWAYS good. I'd use vigilance, a bit stronger word.


there is a major leap, however, from vigilance to hysteria, or worse, paranoia, or more common still in American discourse from the right, outright BS.

Foil wrote:[mod] Personal-shot posts were removed. Keep it professional, folks. You can discuss a topic without taking shots at each other.[/mod]

Sorry, but it has to be said. What Top-Gun said was racist in nature- and the same can se said of Ferno.

Both have used this "brown people" crack. Seems they don't see human beings- but rather skin color.

Hypocracy has to be called out.

scary to ponder, perhaps, but I sort of agree with TB here. The 'brown people' crap was unwarranted. Deleting it after the exchange might be warranted, in the interest of continuing the thread.

ThunderBunny wrote: Sorry, but it has to be said. What Top-Gun said was racist in nature- and the same can se said of Ferno.

Both have used this "brown people" crack. Seems they don't see human beings- but rather skin color.

Hypocracy has to be called out.

really. when have I ever, ever used 'brown people', or have even been remotely racist?

Let's move on, folks.

Back to the topic, over the last decade or so, I've seen a huge number of articles claiming Islam and/or Sharia law were gaining precedence over U.S. law. The thing is, none of them have ever turned out true; in the end, U.S. law has always been upheld.

In the case in the original post, I find it interesting that we have diametrically opposing claims:

* The original post is making the claim that the Dearborn police are ignoring actions by the Muslim community.

* Some in the Muslim community are suing the Dearborn police for specifically targeting and/or discriminating against them. [link].

...So which is it?

(Some of both, probably. But I don't see anything like the "no-go zones" posited above.)

Foil makes the same case I did. Lots of smoke and absolutely no fire from the fear mongers.

funny, slick you claim Foil has the same position but it looks like Foil said that 'there is probably some truth to the claims that there are areas that muslim rules are prevailing'.
Not the same position slick.

If Foil is correct then it pays to examine how France, for just one european example, created the dynamic that led to their current status.
They sent the 'troublesome' people outside the city proper to maintain tourist appeal and left them to their own devices. In the case of fundamentalist Islamists their devices are a problem. So it is the same situation just at a different stage of development.

The results of this is a number of countries are faced with their mistake and they have said that radical Islam is an enemy that they are now dealing with.

Here we have a President who literally won't even say the words Radical Islam or allow his administration to acknowledge it....sounds like he has naively plowed some fertile ground to plant that radical seed.

Will Robinson wrote:...it looks like Foil said that 'there is probably some truth to the claims that there are areas that muslim rules are prevailing'.

Not quite.

I said that there is probably a bit of truth to both claims (that the Dearborn PD has ignored some actions by Muslims, and that they have targeted / discriminated against them).

IMO, that's still a far cry from Islamic law 'prevailing' over U.S. law. Particularly since these issues are being adjudicated by U.S. courts.

Will Robinson wrote:funny, slick you claim Foil has the same position but it looks like Foil said that 'there is probably some truth to the claims that there are areas that muslim rules are prevailing'.
Not the same position slick."

no he said there is some truth to police AVOIDING the Muslim areas, and also that there is some truth that locals DISCRIMINATE against Muslims.
Nowhere did he state that muslim rules are prevailing.
Edit-thanks, Foil for clarilying for Will.

If Foil is correct then it pays to examine how France, for just one european example, created the dynamic that led to their current status.
They sent the 'troublesome' people outside the city proper to maintain tourist appeal and left them to their own devices. In the case of fundamentalist Islamists their devices are a problem. So it is the same situation just at a different stage of development.

as anyplace, creating ghettoes is bad policy. Not limited to Muslims.

Here we have a President who literally won't even say the words Radical Islam or allow his administration to acknowledge it....sounds like he has naively plowed some fertile ground to plant that radical seed.

ah, the usual, tired, rants about the President of the United States. Now, do you know WHY the White House avoids the phrase 'radical islam'? Because it gives cache to the idea that this movement in ANY WAY has anything to do with the real Islam. It doesn't, so flattering it isn't naive, it is sensitive to nuance.
Bottom line: the US is not going to go to Sharia law, not going to take away your rights, not going to be overrun like Europe(because we never invited masses of Islamic immigrants to come and work here, and then, later have no work for them) has been in its poor neighborhoods. Why do you insist on trying to scare people otherwise? Maybe because YOU are scared, maybe because you think we all ought to become bigotted cowards like you wish us to be? Sorry, dude, I'll pass.

here's a very good synopsis of a BIG part of the problem in France and Europe, as a whole:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/cri ... ar-AA8bm1B


the cautionary here for Americans ought to be more around disenfranchisement, rampant jailing of young people and profiling by police. All of these are current issues that the EXACT SAME people whining about Sharia in America seem to willingly dismiss on these pages, daily.

Foil wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:...it looks like Foil said that 'there is probably some truth to the claims that there are areas that muslim rules are prevailing'.

Not quite.

I said that there is probably a bit of truth to both claims (that the Dearborn PD has ignored some actions by Muslims, and that they have targeted / discriminated against them).

IMO, that's still a far cry from Islamic law 'prevailing' over U.S. law. Particularly since these issues are being adjudicated by U.S. courts.

