Saturday, May 25, 2013

They're Rioting

Mike L.

Everywhere you look Arab youths are rioting. Whether in Sweden or England or Israel, they're rioting.
Arab Mob Pelts Firefighters With Rocks as They Put Out Blaze

An Israeli firefighter was injured in an Arab riot in Jerusalem Thursday morning, as he sought to put out a fire. The fire had broken next to the Arab village of Issawiya, which is within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem. A fire station is located close by, and a fire truck was dispatched to douse the blaze before it had a chance to spread too far.

The firefighters were greeted by a large mob of Arabs, who pelted them with stones and bricks. One firefighter was injured and was taken to Hadassah Mount Scopus Hospital for treatment. Police were called in to clear the area and allow the firefighters to continue putting out the blaze.
Meanwhile back in Europe, we read:
Swedish Riots Spread

A nearly week-long spate of rioting spread outside Stockholm on Friday but authorities said police reinforcements sent to the Swedish capital had reduced the violence there, even though dozens of youths set cars and a recycling station ablaze.

The rioting - set off earlier this month by the police shooting of a 69-year-old man - continued for a sixth night in mainly poor immigrant areas in Stockholm.

In a country with a reputation for openness, tolerance and a model welfare state, the rioting has exposed a fault-line between a well-off majority and a minority - often young people with immigrant backgrounds - who are poorly educated, cannot find work and feel pushed to the edge of society.
And in London the newspapers are all over a story about a recent Jihadi attack.
Family of slain soldier Lee Rigby: we thought he was safe in Britain


  1. The scrambling of said governments to blame themselves and appease those rioting colonists can't but give them the message that they should go on with their rioting, because it pays.

  2. The Stupid Jews should have allowed the building in the Arab village to burn down.

    Risking their lives for unappreciative savages is the last thing on earth they should have done.

  3. Shame the fire was so near Jerusalem otherwise they could have let it burn out

  4. In many parts of France, the banlieues or 'outskirts' are generally ghettos of north African Muslims surrounding large cities. They are considered in many cities, no-go zones for municipal services because it's too dangerous to provide, police, fire and EMS services. They are filled with young North Africans who by and large don't have never worked, don't go to school and instead form gangs who's stock in trade is violent crime and drugs. Woolwich Common is such a place in London - the lowest employment, the highest crime. Taken over by Somali and Nigerian gangs. Not to put too fine a point on it but this is why London took 14 minutes to send in the police. It's been designated a quasi Islamic autonomous zone - a no-go area. Husby in Stockholm is just like that - 85% Muslim immigrants who have never integrated into Swedish society and have increasingly self-ghettoized. In Israel's case there's not much to do about it - send in the services as needed and whenever they get attacked, withdraw and let the locals deal with it. If it becomes the standard behavior talk to whomever is self designated 'community leadership' and tell them they need to manage the problem on their own and perhaps should consider forming their own emergency services which the greater Jerusalem government can help subsidize the offset the savings of not having to do it themselves. Or not, which ever they think is in their interests. After all no one really cares unless it's to blame the Jews for something.

    1. Provide them with nothing! If they want services, let them tax themselves and provide for themselves.

      If they riot and burn down their own place, they should either be responsible for the cleanup costs or be paid to leave the country.

      They should be extended help if they demonstrate they are loyal citizens. If they don't want to join society, its only fair that they shouldn't get to partake of its benefits.

  5. England finally has a plan!!!


    The government also said it is forming a group to combat radical Muslim preachers and others whose words could encourage violence.

    Prime Minister David Cameron's office said the group aimed to fight radicalism in schools and mosques, tighten checks on inflammatory internet material, and disrupt the "poisonous narrative" of hardline clerics.

    Rigby's killing fuelled public anger about radical Islam. It has also raised questions over whether more could have done more to prevent the attack and put pressure on Cameron to tackle suspected militants more forcefully.

    Witnesses said the soldier's killers shouted Islamist slogans during the attack. Bystanders filmed one of the suspects saying it was in revenge for Britain's involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Successive British governments have wrestled with how to prevent people from becoming radicalized without alienating the wider population with draconian measures.

    Former British prime minister Tony Blair tried to tighten rules against hate preachers after the London bombings in 2005 that killed 52 commuters. The measures stirred a long debate over how to balance free speech and civil rights with a strong counter-terrorism strategy.

    Britain's two-party coalition government is divided over a planned new law that would allow police and spy agencies to monitor people's use of the internet and mobile phones.

    The Muslim Council of Britain, a religious umbrella group, said new government measures risked "making our society less free, divided and suspicious of each other".

  6. The UK typically puts the imams in question, in charge of the committees they appoint to investigate the imams. Nothing will come of this. The first time someone suggests curtailing lunatic violence, someone will write to the BBC and complain about it and 10 Downing will fold. They always do. And to be brutally cynical, they've never seen as anything more than the 'majority' being insufficiently piteous of the swarthies and such. The government will try to buy them off by expanding government payouts to community groups and giving them a bigger hand in schools and other civic institutions in the hope that if they only murder a few people, hopefully Jews, it will all be fine. At this point you've got to figure that Cameron's thinking he's got to hold on to power long enough for an orderly transition to sharia while avoiding civil war.

