| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
In FrontPage this morning I survey the rioting in France, its causes, and why it will probably not be addressed properly by French authorities (many links in the original):
Riots have now continued for eight days in and around Paris. Thursday night, November 3, Muslim rioters burned 315 cars. In the previous week, they torched 177 vehicles and burned numerous businesses, a post office, and two schools. They have rampaged through twenty towns and shot at police and firemen. In an episode that summed up the failure of France’s efforts to create a domestic, domesticated Islam, when moderate Muslim leader Dalil Boubakeur, head of the Paris mosque, tried to restore calm, his car was pelted with stones and he had to rush away.The riots began on October 27 when two Muslim teenagers ran from police who were checking identification papers — why they ran is as yet unclear. The police did not chase them, but evidently the teenagers thought they were being chased; they eventually hid in an electrical power sub-station, where they accidentally electrocuted themselves. That night young Muslims took to the streets for the first time, throwing rocks and bottles at police, burning cars, and vandalizing property. The next day rioters, throwing rocks, bottles, and Molotov cocktails, injured twenty-three police officers in the Paris suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois. The violence continued over the next few days: more destroyed vehicles and injured police officers.
Then on Sunday, October 30, a tear gas shell hit a mosque, further enraging local Muslims; French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy stated somewhat cryptically, “I am, of course, available to the imam of the Clichy mosque to let him have all the details in order to understand how and why a tear gas bomb was sent into this mosque.” Since then the riots have continued unabated, defying appeals for calm from French President Jacques Chirac and others. The crisis now threatens to swamp the French government.
Why have the riots happened? From many accounts one would think that the riots have been caused by France’s failure to implement Marxism. “The unrest,” AP explained, has highlighted the division between France’s big cities and their poor suburbs, with frustration simmering in the housing projects in areas marked by high unemployment, crime and poverty.” Another AP story declared flatly that the riots were over “poor conditions in Paris-area housing projects.”
Reuters agreed with AP’s attribution of all the unrest to economic injustice, and added in a suggestion of racism: “The unrest in the northern and eastern suburbs, heavily populated by North African and black African minorities, have been fuelled by frustration among youths in the area over their failure to get jobs and recognition in French society.” Deutsche Presse Agentur called the high-rise public housing in the Paris suburbs “a long-time flashpoint of unemployment, crime and other social problems.”
One might get the impression from this that France is governed by top-hatted, cigar-smoking capitalists, building their fortunes on the backs of the poor, rather than by socialists and quasi-socialists who have actually strained the economy by spending huge amounts of money on health and welfare programs. Nor does the idea that the rioting has been caused by economic inequalities explain why Catholics and others who are poor in France have not joined the Muslims who are rioting. Of course, all the news agencies have either omitted or mentioned only in passing that the rioters are Muslims at all. The casual reader would not be able to escape the impression that what is happening in France is all about economics — and race.
The areas hardest hit by the riots, according to Reuters, are “home to North African and black African minorities that feel excluded from French society.” AP shed some light on this feeling of exclusion: “the violence also cast doubt on the success of France’s model of seeking to integrate its large immigrant community — its Muslim population, at an estimated 5 million, is Western Europe’s largest — by playing down differences between ethnic groups. Rather than feeling embraced as full and equal citizens, immigrants and their French-born children complain of police harassment and of being refused jobs, housing and opportunities.”So evidently France’s failure to live up to its policy of playing down the differences between ethnic groups has bred the simmering anger that has now boiled over in the riots. However, in fact France has done just the opposite of playing down the differences between ethnic groups. In her seminal Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, historian Bat Ye’or details a series of agreements between the European Union and the Arab League that guaranteed that Muslim immigrants in Europe would not be compelled in any way to adapt “to the customs of the host countries.” On the contrary, the Euro-Arab Dialogue’s Hamburg Symposium of 1983, to take just one of many examples, recommended that non-Muslim Europeans be made “more aware of the cultural background of migrants, by promoting cultural activities of the immigrant communities or ‘supplying adequate information on the culture of the migrant communities in the school curricula.’” Not only that: “Access to the mass media had to be facilitated to the migrants in order to ensure ‘regular information in their own language about their own culture as well as about the conditions of life in the host country.”[1]
The European Union has implemented such recommendations for decades — so far from playing down the differences between ethnic groups, they have instead stood by approvingly while immigrants formed non-assimilated Islamic enclaves within Europe. Indeed, as Bat Ye’or demonstrates, they have assured the Arab League in multiple agreements that they would aid in the creation and maintenance of such enclaves. Ignorance of the jihad ideology among European officials has allowed that ideology to spread in those enclaves, unchecked until relatively recently.