We are down to a matter of degree here. If there are instances where the western law enforcement has 'ignored acts' then that isn't necessarily a case of it being settled in court. Only those instances that found their way in front of the court are being heard I don't believe every act that was ignored by western law has been brought forth. Not possible. And further, every act that was initially unchallenged but then does go to court is a case where the 'muslim' law has prevailed unless and until the court finds otherwise and provides a remedy...after the fact. The environment this creates is one where the lives of the people in those zones are being shaped and influenced by a sharia 'legal' authority that is counter to the law of the land. Likewise the neighbors of that zone will have spillover to deal with.

Just because the President wont call it what it is doesn't protect Islam at large from these effects. Look at Germany where their previous posture that was so over protective of the foreigners culture has now seen the backlash to the mess rise to outright islamophobia. Obama's naive policy isn't helping the way he thinks it is. The radicals dont need him to officially associate them with Islam at large to gain stature! That is silly. They gain just as much stature by being the reason he is dancing on eggshells around the big radical elephant in the room.

There is some degree of the camels nose being thrust under the tent. Is it a "no go zone"? Not likely, yet.
How quickly did the zones in europe develop into the problem they are now? I imagine they too formed slowly. A few things ignored here...a few more there...

Using slicks analogy, 'all smoke, no fire', the forest ranger who ignores smoke until he sees the flames has a big problem on his hands.

Yea, but I think the elephant in the room that everyone likes to ignore is, after time many immigrant communities can create these little enclaves where the local laws do not apply…I have seen it in some non Muslim communities here in Philadelphia. (Chinatown is a perfect example, where wage and other laws do not apply)

Just think of the situation where the local mob, uses extortion to get money out of people, but they only target their own ethnic group, and you can see what I am saying.

I can say, it’s a problem that needs to be looked into, but not something to get in a tizzy about.

I can say that when in Russia there are many cars with such labels (drivers are Muslims) and who behaved very arrogantly and they do not respect the laws of the Russian



Russian then just started shooting at Muslims everywhere, roads, streets and public transport
One of the most famous incidents:

[youtube]xHjRtgon_p4[/youtube]

then it became a lot of cars with such labels (drivers are Christians)



I do not know that the authorities have done to reassure the population, but now such conflicts are much less

Spidey wrote:Yea, but I think the elephant in the room that everyone likes to ignore is, after time many immigrant communities can create these little enclaves where the local laws do not apply…I have seen it in some non Muslim communities here in Philadelphia. (Chinatown is a perfect example, where wage and other laws do not apply)

let's not forget those dastardly Amish!!

and, Sigma, we've long gotten the point: Russians are an uncivilized, loutish lot who understand nothing but brute force. The pics were interesting, though.

Not willing to identify 'radical Islam' for fear of legitimizing the connection it has to Islam at large is the epitome of naive.


The connection is deep and complex and not thrusting it in the face of all concerned is perpetuating the situation. The cleaning up of the world of Islam has to come from within. Not clearly staking out the difference is enabling the bad actors.

I also find slick hiding behind this excuse is very disingenuous.

He has no trouble shoving the connection of fringe actors in the face of the majority group when it suits him.
Gun owners get to see his constant posts of any fool or nutbag who uses a gun. Conservatives get to see his constant posts about any comment or failure of anyone he can connect with conservatism....same with Repub's....White people...Southerners, Christians.....etc. etc.

There is no principle or logic behind the argument, it is merely an excuse to rationalize a bad policy....to protect his guy.

let the Obama-whine continue, Will. At this point, you've descended into a running joke.

Foil wrote:[mod] Personal-shot posts were removed. Keep it professional, folks. You can discuss a topic without taking shots at each other.[/mod]

In doing so you also removed TB's statement that his parents were Syrian/Lebanese (also Iranian...correct me if I'm wrong). In doing so Foil, you have removed a insight into why TB posts as he does.

agree with woody

Ah, true. Here's the relevant portion of that post:

Thunderbunny wrote:My family is from Iran/Syria/Lebanon. When they arrived in Mexico they didn't even speak Spanish.

I'll say one thing, Lebanese and Syrian cuisine tastes wonderful.

as do Persian and Mexican. I might disagree(strongly much of the time) with TB, but I'm open to a dinner invitation.

I think we all have persecution in our lineage. Some as recent as a few generations ago, and some; ancient. But with that said, none of us have the right to use it as leverage for anything.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/18/media/f ... index.html


Fox seems to have been contributing to the hysteria, and got caught red-handed in not one, but SEVERAL lies.

Get it right slick. It was a guest that made the claim. Not Fox. Their error was in not challenging that guest.

no, in one case at least, they (the Fox hosts) presented several bogus polls, that they had to retract, about Muslim sentiment in Europe. The bottom line is that they are responsible for the content of their broadcasts, and Fox has NEVER shown any professional responsibility. They know, even in this case, that the gullible saps that watch their network already got the bogus message in their dimwit heads, so the later retractions are for show and legal purposes only.

So wait. You reported that fox news lied when they said there were no go zones in europe. Which is not correct. It was the guest that made the claim. Fox has since come out multiple times and issued corrects. You say they lied. Yet you report a story in a way that was also incorrect or incomplete then issued a correction. Are you also a liar?