I'd Rather Die Standing Than Live on My Knees - Charlie Hebdo Pays the Price for Free Speech

I gave you three examples. They are used routinely to command people to submit to and obey the government which commits violence. And incidentally, you said nothing about terrorism. You said violence, and dropping bombs on innocent civilians is violence as well as terrorism. Sending people to prison for political crimes is violence. Executing criminals is violence, is well supported by the Old Testament and never denounced in the New.

You gave no examples of Christians invoking scripture to justify violence. You gave examples of Christians acting in the *name* of Christianity. Your argument about the death penalty and putting people in prison is specious.

I live among devout church going Christians, they are some of the most violence supporting people I have ever known, and they are not the exception. I'm considering starting an argument with my brother this weekend on various violent acts he strongly supports and recording the scripture he throws at me.

Whether the Christians you know are "some of the most violence supporting people I [you] have ever known" is irrelevant. That doesn't prove they are commanded by their faith to commit acts of violence.

Are you claiming all the crusades were enacted without invoking scripture? All those knights weren't care free about killing, looting and raping because they were given God's permission and exoneration? Do I really need to dig up the scriptures that were used, probably out of context, to justify this? Would you prefer Charlemagne to Hitler?

I'm claiming the crusaders were inspired by Christianity, not driven by its teachings. Perhaps you can find the scripture that gave the crusaders God's permission and exoneration to kill, loot and rape. I won't be holding my breath, though.

And if Christians submit to and support government because of scripture, then scripture supports violence.

Nonsense. Your logic is faulty. If scripture commands Christians to support government, that in no way proves scripture supports violence. Be serious.

W.r.t. the US empire I'm not going to take you seriously. You know exactly what it is and where to find it.

Indeed. It's found in the minds of the Marxists, conspiracy theorists, the paranoid and leftwing wackjobs. In fact, I bet Global Research has a whole section of their website devoted to it.


Still waiting for an example of a Christian invoking scripture to justify violence.
 
Well...This looks pretty violent:

Joshua commanded the people, “Shout! For the LORD has given you the city! The city and all that is in it are to be devoted to the LORD. Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall be spared, because she hid the spies we sent. But keep away from the devoted things, so that you will not bring about your own destruction by taking any of them. Otherwise you will make the camp of Israel liable to destruction and bring trouble on it. All the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron are sacred to the LORD and must go into his treasury.” When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys
. (Joshua 6: 16-20)

That's descriptive violence and no one is arguing that the bible doesn't contain descriptions of violence. The argument is whether it contains prescriptive and open-ended commands to commit violence. Where are the examples of a Christians invoking scripture to justify violence? If these scriptures exist, where are all the Christian terrorists shouting "Hallelujah" and "praise the Lord" before blowing themselves up in a crowd? They should be everywhere.
 
Well...This looks pretty violent:

Joshua commanded the people, “Shout! For the LORD has given you the city! The city and all that is in it are to be devoted to the LORD. Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall be spared, because she hid the spies we sent. But keep away from the devoted things, so that you will not bring about your own destruction by taking any of them. Otherwise you will make the camp of Israel liable to destruction and bring trouble on it. All the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron are sacred to the LORD and must go into his treasury.” When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys
. (Joshua 6: 16-20)

I prefer the Upanishads "story" over the bible's. Less violent and poetic:

“The little space within the heart is as great as the vast universe.
The heavens and the earth are there, and the sun and the moon and the stars. Fire and lightening and winds are there, and all that now is and all that is not.”

"As one acts and conducts himself, so does he become. The doer of good becomes good. The doer of evil becomes evil. One becomes virtuous by virtuous action, bad by bad action."
 
That's descriptive violence and no one is arguing that the bible doesn't contain descriptions of violence. The argument is whether it contains prescriptive and open-ended commands to commit violence. Where are the examples of a Christians invoking scripture to justify violence? If these scriptures exist, where are all the Christian terrorists shouting "Hallelujah" and "praise the Lord" before blowing themselves up in a crowd? They should be everywhere.

They were just following orders:
When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy (Deut 7:1-3).

Do to him what you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon” (Deut. 3:2) Systematically the troops of Israel destroyed every city in Bashan and killed every man woman and child.
Arguing about the Bible and what it say's or how it's enterpreted will get us nowhere.
 
They were just following orders:

Which is DESCRIPTIVE violence!

Unless you are a Hittite, Girgashite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzites, Hivite or Jebusite, you don't have anything to worry about and can safely go back to Global Research and read about whatever imaginary crimes against humanity Israel is conspiring to commit this month.

Arguing about the Bible and what it say's or how it's enterpreted will get us nowhere.

Not if you don't follow the discussion and understand what is being argued.
 
Last edited:
you cannot find a single example of a Christian or Jew invoking scripture to justify violence

I'm not saying Christians haven't committed violence in Christianity's name, but they don't do it because there are commandments in the Bible ordering them to. No Christian can find an example from the teachings or example of Christ to support violence.

I'm claiming the crusaders were inspired by Christianity, not driven by its teachings. Perhaps you can find the scripture that gave the crusaders God's permission and exoneration to kill, loot and rape.

The argument is whether it contains prescriptive and open-ended commands to commit violence.

No Christian can find an example from the teachings or example of Christ to support violence.

Of course, there are plenty of examples of the Old Testament God commanding, ordering and permitting his followers to kill. And plenty of examples of God committing the violence as well. And I'm sure there have since been self-proclaimed Christians who have cited Old Testament scripture as justification for violence.