Consequently, among a generation of Muslims born in Europe, significant numbers have nothing but contempt and disdain for their native lands, and allegiance only to the Muslim umma and the lands of their parents’ birth. Those who continue to arrive in Europe from Muslim countries are encouraged by the isolation, self-imposed and other-abetted, of the Islamic communities in Europe to hold to the same attitudes. The Arab European League, a Muslim advocacy group operating in Belgium and the Netherlands, states as part of its “vision and philosophy” that “we believe in a multicultural society as a social and political model where different cultures coexist with equal rights under the law.” It strongly rejects for Muslims any idea of assimilation or integration into European societies: “We do not want to assimilate and we do not want to be stuck somewhere in the middle. We want to foster our own identity and culture while being law abiding and worthy citizens of the countries where we live. In order to achieve that it is imperative for us to teach our children the Arabic language and history and the Islamic faith. We will resist any attempt to strip us of our right to our own cultural and religious identity, as we believe it is one of the most fundamental human rights.” AEL founder Dyab Abou Jahjah, who was himself arrested in November 2002 and charged with inciting Muslims in Antwerp to riot (Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt said that the AEL was “trying to terrorize the city”[2]), has declared: “Assimilation is cultural rape. It means renouncing your identity, becoming like the others.” He implied that European Muslims had a right to bring the ideology of jihad and Sharia to Europe, complaining that in Europe “I could still eat certain dishes from the Middle East, but I cannot have certain thoughts that are based on ideologies and ideas from the Middle East.”
What kind of ideologies? Perhaps Hani Ramadan, grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan Al-Banna and brother of the famed self-proclaimed moderate Muslim spokesman Tariq Ramadan, gave a hint when he defended the traditional Islamic Sharia punishment of stoning for adultery in the Paris journal Le Monde. In Denmark, politician Fatima Shah echoed the same sentiments in November 2004. That same month, filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, who had made a film, Submission, about the oppression of women by Islamic law, was murdered in Holland by a Muslim, Mohammed Bouyeri. Bouyeri later declared in court: “I did what I did purely out my beliefs. I want you to know that I acted out of conviction and not that I took his life because he was Dutch or because I was Moroccan and felt insulted.” In other words, his problem was religious, not racial: Van Gogh had blasphemed Islam, and so according to Islamic law he had to die. Significantly, Bouyeri maintained during his trial that he did not recognize the authority of the Dutch court, but only of the law of Islam.
How many European Muslims share the sentiments of Mohammed Bouyeri? How many of these are rioting this week in Paris? Alleviating Muslim unemployment and poverty will not ultimately do anything to alter this rejection of European values by growing numbers of people who are only geographically Europeans. And the problem cannot be ignored. For France is not alone: Muslims in Århus, Denmark have also been rioting this week. And in France, Sarkozy recently revealed that this week’s riots are just a particularly virulent flare-up of an ongoing pattern of violence: he told Le Monde that twenty to forty cars are set afire nightly in Paris’ restive Muslim suburbs, and no fewer than nine thousand police cars have been stoned since the beginning of 2005.
Blame for the riots in France has thus far focused on Sarkozy’s tough talk about ending this violence. On October 19 he declared of the suburbs that “they have to be cleaned — we’re going to make them as clean as a whistle.” Six days after this, Muslim protestors threw stones and bottles at him when he visited the suburb of Argenteuil. He has been roundly criticized for calling the rioters “scum”; one of them responded, “We’re not scum. We’re human beings, but we’re neglected.” However, as a solution the same man recommended only more neglect, saying of the Paris riot police: “If they didn’t come here, into our area, nothing would happen. If they come here it’s to provoke us, so we provoke back.” Others complained of rough treatment they have received since 9/11 from police searching for terrorists: “It’s the way they stop and search people, kneeing them between the legs as they put them up against the wall. They get students mixed up with the worst offenders, yet these young people have done nothing wrong.”
