I trust anecdotal evidence from John Bolton about as far as his mustache extends from his nose.
"Anecdotal evidence" is essentially a contradiction of terms; I tend to trust it from very few people, of any political persuasion - especially when preceded by the words "plenty of". It's cherry-picking, like: "I know a guy who...", "There are those who believe..."
I trust anecdotal evidence from John Bolton about as far as his mustache extends from his nose.
I have a helpful suggestion. Let's send an independent-minded reporter to Birmingham, England, to Sweden, to Germany, and to these 900 plus "no go" zones in France to get first-hand reports. We'll need someone who is an experienced combat reporter, based on how hairy you guys seem to think these areas are. How about Bill "expense account zone" O'Reilly? I'm sure he's chomping at the bit to get some real reporting in.
How did you get John Bolton out of all this ? Where was his name mentioned ?
O'Reilly ? Are you questioning his war reporting cred ala Brian Williams ?
I trust anecdotal evidence from John Bolton about as far as his mustache extends from his nose.
I have a helpful suggestion. Let's send an independent-minded reporter to Birmingham, England, to Sweden, to Germany, and to these 900 plus "no go" zones in France to get first-hand reports. We'll need someone who is an experienced combat reporter, based on how hairy you guys seem to think these areas are. How about Bill "expense account zone" O'Reilly? I'm sure he's chomping at the bit to get some real reporting in.
Beaks, you and kurtster are a riot, seriously. And we welcome your keeping us abreast of the BS promulgated on Rupert Murdoch's news programs, like the ridiculous claim that Muslim "no go zones" exist in Birmingham, Paris, and throughout Europe,
places where the governments like France, Britain, Sweden, Germany don’t exercise any sovereignty. So you basically have zones where Shariah courts were set up, where Muslim density is very intense, where the police don’t go in, and where it’s basically a separate country almost, a country within a country.”
If you have photos showing the checkpoints where they stop police vehicles from entering these "no go" zones, I'd be interested in seeing them. Or photos or other evidence of people being tried and sentenced in these Shariah courts. Steve Emerson had no such proof, and did the sensible thing and ate crow. Emerson understands the First Law of Holes.
kurtster's nonsense link is derived from a 2006 blog post by Daniel Pipes, who imagined that "Sensitive Urban Zones" (think urban renewal zones with high concentrations of low income residents, often many of them immigrants) constituted no go zones where the police exert no control. After checking these areas out personally in 2013, he recanted:
I had an opportunity today to travel at length to several banlieues (suburbs) around Paris, including Sarcelles, Val d'Oise, and Seine Saint Denis. This comes on the heels of having visited over the years the predominantly immigrant (and Muslim) areas of Brussels, Copenhagen, Malmö, Berlin, and Athens.
A couple of observations:
For a visiting American, these areas are very mild, even dull. We who know the Bronx and Detroit expect urban hell in Europe too, but there things look fine. The immigrant areas are hardly beautiful, but buildings are intact, greenery abounds, and order prevails.
These are not full-fledged no-go zones but, as the French nomenclature accurately indicates, "sensitive urban zones." In normal times, they are unthreatening, routine places. But they do unpredictably erupt, with car burnings, attacks on representatives of the state (including police), and riots.
Having this first-hand experience, I regret having called these areas no-go zones.
In other words, there are some regions of the world where people get riled up and riot in the streets.
Next on Fox News: reports of no-go zones in Keene, New Hampshire and Bellingham, Washington as Muslims enforce Sharia law on Campus!! Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/nogozones.asp#3XykMkbvmRI7WVZ8.99
I read the snopes piece before posting because I was sure some one would bring it up.
The article I posted comes after the snopes ruling and deals with the objections of the term no go zones.
Perhaps it's more accurate to refer to those areas as "no come" zones.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of police across Europe allowing some communities to virtually police themselves. Again, this is a choice made by local authorities and not necessarily something forced upon the government by Muslims. It is, as Pipes points out, the "sensitive" nature of these communities that keeps police at arm's length.
But we've seen over the years that when these communities explode in violence and police move in to restore order, the cops become targets of Muslim wrath. It's impossible to quantify police non-response to some crime in these communities, but it's safe to say that even if they aren't "no go" areas officially, in most aspects of ordinary life for non-Muslims, they may as well be.
Beaks, you and kurtster are a riot, seriously. And we welcome your keeping us abreast of the BS promulgated on Rupert Murdoch's news programs, like the ridiculous claim that Muslim "no go zones" exist in Birmingham, Paris, and throughout Europe,
places where the governments like France, Britain, Sweden, Germany don’t exercise any sovereignty. So you basically have zones where Shariah courts were set up, where Muslim density is very intense, where the police don’t go in, and where it’s basically a separate country almost, a country within a country.”
If you have photos showing the checkpoints where they stop police vehicles from entering these "no go" zones, I'd be interested in seeing them. Or photos or other evidence of people being tried and sentenced in these Shariah courts. Steve Emerson had no such proof, and did the sensible thing and ate crow. Emerson understands the First Law of Holes.
kurtster's nonsense link is derived from a 2006 blog post by Daniel Pipes, who imagined that "Sensitive Urban Zones" (think urban renewal zones with high concentrations of low income residents, often many of them immigrants) constituted no go zones where the police exert no control. After checking these areas out personally in 2013, he recanted:
I had an opportunity today to travel at length to several banlieues (suburbs) around Paris, including Sarcelles, Val d'Oise, and Seine Saint Denis. This comes on the heels of having visited over the years the predominantly immigrant (and Muslim) areas of Brussels, Copenhagen, Malmö, Berlin, and Athens.
A couple of observations:
For a visiting American, these areas are very mild, even dull. We who know the Bronx and Detroit expect urban hell in Europe too, but there things look fine. The immigrant areas are hardly beautiful, but buildings are intact, greenery abounds, and order prevails.
These are not full-fledged no-go zones but, as the French nomenclature accurately indicates, "sensitive urban zones." In normal times, they are unthreatening, routine places. But they do unpredictably erupt, with car burnings, attacks on representatives of the state (including police), and riots.
Having this first-hand experience, I regret having called these areas no-go zones.
In other words, there are some regions of the world where people get riled up and riot in the streets.
Next on Fox News: reports of no-go zones in Keene, New Hampshire and Bellingham, Washington as Muslims enforce Sharia law on Campus!! Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/nogozones.asp#3XykMkbvmRI7WVZ8.99
Chew on that some. Check the links and sources. Report back to the class.
Carry on.
Who, in their right minds, would dare to refute yet another war-loving, Islamophobic, neocon thick-tank? Clearly the collective track record of its infamous members speaks unabashedly for itself (as well as for the poster of such critical information).