I see that those won't count given all of the conditions you've included.

The New Testament God is entirely different from the Old Testament God. If you exclude the Old Testament and limit to "teachings or examples of Christ", then that eliminates most possible examples.

Even if you included Old Testament, God's commands to commit violence were given to specific individuals and groups and therefore were not "prescriptive and open-ended". That would also disqualify any examples of Christians who want to cite such scripture as supportive of their own violence because it is descriptive and not prescriptive.

Then it conveniently becomes invoking violence "in the name of Christianity" rather than violence supported by scripture.

I get your argument but I think it is too dismissive of the power of Biblical scripture to influence self-proclaimed Christians to have historically done things "in the name of Christianity" regardless of whether it a prescriptive command.
 
Of course, there are plenty of examples of the Old Testament God commanding, ordering and permitting his followers to kill. And plenty of examples of God committing the violence as well. And I'm sure there have since been self-proclaimed Christians who have cited Old Testament scripture as justification for violence.

I see that those won't count given all of the conditions you've included.

I get your argument but I think it is too dismissive of the power of Biblical scripture to influence self-proclaimed Christians to have historically done things "in the name of Christianity" regardless of whether it a prescriptive command.

But that's the point. You asked why I thought Islam was different and one of the reasons I gave you was that the Quran contains many open-ended commandments to kill the unbelievers. You cannot read through the Old or New Testament and find ANY open-ended commands to commit violence.

I'm not saying Biblical scripture can't *inspire* violence. Not at all. But that is a very different thing.

My position is that the prescriptive commands to commit violence in the Quran are the sole reason that Muslims are have been waging jihad against the unbelievers since the time of Muhammed.
 
See what religion does to usually level headed men! :) Almost as bad as pussy. Even though I think one lead to the other!
 
I'm claiming the crusaders were inspired by Christianity, not driven by its teachings. Perhaps you can find the scripture that gave the crusaders God's permission and exoneration to kill, loot and rape. I won't be holding my breath, though.
Here you go... scripture used to justify the crusades, and to justify violence.
http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2006/11/taking-up-cross-use-of-scripture.html

I think I'm done with this argument. You are intentionally ignoring the obvious. You know scripture is used to call church goers to government service and to war. I gave you the verses commonly used. You can see it happen before your very own eyes. Just start attending Christian church. If you say you already do so, I will understand why certain logic confuses you.
 
Ooh, just for fun... http://www.spokanebiblechurch.com/powerpoint/WarandGod.pdf used to justify the (second) Iraq invasion. I'm sure my siblings had to make do with Pastors of lessor literary talents, but they were convinced all the same.
 
Here you go... scripture used to justify the crusades, and to justify violence.
http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2006/11/taking-up-cross-use-of-scripture.html

I think I'm done with this argument. You are intentionally ignoring the obvious. You know scripture is used to call church goers to government service and to war. I gave you the verses commonly used. You can see it happen before your very own eyes. Just start attending Christian church. If you say you already do so, I will understand why certain logic confuses you.


This was a reach. There is nothing in your link that can even remotely be seen as a call to violence. Perhaps that is why there are no Christian suicide bombers? LOL


"If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."
Where is the command to commit violence in this passage? There isn't any.

"I have come not to bring peace, but a sword."

The author conveniently left out the rest of the passage:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law”

If this passage is really calling for violence, it would seem to be domestic violence. LMAO

Regardless, this isn't a command to commit violence. Christ is predicting that strife will exist between Christians and their environment. His prophesy was true as the Christians in the 1st century discovered.

"Everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and will inherit eternal life."

Once again, there is NO commandment to commit violence. The intent is spiritual.

"Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against the flesh and blood... Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness, and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace...taking the shield of faith...and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God."

Anyone who says Armor of God, wrestle not with the flesh and blood, breastplate of righteousness, helmet of salvation, and the sword of spirit" are anything other than spiritual is misleading the reader.


My point stands. The rest of your argument is mush.

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that very clearly call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. And unlike the twisting that is needed in order to construe your verses as violent, the Quran leaves no doubt.


8:12 - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"


8:15- "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."

8:39 - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah"

8:59-60 - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."

9:5 - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

9:14 - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people."

9:29 - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

9:38-39 - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place."

9:41 - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew."

9:111 - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."

9:123 - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/017-qmt.php#017.01617:16 - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction."


33:60-33 - "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter."

47:3-4 - "Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost."

61:10-12 - "O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad ), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of 'Adn - Eternity ['Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success."
 

Okay, we are entering into semantical query here. If the US is not an "Empire," how would you classify them?

And I am not Marxist. I don't care what Foxnews says. Marx had some good ideas, but so did the founder of Capitalism Adam Smith (free market at least). I can't say I really adhere to any 'ism.' Maybe Steroidism? Foodism...my Bonerism!
Steroidism. Nice.
 
This was a reach. There is nothing in your link that can even remotely be seen as a call to violence. Perhaps that is why there are no Christian suicide bombers? LOL


"If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."
Where is the command to commit violence in this passage? There isn't any.

"I have come not to bring peace, but a sword."

The author conveniently left out the rest of the passage:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law”

If this passage is really calling for violence, it would seem to be domestic violence. LMAO

Regardless, this isn't a command to commit violence. Christ is predicting that strife will exist between Christians and their environment. His prophesy was true as the Christians in the 1st century discovered.

"Everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and will inherit eternal life."