But of course, all these problems are exacerbated by the non-assimilation policy that both the French government and the Muslim population have for so long pursued: the rioters are part of a population that has never considered itself French. Nor do French officials seem able or willing to face that this is the core of their problem today. It is likely that the riots will result only in intensification of the problems that caused them: if French officials offer an accommodation to Muslims, it will probably result only in further intensification of the Islamic identity, often in its most radical manifestations, among French Muslims. The French response to the riots is likely to unfold along the lines of a decision by officials in Holland last May: they declined to ban a book called De weg van de Moslim (The Way of the Muslim), even though it calls for homosexuals to be thrown head first off tall buildings. The Amsterdam city council did not want to contravene “the freedom to express opinions.”
That decision is a small example of what the Paris riots demonstrate on a large scale: the abject failure of the multiculturalist philosophy that disparate groups can coexist within a nation without any idea that they must share at least some basic values. The French are paying the price today for blithely assuming that France could absorb a population holding values vastly different from that of the host population without negative consequences for either.
That French officials show no sign, on the eighth day of the Paris riots, of recognizing that this clash of values is the heart of the problem only guarantees that before they will be able to say that their difficulties with their Muslim population are behind them, many more cars will be torched, many more buildings burned, and many more lives destroyed.
Notes:
[1] Bat Ye’or, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2005. P. 97.
[2] Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, “Ex-Hezbollah charged with inciting rioting,” London Daily Telegraph, November 30, 2002.
Posted by Robert at November 4, 2005 5:47 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
So it appears that in Mr. Spencer’s opinion the French government and people learned nothing useful. May be what they need is giving the Muslims bigger more decked out flats to house large Muslim families in Andalusian style surroundings, huge welfare checks, state subsided grand mosques on every corner, Muslim only toilets and ritual wash rooms, separate Quranic schools, forcing the all infidels to study Islam in school, turning all churches into either mosques or shelters with the alter as a toilet and the bible as toilet paper.
Posted by: have_mercy![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 4, 2005 6:45 AM
Une cousine vachement sympha insiste la joie soit envoyee. (A very hip Magrabian sister insists the joy be spread)
"Many residents said they were sympathetic to the anger of young French citizens of largely sub-Saharan and North African descent but could not understand why rioters were targeting cars and buildings in their already impoverished areas.
'They are stupid. They are destroying everything,' said an 18-year-old who gave her name only as Mariam. 'They should do that in southwest Paris or at the National Assembly - not here. People here are suffering already.'"
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20051103/D8DL2D002.html
Posted by: David England at November 4, 2005 7:04 AM
Nice effort Robert...you put it all there in black and white.
What a rubic's cube for the Left; immigrants who have no expressed desire to assimilate...rioting because they're marginalized.
at November 4, 2005 7:06 AM
One of the most complete articles I have read about the failures and consequences of multiculturalism.
What defines a country? The land and the people.
What defines a people? A common language, a common heritage, and kinship. Those three are what makes society strong and stable.
This doesn't mean that immigration is necessarily a bad thing. A responsible immigration policy will limit the number of immigrants and distribute them amongst the host population (instead of placing them all in the same cities where they feel no need to integrate), and will give them time to adapt, integrate and ultimately assimilate into the host population. The first generation of immigrants should preserve their roots. The second should blend their ancestral roots with those of the host country. The third should be completely integrated.
When in Rome, do as the Romans. Don't like it? Get yourself a place ticket to Algiers.
The French are too "polite". A few years ago, a lot of Manchester United fans decided to start a riot in Oporto: windows were broken, shops vandalized, and the locals were terrified. Of course, what the hooligans didn't know is that in this part of the world we don't treat scum with silk gloves, and it was a sight to see how the National Republican Guard cavalry sent them packing with their tails between their legs back to Heathrow airport.
