"Islamic Extremeist Terrorist", or, Just 'Terrorist'?

[Mandamus]

 

He is talking about the difference between criminal and cultural. America has it's places where it is dangerous to go because of the violence there. This is how he is making his distinction there. Cultural no-go areas need not be violent, especially to outsiders. They are areas where the outside world is shunned and the populous are extremely hesitant to give information to those outside the community

His conclusion is: "the term no-go area does not accurately reflects the situation." That's extremely clear to me; no "cultural no-go zones."

In any case, according to your own definition "cultural no-go area" is misleading. How does "the outside world being shunned" and "the populous being extremely hesitant to give information to those outside the community" make them "no go zones" for anyone? Who exactly can't go there? Individual outsiders can go there, as I (a non-muslim) have every week for the last four years to shop, go to the public library, meet with friends, even walk home at night. Non-muslim people can also live there. Policemen, teachers, firemen, doctors and judges also work in these areas, so they are not "no go zones" for the authority of the state either...

 

Also, your definition of a "cultural no-go area" (which at this point has little to do with your source) is vague to the point that it could include rich neighborhoods (the outside world is shunned there, and the locals will be extremely hesitant to give information to those outside the community), small villages in remote areas, xenophobic neighborhoods, etc. You'd need to come up with a better definition for the expression "cultural no-go zone" to be used as a basis for discussion here. There is nothing in what you've said to even justify the term "no-go area," so could we agree that this term is not accurate and is in fact misleading?

 

This is strangling absorption into the host community and sets up a country within a country. It provides a safe haven for those who spread fear and distrust, which is the sharp edge of the chisel which separates one group from another.

So because "absorption is strangled" (a statement I agree with!) there is automatically "a country within a country"? There is a huge leap between the two that should be acknowledged, huge to the point that the link between the two would need to be demonstrated and established before you can state it as a fact. How many countries do you have in the US if you go only by what you said? How many countries in cities like San Francisco, Miami or New York, where there are neighborhoods with distinct languages and cultures that are not ready to be "absorbed" any time soon? Are they all "cultural no go zones" and different countries within a country too?

 

 

edit: Look, I'm not saying that there are not huge problems with the suburbs we are talking about here. I just happen to disagree with the term "no-go zone," because you definitely can go there and the state is present here. I find the expression very misleading and think that in order to try and find solutions to the problems these areas present, the current situation should be defined with accurate words and expressions. I agree with you that there are problems related to culture, that does not make them "no-go zones" or "countries within a country."

 

The problems of those areas are (according to me, and you are welcome to disagree): very high unemployment rates breeding bitterness, inability to easily move out of these neighborhoods (because of poverty) leading to the establishment of "ghettoes for the poor," poverty linked to unemployment, gang related violence, feeling of alienation from mainstream culture leading to further isolation and the risk of individuals turning to radical islam as an answer to their problems. I agree with you on another major point: absorption into mainstream society should definitely be a priority for the state to solve those issues. Integration is the way to go, even if I don't know how this can be done.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Mandamus

[kvnchrist]

 

 

He is talking about the difference between criminal and cultural. America has it's places where it is dangerous to go because of the violence there. This is how he is making his distinction there. Cultural no-go areas need not be violent, especially to outsiders. They are areas where the outside world is shunned and the populous are extremely hesitant to give information to those outside the community

His conclusion is: "the term no-go area does not accurately reflects the situation." That's extremely clear to me; no "cultural no-go zones."

In any case, according to your own definition "cultural no-go area" is misleading. How does "the outside world being shunned" and "the populous being extremely hesitant to give information to those outside the community" make them "no go zones" for anyone? Who exactly can't go there? Individual outsiders can go there, as I (a non-muslim) have every week for the last four years to shop, go to the public library, meet with friends, even walk home at night. Non-muslim people can also live there. Policemen, teachers, firemen, doctors and judges also work in these areas, so they are not "no go zones" for the authority of the state either...

 

Also, your definition of a "cultural no-go area" (which at this point has little to do with your source) is vague to the point that it could include rich neighborhoods (the outside world is shunned there, and the locals will be extremely hesitant to give information to those outside the community), small villages in remote areas, xenophobic neighborhoods, etc. You'd need to come up with a better definition for the expression "cultural no-go zone" to be used as a basis for discussion here. There is nothing in what you've said to even justify the term "no-go area," so could we agree that this term is not accurate and is in fact misleading?

 

This is strangling absorption into the host community and sets up a country within a country. It provides a safe haven for those who spread fear and distrust, which is the sharp edge of the chisel which separates one group from another.

So because "absorption is strangled" (a statement I agree with!) there is automatically "a country within a country"? There is a huge leap between the two that should be acknowledged, huge to the point that the link between the two would need to be demonstrated and established before you can state it as a fact. How many countries do you have in the US if you go only by what you said? How many countries in cities like San Francisco, Miami or New York, where there are neighborhoods with distinct languages and cultures that are not ready to be "absorbed" any time soon? Are they all "cultural no go zones" and different countries within a country too?