Once again, there is NO commandment to commit violence. The intent is spiritual.

"Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against the flesh and blood... Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness, and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace...taking the shield of faith...and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God."

Anyone who says Armor of God, wrestle not with the flesh and blood, breastplate of righteousness, helmet of salvation, and the sword of spirit" are anything other than spiritual is misleading the reader.


My point stands. The rest of your argument is mush.

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that very clearly call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. And unlike the twisting that is needed in order to construe your verses as violent, the Quran leaves no doubt.


8:12 - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"


8:15- "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."

8:39 - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah"

8:59-60 - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."

9:5 - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

9:14 - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people."

9:29 - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

9:38-39 - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place."

9:41 - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew."

9:111 - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."

9:123 - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/017-qmt.php#017.01617:16 - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction."


33:60-33 - "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter."

47:3-4 - "Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost."

61:10-12 - "O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad ), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of 'Adn - Eternity ['Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success."
I didn't say scripture justified violence, you moron, I said it is used to justify it. Scripture is often taken out of context as I already said. You claim there isn't a single example of a Christian using scripture to justify violence. I've now given you 3 examples, complete with verses and a pastor's complete sermon for war in Iraq. Retract your claim as you promised and move on.
 
I didn't say scripture justified violence, you moron, I said it is used to justify it. Scripture is often taken out of context as I already said. You claim there isn't a single example of a Christian using scripture to justify violence. I've now given you 3 examples, complete with verses and a pastor's complete sermon for war in Iraq. Retract your claim as you promised and move on.

No, what you've given me is three examples of false equivalence. You're getting pissed off because I won't let you redefine the argument in a way that will allow you to include things like obeying government and putting people in Jail as examples of Christians invoking scripture to justify violence.

The sermon you posted is pure horseshit. They don't even bother to take scripture out of context - they just make it up:

The killing of the enemy in war is not murder,
nor a sin of any kind.
Exodus 20.13 refers to murder.

What Exodus 20:13 really says:

You shall not murder.
LMFAO

I gave you three examples. They are used routinely to command people to submit to and obey the government which commits violence. And incidentally, you said nothing about terrorism. You said violence, and dropping bombs on innocent civilians is violence as well as terrorism. Sending people to prison for political crimes is violence. Executing criminals is violence, is well supported by the Old Testament and never denounced in the New.
 
Last edited:
Charles Krauthammer: Obama: Charlie who?

By http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/charles-krauthammer (Charles Krauthammer)
Opinion writer January 15 at 8:15 PM

04555846-3042.jpg


On Sunday, at the http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/people-join-rallies-worldwide-to-honor-paris-victims/2015/01/11/352f9f44-998d-11e4-86a3-1b56f64925f6_story.html (great Paris rally), the whole world was Charlie. By Tuesday, the veneer of solidarity was exposed as tissue thin. It began dissolving as soon as the real, remaining Charlie Hebdo put out its post-massacre issue featuring a Muhammad cover that, as the New York Times put it, “reignited the debate pitting free speech against religious sensitivities.”

Again? Already? Had not 4 million marchers and 44 foreign leaders just turned out on the streets of France to declare “No” to intimidation, and pledging solidarity, indeed identification (“Je suis Charlie”) with a satirical weekly specializing in the most outrageous and often tasteless portrayals of Muhammad? And yet, within 48 hours, the new Charlie Hebdo issue featuring the image of Muhammad — albeit a sorrowful, indeed sympathetic Muhammad — http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/new-charlie-hebdo-reaches-global-audience-dismays-muslims/2015/01/14/be31cf14-9bf5-11e4-86a3-1b56f64925f6_story.html (sparked new protests), denunciations and threats of violence, which in turn evinced another round of doubt and self-flagellation in the West about the propriety and limits of free expression. Hopeless.

As for President Obama, he never was Charlie, not even for those 48 hours. From the day of the massacre, he has been practically invisible. At the interstices of various political rallies, he issued bits of muted, mealy-mouthed boilerplate. Followed by the now-famous absence of any high-ranking U.S. official at the Paris rally, an abdication of moral and political leadership for which the White House http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-says-it-should-have-sent-high-official-to-paris-march/2015/01/12/cb0108f8-9ac0-11e4-86a3-1b56f64925f6_story.html (has already admitted error).

But this was no mere error of judgment or optics or, most absurdly, of communications in which we are supposed to believe that the president was not informed by staff about the magnitude, both actual and symbolic, of the demonstration he ignored. (He needed to be told?)

On the contrary, the no-show, following the near silence, precisely reflected the president’s profound ambivalence about the very idea of the war on terror. Obama began his administration by purging the phrase from the lexicon of official Washington. He has ever since shuttled between saying that (a) the war must end because of the damage “keeping America on a perpetual wartime footing” was doing to us, and (b) the war has already ended, as he suggested repeatedly http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-strategy-of-taking-credit-for-osama-bin-laden-killing-risky-some-observers-say/2012/04/30/gIQApuAxrT_story.html (during the 2012 campaign), with bin Laden dead and al-Qaeda “on the run.”