My advice to the Paris police: rioters are cowards. Don't use rubber bullets: surround a bunch of those thugs burning stuff and shoot to kill. Use snipers, use the GIGN, use what you have to use but do it in a way so that they don't even know who is shooting at them. That will teach all the others already planning to join the band that crime doesn't pay.
Posted by: cruzado at November 4, 2005 7:31 AM
"AP shed some light on this feeling of exclusion: 'the violence also cast doubt on the success of France’s model of seeking to integrate its large immigrant community — its Muslim population, at an estimated 5 million, is Western Europe’s largest — by playing down differences between ethnic groups. Rather than feeling embraced as full and equal citizens, immigrants and their French-born children complain of police harassment and of being refused jobs, housing and opportunities.'"
My own suspicion is that the two youths who electrocuted themselves were probably illegals who couldn't produce ID and that's why they took flight, as, doubtless are many of the rioters.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 4, 2005 8:18 AM
...they must share at least some basic values...
The minimum configuration of those values in France are defined succinctly and comprehensively by three words: liberté, égalité, fraternité.
Liberté: the ultimate expression of the core idea that almost singlehandedly defines the miracle of the Age of Enlightenment. It is the notion that Mankind is composed of soveriegn individuals, at last shorn of the shackles of superstition and possessing the inalienable right to engage in unfettered inquiry about his place in the Cosmos. Liberty is the antithesis of submission. It is fundamentally incompatible and mutually exclusive with the immutable essence of Islam. STRIKE ONE.
Égalité: the notion that all men and women possess the inalienable right to fair, impartial and equal treatment under the law. It is the explicit recognition that the allocation of the most basic human rights can never be conditioned upon race, gender, or belief. In the allocation of human rights there can be no divide between the dark and the light, the male and the female, the believer and the non-believer. It is enshrined in the rule of law, parliamentary law, democratic law, soveriegnty vested in the People law. Again, a fundamental and immutable disconnect with the ideolgy of Islam. STRIKE TWO.
Fraternité: the brotherhood of citoyens, not of family or tribes, not of believers, not of fellow immigrants, not of same gender, class, language, or cultural identity. "Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security." (Quran 3:28). "O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk, who would spare no pains to ruin you; they love to hamper you. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their mouths, but that which their breasts hide is greater. We have made plain for you the revelations if ye will understand." (Quran 3:118). STRIKE THREE.
Muslims will never be assimilated into the French nation. Muslims are perpetual inhabitants of a parallel universe of their own choosing. As in all countries to which they have emigrated, they do not come to integrate, they come to interleave, to metastasise, to conquer, to destroy, to kill, to war against those who harbour in their hearts and minds all that is imported by three simple words: liberté, égalité, fraternité.
They are the enemy of France and everything for which she stands. Paris is burning. Paris is burning.
Posted by: Hulegu Khan at November 4, 2005 8:37 AM
To put paid to the idea that racism makes it imposible to succeed in France.
I was watching a special on France this summer, one part of the show covered how French tobacco shops are now the speciality of Vietnamese immigrants.
They interviewed one such immigrant, who talked about how he worked and saved to buy his own shop. The man still worked long, hard hours (along with his family) to make his business successful.
And successful it was. The shop was filled with "racist" french buying his product, peacefully and profitably.
What is the difference between this man and the "youths" who are rioting?
Posted by: treehugger at November 4, 2005 9:33 AM
Thanks Hegulu. I have mailed your post to all the socialists in my address book who still accept incoming mail from me.
Truth makes them very angry indeed.
Posted by: Sebastien at November 4, 2005 9:55 AM
Read historical tracts on Muslim history and contemporary news accounts of the spread of Islam in other parts of the world. The pattern is exactly the same.
Posted by: epg at November 4, 2005 10:00 AM
From David England's link -
Suburban residents said calming the violence will take more than police force, and they accused Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy of fueling tempers by calling troublemakers "scum."
"Sarkozy's language has added oil to the fire. He should really weigh his words," said Kaci, who immigrated from Algeria. "I'm proud to live in France, but this France disappoints me."
What they are saying is "dhimmis are not allowed to complain about rioting, destructive muslim "youths".
Posted by: Carolyn2 at November 4, 2005 10:31 AM
"What defines a country? The land and the people."