 

 

edit: Look, I'm not saying that there are not huge problems with the suburbs we are talking about here. I just happen to disagree with the term "no-go zone," because you definitely can go there and the state is present here. I find the expression very misleading and think that in order to try and find solutions to the problems these areas present, the current situation should be defined with accurate words and expressions. I agree with you that there are problems related to culture, that does not make them "no-go zones" or "countries within a country."

 

The problems of those areas are (according to me, and you are welcome to disagree): very high unemployment rates breeding bitterness, inability to easily move out of these neighborhoods (because of poverty) leading to the establishment of "ghettoes for the poor," poverty linked to unemployment, gang related violence, feeling of alienation from mainstream culture leading to further isolation and the risk of individuals turning to radical islam as an answer to their problems. I agree with you on another major point: absorption into mainstream society should definitely be a priority for the state to solve those issues. Integration is the way to go, even if I don't know how this can be done.

 

Refusal to see something for what it is doesn't diminish the truth of the matter. If you feel so confident in your ideology then then so be it. I will not try to disway you, but reality has a way of forcing itself on those who ignore it. We will see what the future holds and whose image is vindicated. With the multiple arests that are happening as we speak all over Europe, mine is looking brighter every day.

[Mandamus]

 

Refusal to see something for what it is doesn't diminish the truth of the matter. If you feel so confident in your ideology then then so be it. I will not try to disway you, but reality has a way of forcing itself on those who ignore it. We will see what the future holds and whose image is vindicated. With the multiple arests that are happening as we speak all over Europe, mine is looking brighter every day.

You provided an article as a source to back your arguments. I just pointed out that what you were saying was not what the article was saying.

I am not arguing that there are no problems with some of those neighborhoods, there are, I am merely saying that the term "no go zone" is inaccurate – just like the article you linked to was saying and drawing from my own experience.

 

You know nothing about my ideology and I find that comment unwarranted, as you imply that my view on that specific issue is heavily biased due to a strong ideology (which one, I don't know) when all I did was call into question some of your opinion stated as facts. You don't even know my own opinion on banlieues. For all you know I could be in agreement with you on your main point: that the banlieues are a huge problem.

 

As for this part

 

I will not try to disway you, but reality has a way of forcing itself on those who ignore it.

I am not looking at the situation in banlieues through rose-colored glasses; I just happen to want some intellectual honesty when I am debating. Banlieues constitute a very serious problem, but they are not "no go zones," not according to your own source.

If there is a point I really want to make, I will not use an article as a source and then a) not read it fully, or at the very least the conclusion and b) misrepresent the views of the author. I will also not attempt to try and dismiss someone else's position by claiming they are just ignoring reality. As far as I'm concerned, this is a matter of intellectual integrity, regardless of how important the point I want to make is.

 

Anyway, I think I will bow out of this debate – I just gave my own answer to the OP who was asking for the opinion of Europeans, OP can either read it or dismiss it.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Mandamus

[kvnchrist]

I apologize for my words. I was and still am irritated about another situation in my life that you had nothing to do with. I should not have even come here, let alone have commented on your response. You are correct on your assessment of my accusations against you, but not about the news article.

 

I do need to take care of the issue at hand. I just wanted to apologize for going off the deep end with you. People who know me know I am not generally that way.

[Mandamus]

I apologize for my words. I was and still am irritated about another situation in my life that you had nothing to do with. I should not have even come here, let alone have commented on your response. You are correct on your assessment of my accusations against you, but not about the news article.

 

I do need to take care of the issue at hand. I just wanted to apologize for going off the deep end with you. People who know me know I am not generally that way.

Thank you for the post – much appreciated. I hope you will be able to deal with that situation.

 

To be honest, I don't feel a real need to defend the reputation of banlieues, nor to keep arguing on the points of the article, and as I said I do agree on the general assesment that banlieues are a very serious problem in France. So, with that in mind, I will probably keep away from that topic in the future.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Mandamus

[edgeburner]

I just gave my own answer to the OP who was asking for the opinion of Europeans, OP can either read it or dismiss it.

 

 

The OP read it, did not dismiss it, but, still doesn't know quite what to think. :)

 

I just know that Islamic extremist are becoming a huge problem throughout the world, and, that we shouldn't get hung-up on semantic technicalities....I don't give a damn what flavor of religion(s) have been corrupted in self-righteous indignity, It's the corrupters that are the enemy, not the religion....as has been the case throughout history.

 

Right now, at this moment in our history, it is Islamic extremist.....Period.

 

 

[Stronglav]

I advise you to think about this:A lot of muslim immigrants live in Europe.

But they refuse to obey to European laws and obey only to their own.

We all know what Shari law is right?Stoning to death and beheading.

Back to 14th Century!!No thanks.

I say wherever you agree or not we must make them obey our laws

or put them on the plane and send them back wherever they came from.

By force is necessary.

[edgeburner]

 

I do need to take care of the issue at hand. I just wanted to apologize for going off the deep end with you. People who know me know I am not generally that way.

Aye, I'll vouch . :)

 

hope things work out, K

[JimboUK]

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/22/report-uk-no-go-zones-sparking-tension-between-black-and-muslim-communities/

 

Worth a read.

[Stronglav]

This is simple.Where have you seen american blow himself up suicide bomber?

Or british?Or russian?

The only bombers I see around is those fanatic aggresive islamists.Simple.