Hence http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obamas-may-23-speech-on-national-security-as-prepared-for-delivery/2013/05/23/02c35e30-c3b8-11e2-9fe2-6ee52d0eb7c1_story.html?hpid=z1 (his call in a major address) at the National Defense University to “refine and ultimately repeal” Congress’ 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the very legal basis for the war on terror. Hence his http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-prepares-to-ramp-up-transfers-from-guantanamo/2014/12/24/46685a86-8ab9-11e4-a085-34e9b9f09a58_story.html (accelerating release of Gitmo inmates) — five more announced Wednesday — fully knowing that up to 30 percent have returned to the battlefield (17 percent confirmed, up to 12 percent suspected but not verified). Which is why, since about the Neolithic era, POWs tend to be released after a war is over.

Paris shows that this war is not. On the contrary. As it rages, it is entering an ominous third phase.

The first, circa 9/11, involved sending Middle Eastern terrorists abroad to attack the infidel West.

Then came the lone wolf — local individuals inspired by foreign jihadists launching one-off attacks, as http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/gunman-kills-canadian-soldier-opens-fire-inside-parliament-in-downtown-ottawa/2014/10/22/49a4ca3e-5a23-11e4-b812-38518ae74c67_story.html (seen most recently) in Quebec, Ottawa and Sydney.

Paris marks Phase 3: coordinated commando strikes by homegrown native-speaking Islamists activated and instructed from abroad. (Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/al-qaeda-in-yemen-claims-responsibility-for-vengeance-attack-on-paris-newspaper/2015/01/14/1d83604c-9bef-11e4-bcfb-059ec7a93ddc_story.html (has claimed responsibility) for the Charlie Hebdo killings, while the kosher-grocery shooter proclaimed allegiance to the Islamic State.) They develop and flourish in Europe’s no-go zones where sharia reigns and legitimate state authorities dare not tread.

To call them lone wolves, as did http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/hundreds-of-thousands-are-expected-to-march-in-paris-solidarity-rally/2015/01/11/3befc7e2-996e-11e4-927a-4fa2638cd1b0_story.html (our hapless attorney general), is to define jihadism down. It makes them the equivalent of the pitiable, mentally unstable http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/world/wp/2014/12/15/before-he-took-hostages-at-a-sydney-cafe-man-haron-monis-had-been-tied-to-alleged-murder-sexual-assaults-and-offensive-letters/ (Sydney hostage taker).

The Paris killers were well-trained, thoroughly radicalized, clear-eyed jihadist warriors. They cannot be dismissed as lone loons. Worse, they represent a growing generation of alienated European Muslims whose sheer number is approaching critical mass.

The war on terror 2015 is at a new phase with a new geography. At the core are parallel would-be caliphates: in Syria and Iraq, the Islamic State; in Sub-Saharan Africa, now spilling out of Nigeria into Cameroon, a near-sovereign Boko Haram; in the badlands of Yemen, AQAP, the most dangerous of all al-Qaeda affiliates. And beyond lie not just a cast of mini-caliphates embedded in the most ungovernable parts of the Third World from Libya to Somalia to the borderlands of Pakistan, but an archipelago of no-go Islamist islands embedded in the heart of Europe.

This is serious. In both size and reach it is growing. Our president will not say it. Fine. But does he even see it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-charlie-who-asks-obama/2015/01/15/4c152ff6-9cfa-11e4-96cc-e858eba91ced_story.html
 
Tales from Eurabia: Contrary to fears on both sides of the Atlantic, integrating Europe's Muslims can be done

Source: http://www.economist.com/node/7086222

Is Eurabia really something to worry about? The concept includes a string of myths and a couple of hard truths. Most of the myths have to do with the potency of Islam in Europe. The European Union is home to no more than 20m Muslims, or 4% of the union's inhabitants. That figure would soar closer to 17% if Turkey were to join theEU—but that, alas, is something that Europeans are far less keen on than Americans are. Even taking into account Christian and agnostic Europe's lousy breeding record, Muslims will account for no more than a tenth of west Europe's population by 2025. Besides, Europe's Muslims are not homogenous. Britain's mainly South Asian Muslims have far less in common with France's North African migrants or Germany's Turks than they do with other Britons.

Arguments about alienation are also more complicated than they first appear. Many European terrorists were either relatively well-off or apparently well-integrated. The Muslims who torched France's suburbs last year were the ones who seldom attend mosques. First-generation immigrants (with the strongest ties to the Muslim world) seem to be less radical than their European-educated sons and daughters. And the treatment of them is far from uniform either: for all the American charges of “appeasement”, the FBI is a downright softie compared with France's internal security services.

Give us jobs, education and a seat on the city council
Given these subtleties, perhaps the most dangerous myth is the idea that there is one sure-fire answer when it comes to assimilating Europe's Muslims. In some cases, integrationism goes too far (France's head-scarf ban was surely harsh); but multiculturalism can too (Britain is now reining in its Muslim schools). America's church-state divide and its tolerance of religious fervour are attractive, but its fabled melting pot is not a definitive guide either: many American Muslims are black, and many Arab-Americans are Christian. In some ways, a better comparison (in terms of numbers and closeness of homeland) is with Latinos—and nobody in Europe is (yet) talking about building a wall to keep Muslims out.

Yet amid all this hyperbole, two hard realities stand out. The first is the importance of jobs. In America, it is easy for a newcomer to get work and hard to claim welfare; in Europe the opposite is true. Deregulating labour markets is a less emotive subject than head-scarves or cartoons, but it matters far more.

Second, the future of Europe's Muslims, no less than that of America's Latinos, lies with the young. For every depressing statistic about integration—France's prisons hold nine times more young men with North African fathers than ones with French fathers—there are several reassuring ones: a quarter of young Muslim Frenchwomen are married to non-Muslim men; Muslims are flocking to British universities and even popping up in white bastions like the Tory party. In 50 years' time, Americans may be praising this generation of European Muslims for leading the enlightenment that Islam needed.