-- posted by cruzado
Islam -- a fake religion that masks a portable theocratic nation -- is rendering the heretofore accurate definition posted above to be increasingly mistaken.
An upgraded definition of "country" or "nation" is required.
PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH
nation
n
a. A relatively large group of people organized under a single ideology that willfully renders people sharing that ideology as separate, distinct, and counterposed against those who do not.
b. A people who share participation, either actively or tacitly, in an cohesive self-defined system of beliefs, customs, laws, and military pursuits organized to subsume all peoples who do not share such participation.
PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH
Thus spake the Nation of Islam.
Look for that nattily attired and devout Moslem the one and only Malik Zulu Shabazz to take the helm here as President of the Islamic Republic of Amerika. He went to Harvard, you know. He's aggrieve for past indignities and wants reparations. Cash!
Posted by: Chaz MarteL 732 at November 4, 2005 12:28 PM
Got a problem here Mr Spencer, Cornelius and all. How does one permit and protect the linquisitic and cultural identity of one set of citizens, without being considered hypocrites and having double standards by forcing assimilation on another set of citizens.
This is not in any way an excuse or apologia for Muslims (far from it, I would like to see all Muslims transplanted in lands of Shari'a where they long for and belong), not is it antisemitic, but reading Mr Spencers article, I could help but think how it would sound if perhaps the Words Arab and Muslim were replaced with Hebrew and Jew.
And as regards Multiculturalism, my knowledge of history is not selective. The Gangs of New York, the Nativists, were vehemently anti multiculturalist, and there was anti Multiculturalist objections (riots and exclusivist practises) exercised against the immigrant waves of Ashkenazim, Irish, Italians, Hispanics (like Cubano's and Mexicans), Russians, Germans (they actually did hang Germans from lamposts in NJ and NY during WWI..forcing a lot of German Americans to change their names from the Likes of say a Weisskessel to say Whitekettle).
And then there are the non Anglo Saxon, mid east Christians, say of Melkite persuasion, who have benefited from American's Multiculturalism and PC.
Ah the vehement antipathy towards Political correctness and multiculturalism can be found on virtually every website that has a population of neo NAZI's, racists and antisemites in general.
Revising a selection of Spencers article.
The (insert any cultural identity) League, a (insert any cultural identity)advocacy group operating in Belgium and the Netherlands, states as part of its “vision and philosophy” that “we believe in a multicultural society as a social and political model where different cultures coexist with equal rights under the law.” It strongly rejects for (insert any cultural identity) any idea of assimilation or integration into European societies: “We do not want to assimilate and we do not want to be stuck somewhere in the middle. We want to foster our own identity and culture while being law abiding and worthy citizens of the countries where we live. In order to achieve that it is imperative for us to teach our children the language and history and the Islamic faith. We will resist any attempt to strip us of our right to our own cultural and religious identity, as we believe it is one of the most fundamental human rights.”
My point here friends is that it is self defeating and hypocritical to point out continuously the sins of the left, and the problem of PC multiculturalism, because it is a two edged sword that swings both ways. The broom sweeps too broad. Time to use the noggin and start painting with a fine brush, and also time to lay the blame where it belongs, on the greedy corporatists and self righteous, short sighted ideologues of the right as well as the airheaded ideologues of the left. Time to rethink everything, if a real solution to the problem is desired. On the other hand if venting alone has an ameliorative effect, regardless of consequences, even those unintended adverse ones we should all fear, then press on
at November 4, 2005 2:10 PM
My dear Giaour -- er, that is, Nariz:
The problem with your scenario is that no other group besides the Muslims has a comprehensive program to impose its own laws and mores on a society to which it immigrates.
There is nothing wrong with maintaining one's own culture as long as one accepts the values and laws of the host country.
The Muslims rioting in Paris don't.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at November 4, 2005 2:13 PM
From tired out post above:
"...Time to use the noggin and start painting with a fine brush, and also time to lay the blame where it belongs, on the greedy corporatists and self righteous, short sighted ideologues of the right as well as the airheaded ideologues of the left...."