    1. Foxes guarding the henhouse....I get it. From what I'm reading the police ARE being deal with the EDL and people insulting Islam and Muslims. What could possible go wrong?

  7. I am exceedingly wary of taking a hostile view toward Islam, as a whole, or even more so, Muslims as a group.

    The problem to my mind - and this is what separates me from someone like Pamela Geller - is that I focus on the international movement for political Islam.

    This is where the hatred comes from, and therefore this is what we should be concerned with, but Islamists do not represent all self-identified Muslims.

    This distinction is crucial.

    This is not to argue that political Islam is necessarily inconsistent with the foundational tenets of the faith, however.

    The problem is a widespread political movement within the Islamic community that calls for Sharia.

    I would no more tar all Muslims with responsibility for this movement than I would tar all Christians for the Klan.

    The difference is that the Klan never had anything near the strength that political Islam does today. The Klan had considerable power in the south after the Civil War and had nation-wide influence in the 1920s, even to the extent of a large-scale march on Washington D.C., itself, and owning a number of governerships in the midwest. But the Klan never controlled the federal government.

    When I consider the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and what may be coming to Syria and what is already establishing itself in Lebanon and Libya, not to mention Iran, it is as if a Muslim version of the Ku Klux Klan had taken over these countries and, in some measure, was aided and abbed by the president of the United States.

    This is grotesque, but I am pretty sure that my friend Shafak had nothing to do with it.

    1. "...I focus on the international movement for political Islam."

      In Islam as in Judaism, there is no separation between religion and politics. The law-code central to them (halakhah in Judaism, shariah in Islam) regulates all facets of life, from the tying of shoelaces by individuals to the conduct of warfare by states.

      "...but Islamists do not represent all self-identified Muslims."

      In my opinion, "Islamist" is just a term invented in the West to support the narrative of an original non-imperialist Islam that has been hijacked. This narrative is not supported by the facts.

      "The problem is a widespread political movement within the Islamic community that calls for Sharia."

      In the 13th century, most Christians would call for burning heretics at the stake. As the 18th-century European Enlightenment has skipped over all but a thin upper layer of Muslims, most Muslims are still in that stage of taking their religion deadly seriously. True, there are many lax Muslims—those who don't call for shariah law just as there are lax Jews who don't keep Shabbat—but they don't have the clout, and more importantly, they're in mortal danger should they become open about their views.

      "I would no more tar all Muslims with responsibility for this movement than I would tar all Christians for the Klan."

      The Klan's racism doesn't rest on central Christian tenets; the call for implementing shariah law, on the other hand, is at the heart of Islam. You can't separate Islam's political ideology from the spiritual parts of the religion—such a "Render unto Caesar... and unto God" concept is alien to Islam (and to Judaism, for that matter, but Judaism is nationalistic rather than imperialistic, so its political ideology is localized to one nation on one land).

      Once again, I don't hold that this means a war against the entire Muslim world has to be waged. All that's needed is to keep Islamic imperialism off our countries.

      "...but I am pretty sure that my friend Shafak had nothing to do with it."

      Let us hope Shafak doesn't become stronger in his religious observance.

    2. Zion, it's unclear to me just where the heart of our disagreement lies.

      I understand that there is no ideological inconsistency between Islam and political Islam. I draw the distinction in order to highlight the difference between regular Muslims who are merely seeking to get by in the world and those who are part of the movement for political Islam.

      "Once again, I don't hold that this means a war against the entire Muslim world has to be waged. All that's needed is to keep Islamic imperialism off our countries."

      Agreed. That's one way of saying what I was saying.

    3. Mike, I think maybe our disagreement lies in my thinking that those Muslims who are merely seeking to get by in the world are not the regular ones; that, while the active jihadists are very few, those who stand with them constitute the majority of Muslims worldwide. Operatively this means the idea of using the Muslim communities to police the jihadists won't work.

      The only way coexistence with Islam could work is if a reinterpretation of the imperialist passages in the Koran became mainstream, the way the supersessionist, Jew-hating passages in the Christian New Testament ("His blood be upon us and our children") are now reinterpreted by the majority of Christians in a way that absolves the Jews of guilt. Unfortunately, with all the governments rushing to appease the jihadists, there is no incentive for such a reinterpretation to take place, let alone become mainstream; as I said, the extant imperialist interpretations are strengthened by the visible fact that jihad pays dividends. Capitulation to jihadist rampages makes it impossible for an Enlightened (capital-E on purpose) version of Islam to emerge.

    4. I wonder, if political Islam was the norm, whether among regular Muslims there would be much opposition to the repressive character of the society.

      Would they go along like in Germany? Would there be a number that speak out? We hear from many that the repression does not represent Islam, yet so few Muslims, relatively speaking, condemn the excesses of political Islam and its overlap into the practice of the religion.

      Perhaps if the West was more bold in confronting political Islam, rather than reacting to it, these regular Muslims we hear so much about would have opportunity to speak out without the fear that exists today.