Europe's Islamic experience will be different from America's: geography and history have seen to that already. Integration will be hard work for all concerned. But for the moment at least, the prospect of Eurabia looks like scaremongering.
 
Will Pew Muslim birth rate study finally silence the “Eurabia” claim?
Byhttp://blogs.reuters.com/tom-heneghan/ (Tom Heneghan)
January 27, 2011

Source: http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2011/01/27/will-pew-muslim-birth-rate-study-finally-silence-the-eurabia-claim/

One of the most wrong-headed arguments in the debate about Muslims in Europe is the shrill “Eurabia” claim that high birth rates and immigration will make Muslims the majority on the continent within a few decades. Based on sleight-of-hand statistics, this scaremongering (as The Economist called it back in2006) paints a picture of a triumphant Islam dominating a Europe that has lost its Christian roots and is blind to its looming cultural demise.

The Egyptian-born British writer Bat Ye’or popularised the term with her 2005 book “Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis” and this argument has become the background music to much exaggerated talk about Muslims in Europe. Some examples from recent weeks can be found here, here andhttp://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.8423/pub_detail.asp.

A good example is the video “Muslim Demographics,” an anonymous diatribe on YouTube that hasracked up 12,680,220 views since being posted in March 2009. Among its many dramatic but unsupported claims are that France would become an“Islamic republic”by 2048 since the average French woman had 1.8 children while French Muslim women had 8.1 children — a wildly exaggerated number that it made no serious effort to document. It also predicted that Germany would turn into a “Muslim state”by 2050 and that “in only 15 years” the Dutch population would be half Muslim. “Some studies show that, at Islam’s current rate of growth, in five to seven years, it will be the dominant religion of the world,” the video declares as it urges viewers to“share the Gospel message in a changing world.”

The BBC produced its own video entitled “Welcome to Eurabia?”that gavea point-by-point rebuttal of the video’s claims. Watching “Muslim Demographics” and “Welcome to Eurabia?” back-to-back provides a useful lesson in the dark art of twisting statistics. The image at left, showsahttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eurabia_Flag.svgof “Eurabia” created byOren Neu Dag.

Articles defending the “Eurabia” claim have often been so shrill that they essentially discredited themselves as serious arguments. But it could be difficult to find a solid statistics that gave an overall view of what was actually happening. ThePew Forum on Religion and Public Lifehas stepped up with an impressive study entitled “The Future of the Global Muslim Population” (here’s the press release, report and graphics here). As we summarised it in our report Muslim birth rate falls, slower population growth:

Falling birth rates will slow the world’s Muslim population growth over the next two decades, reducing it on average from 2.2 percent a year in 1990-2010 to 1.5 percent a year from now until 2030, a new study says.

Muslims will number 2.2 billion by 2030 compared to 1.6 billion in 2010, making up 26.4 percent of the world population compared to 23.4 percent now, according to estimates by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life…

“The declining growth rate is due primarily to falling fertility rates in many Muslim-majority countries,” it said, noting the birth rate is falling as more Muslim women are educated, living standards rise and rural people move to cities.

The proven demographic fact that birth rates have been falling among Muslim women, both in Muslim majority countries and western countries where Muslims have migrated, is not new. Nor are articles debunking the idea that Muslims will become the majority in Europe (seehttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/eurabian_folliesand here and here). But my own experience in discussing this with non-Muslims in Europe and the United States says this message does not seem to be getting through. The fact that Muslim birth rates, while still higher than those for non-Muslims, are actually falling seems to surprise people who do not follow these issues closely.

There are many legitimate questions concerning Muslim minorities in western countries. Should Muslim women be allowed tohttp://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/10/01/analysis-burqa-bans-first-france-then-the-netherlands-whos-next/ (cover their faces in public)? Do state schools have tohttp://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/10/25/muslim-religious-demands-on-french-state-schools-rising-report/ (provide halal meals)? Doeshttp://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/11/03/voters-say-no-to-sharia-in-oklahoma/ (sharia have any place) in thehttp://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/10/07/constitution-not-sharia-is-supreme-law-in-germany-merkel/ (western legal system)? Should Muslims be allowed tohttp://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2011/01/17/in-france-far-right-seizes-on-muslim-street-prayers/ (pray in the streets)? What does thehttp://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/12/16/pope-benedict-decries-growing-christianophobia-in-europe/ (decline of Christianity)in Europe mean for the continent? These issues have to be debated openly –“The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom,”as Yahya Hendi, the Muslim chaplain at the Catholic university Georgetown in Washington put ithttp://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2008/12/18/imams-and-rabbis-work-for-peace-even-if-debating-it-can-get-tense/ (at a conference at UNESCO in Paris)two years ago. But while citizens have a right to have their own opinions, they can’t just make up their own “facts” and expect to be taken seriously. Twisting statistics only distorts the debate and risks leading to unfounded conclusions.

This study raises further questions that the Pew Forum cannot yet answer. The report’s preface asks “Is Islam the world’s fastest-growing religion? If Islam is growing in percentage terms, does that mean some of the world’s other major faiths are shrinking? Is secularism becoming more prevalent, or less?” It doesn’t yet have the data, but it plans to issue a similar report on the prospects for Christianity worldwide next year, followed up by others analysing the trends for “other major world faiths, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Judaism. We will also look at the size and growth of the population that is not affiliated with any religious tradition.”
 