NO 'friend' -- The blame belongs squarely and primarily on the Muslim fascist and his world supremacist ideology -- and as a subsidiary issue -- blame belongs to ALL in the West who abet the Islamic fascist's project, and this includes fantasist leftists (such as yourself) who habitually mis-identify the enemy and thereby confuse the issue and prevent true understanding...
This battle against Islamism must not be treated as an opportunity for the cynical left to finally push their threadbare agendas through by piggybacking or coat-tailing onto the fight against Islamism... To treat it as such is a betrayal of the West, and represents a form of aid and comfort for the Islamist enemy.
Your own rhetoric often uncannily matches that of the Islamist, and the targets of your rage are identical to the rhetoric and targets of the Islamist fascist: Christians -- capitalists -- etc... Does this ever give you pause? You both appear determined to undermine and subvert the Western world for your own respective ideologies. You even appear to allege that this site has a neoNazi flavor to it -- did I read your post above correctly? If so, it is a scurrilous allegation..
UBL's brilliance partially lay in his ability to cleave the diamond of Western pluralism along such deep faultlines that it may prove impossible for the factions to come together to wage a unified fight. This has hampered the Western response so far --
Meanwhile, Islamism metastasizes, and gains in strength, while we fall apart and dither... It should come as no surprise that your rhetoric is criticized and even considered dangerous when it often shares so many planks with that of the Islamic fascist. You both sound alike at times -- both eager to remake the West in your own image and impose your smug sensibilities of right and wrong...
Posted by: jsla at November 4, 2005 4:43 PM
Nariz:
You have the irritating habit of drawing a moral equivalence where none is deserved. Then you advance some argument based on your false premise and expect to score points with us. You are deluded.
When you compare a poster's loathing of islamism with the Nazi's loathing of Jews, you make a mistake of analogy that destroys your argument amongst all who actually understand argument.
You mistake the action of the verb as carrying the equivalence. It does not. And, even if it did, your objects (islamism and Jews, or even islam and judaism) are not truly parallel in any sense outside of the semantic. Mr Spencer has pointed out your error with respect to certain critical characteristics, which makes your analogy fail.
You remind me of a saying attributed to Mark Twain: A cat, having sat on a hot stove lid, will never sit on a hot stove lid again. Nor will it ever sit on a cold stove lid.
To the cat, all stove lids are equal. What makes this humorous is that we know there is a difference between hot and cold, which is the true and critical fact ignored by the cat.
Since you are such a good shot, I will give YOU an anology. Suppose a black man comes onto my ranch, tries to rob me, and I shoot him. Suppose a second black man comes onto my neighbor's ranch, tries to ask for a job, and my neighbor (ignorant of my experience) shoots HIM. Is there an equivalence? According to your argument, the answer is Yes because both men are shot. By your argument, you would also go further and say that both men share an important characteristic (blackness), so that makes the shootings equal. According to King tolerance, who hangs around here on occassion, the answer is Yes, but for a different reason, that being RACISM. King tolerance is a closet racist, so he is always blinded when you dangle that shiny object in front of him, and he cannot help it. You are a little smarter than he is, so I would expect you to avoid the racism trap.
Of course the real answer is given in the set-up if you understand the simple difference between robbery and asking for a job. This might be easier to see if I tell you that both my neighbor and I are also black, and that our "ranches" are really only three or four acres each. We are not rich.
The characteristics of the subject are important, too. But they are not givens. In your comparison you are drawing conclusions about those characteristics.
I find it interesting that the moral certainty with which you detest the object of your wrath, derives from the ethical system of the very ones you detest. Why is that?
Posted by: texan at November 5, 2005 3:33 AM
Texan~ nariz/giaour does seem to have a moral certainty that many posters here are white, conservative, Christian, and not very smart. His comment to 3rdtimelucky that he was morally, physically and mentally superior to 3rd (and most others, from his rhetoric), smacks of the kind of thing we defeated 60 years ago. Especially when he stated to another poster here that he was suffering from a 'neurological disorder' (ie, anyone who believes in a Higher Authority), and then laughed about it. It was said some 70 years ago that one particular ethnic group was suffering from a similar disorder... and straight to the gas ovens they went. Not the kind of thinking I want anywhere near a government office.
Posted by: Gary at November 5, 2005 6:05 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)