‘Manifesto of Liberties’- A Muslim Association for Freedom in the Arab World

By: N. Szerman*

Source: http://www.memri.org/report/en/print1672.htm

The Manifeste des Libertés (Manifesto of Liberties) is a Paris-based association dedicated to promoting freedom in the Arab world. Its website,http://www.manifeste.org/ (www.manifeste.org), features a great number of articles by reformist and secular Muslims, among them Salman Rushdie and prominent French-speaking Arab intellectuals. The association also organizes conferences and meetings, posts petitions, and addresses open letters to French governmental agencies.

The association's founding document is a "manifesto" signed by over 1800 "women and men of Muslim culture," "believers, agnostics, or atheists" who "firmly condemn misogyny, homophobia, and antisemitism" perpetuated in the name of Islam.(The signatures can be viewed athttp://www.manifeste.org/signatures.php3?id_article=1.) The manifesto was published by France's leading leftist daily Liberationon February 16, 2004.

The following is an overview of the Manifeste des Libertés website. It is followed by the association's English translation of the manifesto, athttp://www.manifeste.org/article.php3?id_article=18, and by a summary of some of the association's activities.

The Manifeste Des Libertés Website

The sitehttp://www.manifeste.org/ (www.manifeste.org) contains a large number of opinion articles and interviews, a special section dedicated to "Censorship in the Name of Islam," and information on political and cultural activities.

The "Censorship in the Name of Islam" section features the following comment about the Danish cartoons: "The modern history of censorship in the name of Islam is marked by murders, attacks, and a ban on free thinking. This is the result of both the [policy of the Arab] states and the Islamist movements…"

On February 24, 2006, the association organized a public discussion on the theme of "Censorship in the Name of Islam"; the event was attended by 600 people. Questions raised were: "What makes fanaticism possible?" "What enabled the birth of political Islam?" and "How can one avoid a 'victimization' approach to the situation?" Commenting on the Danish cartoons scandal, Raja Ben Slama,[1] a reformist academic and author from Tunisia, declared: "Far from putting the unbelieving West in opposition to Islam... the Danish cartoons affair put Muslims in opposition to themselves." Publisher Tewfik Allal declared that it was urgent to set up a Muslim political secular community "to counter the Umma - the community of believers."[2]

Among the website's many articles by Arab reformists are "Manifesto for a European Islam," by French Muslim philosopher and reformist Abdennour Bidar; "Islamism is Against Women All Over the World," by Mimouna Hadjam, president of the AFRICA association against racism; and many articles dealing with the November-December 2005 civil unrest in France.

Also on the site are the following articles by Salman Rushdie: "Modernizing Islam - a Challenge for the Diaspora," "The Right Time for an Islamic Reformation," and "The Europeans Must Ask for the Lifting of Charges against Turkish Author Orhan Pamuk."[3]

The site also features an article by renowned Syrian poet Adonis, titled "The Islamic Veil is a Veil on Life," and a long piece titled "The Second Independence: Towards an Initiative for Political Reform in the Arab World" that sets out the recommendations of the First Civil Forum, which took place at the same time as the Beirut Arab summit, in March 2004.[4]

The Manifesto

"We are women and men of Muslim culture. Some of us are believers, others are agnostics or atheists. We all condemn firmly the declarations and acts of misogyny, homophobia, and Antisemitism that we have heard and witnessed for a while now here in France and that are carried out in the name of Islam. These three characteristics typify the political Islamism that has been forceful for so long in several of our countries of origin. We fought against them there, and we are committed to fighting against them again - here.

"Gender Equality: A Prerequisite for Democracy. We are firmly committed to equal rights for both sexes. We fight the oppression of women who are subjected to Personal Status Laws, like those in Algeria (recent progress in Morocco highlights how far Algeria lags behind), and sometimes even in France via bilateral agreements. [see document footnote] We believe that democracy cannot exist without these equal rights. Accordingly, we unambiguously offer our support for the '20 ans, barakat!' (20 years is enough!) campaign of the Algerian women’s associations, demanding the definitive abolition of the two-decades-old family code.

"It is also for this reason that we oppose wearing the Islamic head scarf, even if among us there are differing opinions about the law banning it from schools in France. In various countries, we have seen violence or even death inflicted on female friends or family members because they refused to wear the scarf. Even if the current enthusiasm for the head scarf [among some Muslims] in France was stimulated by discrimination suffered by immigrant children, this cannot be considered the real cause of the desire to wear it; nor can memories of a North African lifestyle explain it. Behind this so-called 'choice' demanded by a certain number of girls is the promotion of a political Islamic society based on a militant ideology which aims to promote actively values to which we do not subscribe.

"Stopping Homophobia: For Islamic fundamentalists (as for all machos and fundamentalists), 'being a man' means having power over women, including sexual power. In their eyes, any man who favors equality of the sexes is potentially subhuman, or 'queer.' This way of thinking has proliferated since the rise of political Islamism. Its ferocity is equaled only by its hypocrisy. One of the organizers of the demonstration on Saturday, January 17, 2004, in favor of the head scarf declared that 'it is scandalous that those who claim to be shocked by the head scarf are not shocked by homosexuality.' Undoubtedly he thinks that a virtuous society hides women behind head scarves or puts homosexuals behind bars, something we have already seen happen in Egypt. We shudder at what the triumph of these attitudes implies for 'shameless' persons in society-like women who fail to wear the head scarf or homosexuals or non-believers.

"In contrast, we believe that recognition of the existence of homosexuality, and the freedom for homosexuals to live their own lives as they wish, represent undeniable progress. As long as an individual-heterosexual or homosexual-does not break the laws protecting minors, each person’s sexual choices are his or her own business and do not concern the state in any way.

"Fighting Antisemitism: Finally, we condemn firmly the Antisemitic statements made recently in speeches in the name of Islam. Just like 'shameless' women and homosexuals, Jews have become the target: 'They have everything and we have nothing,' was something that we heard in the demonstration on January 17. We see the use of the Israel-Palestine conflict by fundamentalist movements as a means of promoting the most disturbing forms of Antisemitism. Despite our opposition to the current policies of the Israeli government, we refuse to feed primitive images of the 'Jew.' A real, historical conflict between two peoples should not be exploited. We recognize Israel’s right to exist, a right recognized by the PLO congress in Algiers in 1988 and the Arab League summit meeting in Beirut in 2002. At the same time, we are committed to the Palestinian people and in support of their right to found a state and to be liberated from occupation.

"Living Secularism: Islam has not received sufficient recognition in France. There is a lack of places to pray. There are not enough chaplaincies or enough cemeteries. We are aware that young French people, the sons and daughters of Muslim immigrants, are still held back socially and suffer discrimination. All monitoring bodies recognize this. Consequently, 'French-style' secularism has lost a great deal of value in the eyes of these young people. Two possibilities lie before them. They can rediscover the strength of a real, living secularism; that is, political action on behalf of their rights and to demand the social gains fought for by their fathers and mothers-who belonged to social classes, cultures, peoples, and nations before they belonged to Islam. Or they can see themselves in an imaginary, virtual 'umma' [Islamic community - Eds.] that no longer corresponds to reality, and then masquerade in republican or 'tiers-mondistes' (third-worldist) rags. This only ends up securing unequal, repressive, and intolerant societies. This latter path cannot be ours.

[Footnote] France has bilateral agreements with Algeria, which allow the application of Algeria’s "Family Code" to emigrants in France. It particularly affects issues of divorce and discriminates against women. -Eds.

"To sign the manifesto, and for contact details and information:[email protected].

"1849 people have signed the manifesto."

Manifeste des Libertés Reacts to Attack on Rushdie on France 2 TV
On October 22, 2005, on Thierry Ardisson's very popular program "Tout le Monde en Parle" (France 2 TV), Salman Rushdie was attacked by prominent French actor Sami Naceri. Naceri, a self-professed Islamist, accused Rushdie of debasing Islam. He added that if an imam were to ask him to kill Rushdie, he would put a bullet in his head. He then pointed an imaginary gun at Rushdie's head. Rushdie took off his microphone and left, saying that this was the last time that he would appear on a French program.[5] None of this was aired; Ardisson edited out the disturbing scene.

The Manifesto of Liberties association was the only organization to act following these events. The association penned an open letter to French Supreme Audio-Visual Council (CSA) head Dominique Baudis asking him to take action.[6]

Petitions Endorsed by Manifeste des Libertés
Manifeste des Libertés has endorsed two major petitions: one promoting women's rights in Algeria, and the other protesting racism in the Moroccan media.

"20 Years, Barakat" - Campaign for Women's Rights in Algeria
The association supported the "20 years, Barakat!" campaign[7] that was launched in 2004 by Algerian women's associations, which demands the repealing of Algeria's civil status laws, and posted a petition, at http://20ansbarakat.free.fr/petition.htm, that can be signed by sending an email to [email protected].

Petition Protesting Racism against Sub-Saharan African Foreigners in the Moroccan Media
A "Migrations" sub-section onhttp://www.manifeste.org/ (www.manifeste.org)features a petition by Moroccan activists and intellectuals protesting racism in the Moroccan press and television against "sub-Saharan African foreigners." The petition demands regulations to outlaw all kinds of racism based on color and culture.

*Nathalie Szerman is Director of MEMRI's Research for the North African Reformist Thinkers Project.

[1] For more on Raja Ben Slama, see MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 890, "Arab Feminists on Women's Rights: Cats and Dogs in the Developed World Have More Rights than Women in the Arab and Muslim World," April 12, 2005, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1355.htm.

[2] The left-leaning French weekly Charlie-Hebdo reported on this event in its March 1, 2006 issue. Charlie-Hebdo was the paper that published all of the Muhammad cartoons published by the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten -after the editor of France-Soir was fired for publishing them. Following the scandal that ensued,Charlie-Hebdo launched a manifesto "against Islamic totalitarianism" (also in the March 1 issue), signed by 12 renowned intellectuals: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Chahla Chafiq, Caroline Fourest, Bernard-Henri Levy, Irshad Manji, Mehdi Mozaffari, Maryam Namazie, Taslima Nasreen, Salman Rushdie, Antoine Sfeir, Philippe Val, and Ibn Warraq.

[3] For more on Orhan Pamuk, see MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 1066, "Controversial Trials Divide Turkish Society; World Media and E.U. Question AKP Government's Commitment to Freedom of Speech and the Rule of Law," January 6, 2006, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1575.htm.

[4] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 724, "Arab NGOs: Arab League Summit Declarations are Not for Reform, But for Deceiving Arab Public Opinion and the International Community," June 2, 2004, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1142.htm. The Second Independence Initiative was drawn up by 50 NGOs from 13 Arab countries during the First Civil Forum Parallel to the Arab Summit, Beirut, March 19-22, 2004. The initiative that was presented to the Arab ambassadors and to Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa included a demand to abolish the state of emergency, release political prisoners, establish independent courts, take steps towards administrative and economic reform, fight corruption, strengthen transparency mechanisms, defend human rights, etc.

[5] On November 2, 2005, Philippe Val published an article about the incident in the French weekly Charlie Hebdo. Other reports included a one-sentence comment published in the French newspaper Le Parisien, a quotation in the French magazineMarianne, and a one-paragraph article in the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur.

[6] The open letter is posted athttp://www.manifeste.org/article.php3?id_article=262.

[7] http://20ansbarakat.free.fr.

This is the third report of the recently launched North African Reformist Thinkers Project, for other reports in this series see:

"French Moroccan Progressive Author on 'The New Islamic Thinkers,'" http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1598.htm.

"Tunisian Reformist Researcher on Discrimination Against Christians in Egypt," http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1623.htm.
 
No, what you've given me is three examples of false equivalence. You're getting pissed off because I won't let you redefine the argument in a way that will allow you to include things like obeying government and putting people in Jail as examples of Christians invoking scripture to justify violence.

The sermon you posted is pure horseshit. They don't even bother to take scripture out of context - they just make it up:

The killing of the enemy in war is not murder,
nor a sin of any kind.
Exodus 20.13 refers to murder.

What Exodus 20:13 really says:

You shall not murder.
LMFAO
Your reading comprehension skills are even worse than your logic. He's "using scripture" to differentiate killing from murder. So it's "OK" to kill in a war. For our purposes, there's no reason to distinguish between killing and murder, either is violence. Do you even remember your challenge?

Show me an example of a Christian invoking scripture to to justify violence and I'll happily retract that statement.
 
Debunking the Myth of Muslim-Only Zones in Major European Cities
By Carol Matlack

January 14, 2015 - Entire neighborhoods of Paris, London, and other European cities have become Muslim-run "no-go zones," off-limits to law enforcement and governed by Islamic sharia law. The story, making the rounds since last week's Paris terror attacks, is shocking—and demonstrably untrue. Yet it continues to spread.

Source: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2015-01-14/debunking-the-muslim-nogo-zone-myth

Fox News informs surprised Parisians they've been conquered by Muslims

by Zack Beauchamp on January 16, 2015

Paris is a city for famous its food, history, culture, and for its neighborhood-sized mini-Caliphate hellscapes run as tiny Islamist extremist fiefdoms.

At least, that's how Fox News tells it. The network has repeatedly stated that parts of France have been effectively conquered by Muslims, who have created "no-go zones" restricted to non-Muslims. Needless to say, this is false, but feeds into a larger Fox News narrative of Muslim families as enemies within and Muslim immigration as a perilous threat to Western society.

...

Parisians seem to think this was pretty hilarious. http://parisbymouth.com/paris-to-fox-news-eat-me/ made a map of some of the best bars and restaurants in the no-go zones, which include one that won "the Best Baguette in Paris competition in 2008." Sened Dhab compiled some photographs from the supposed Caliphate-on-the-Seine, which actually end up looking a lot like normal Paris.

Source: http://www.vox.com/2015/1/16/7553975/fox-no-go-zones

EATING & DRINKING IN THE NO-GO ZONES
MEG ZIMBECK

JANUARY 14, 2015 -The reliably cynical Fox News network has been broadcasting an interview with Nolan Peterson (photo at right), a supposed security expert and confirmed bozo who has declared Paris to be dotted with “No-Go Zones” where “in just a ten-minute cab ride from the Eiffel Tower, you can be walking through streets that feel just like Baghdad.”

Baghdad, eh? How wonderful for Baghdad if their streets are also filled, as these districts are, with modern bistros, craft breweries, natural wine haunts, vegan cafés, and spots for Philly cheesesteak. Not to mention a place that ranks among the World’s 50 Best Restaurants and a bakery that won the Best Baguette in Paris competition.

Inspired by a rebuttal by Sened Dhab, we decided to plot all of the wonderful restaurants, bars and shops that fall within these unterrorized borders. They are some of the most vibrant quarters in Paris and you shouldn’t hesitate for a single moment to visit.

Source: http://parisbymouth.com/paris-to-fox-news-eat-me/

This is Paris - On the cluelessness of Fox News and its treatment of the terrorist attacks in the french capital.
by Sened Dhab

I can’t begin to understand how someone who’s supposed to be a journalist and to have actually been here, in Paris, could agree to draw such a dishonest portrait of the city and its inhabitants. “Lawless islamist zones in the heart of Paris” sure sounds great for ratings and the opportunity to advance one’s career by appearing on a national cable news network, but how about a little bit of truth, instead of a lot of sensationalism? But then again, this has been Fox News’ trademark for years, and to cast a deceitful light on an important and serious event might not sound like much to the network. Not only is the view it gives on my city completely inaccurate, but the way it implicitly lumps together extremists with the rest of the Muslim population (and the racist aftertaste this leaves) is what’s really the problem. The consequences of these few minutes of air on our society, here, on the other side of the Atlantic, might be minimal (WE know where we stand), but I felt it was important to present the facts to anyone who might turn to Fox to make their opinion about the situation in France (even though, I fear, these few words will have a hard time reaching them).

Source: https://medium.com/@sened/this-is-paris-e8729d0108c1
 
Back
Top