What is wrong with you people?
I mean, really, what is your problem?
You
people, you media jackals, are having crazy attacks because Louisiana
Gov. Bobby Jindal dared say there are areas in Europe, heavily populated
by Muslims, which effectively are "no-go zones" because police and other non-Muslims are largely unwelcome.
Oh, the humanity! Jindal dared trigger a politically correct trip wire! How could he?!?
Isn't it terrible when somebody tells an inconvenient truth?
Daniel
Pipes is a somewhat controversial but widely respected historian and
expert on Middle Eastern affairs who has taught at Harvard and the
University of Chicago and served in multiple diplomatic roles. Since
2006, Pipes has maintained and published a list of "no-go zones" in France - places "that the French state doesn't fully control."
One year and five days before Jindal's remarks, the London Times quoted Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Tom Winsor,
thusly: "Some parts of Britain have their own forms of justice." And:
"There are communities from other cultures who would prefer to police
themselves." In those places, Muslim patrol groups enforce Sharia law,
confiscating alcohol, forcing women to cover their skin, acting as
vigilantes without police interference.
As far back as 2006, the
respected writer Claire Berlinski published the book "Menace in Europe,"
whose dust-jacket summary's second sentence described a Europe with
Islamic "ghettos so hopeless and violent that even police won't enter
them." In those Islamic enclaves, Berlinski wrote, the residents "view
assimilation as something literally worse than death."
In 2011,
the Gatestone Institute also reported on "no-go zones," noting that a
group called Muslims Against the Crusades had launched a campaign to
turn 12 British cities into You are entering a Sharia controlled zone: Islamic rules enforced.' "And
on and on go the stories - fact-based reporting by reputable sources -
of areas in Europe that indisputably amount to what Jindal carefully and
accurately said were "so-called 'no-go zones.' "
Yet when Jindal
dared say it, in this era where President Barack Obama insists that it
is a horrible sin of insensitivity to identify terrorists and
lawbreakers as being Islamist, the wrath of a herd-mentality media came
down on Jindal's head. One would have thought, from reading the
fulminations against him, that Jindal was prevaricating and demagoguing
like, oh, maybe Bill Clinton.
All over the country, the columnists spewed forth to blast him,
saying there is no truth in his assertions. Here at home, Louisiana
papers have accused him of "fact-famished scandal-mongering," among other alleged crimes against good taste.
But
as shown above, Jindal's claims, far from being empty, are based on a
veritable cornucopia of facts. After all, the French government itself
maintains a Web page called the "Atlas des Zones urbaines sensibles," meaning a listing of "sensitive urban zones," 751 of them containing 5 million inhabitants, where police lack some control.
Indeed,
as long ago as 2002, center-left columnist David Ignatius, in the New
York Times - a winner of the Legion of Honor from the French Republic,
no less - was writing that "Arab gangs regularly vandalize synagogues"
in France while the heavily Muslim/North African suburbs there "have
become no-go zones at night, and the French continue to shrug their
shoulders."
So what did Jindal say that was wrong? Why should he
apologize? Rather than being ashamed of our governor, Louisianans in
this case should be proud of him for cutting through the ignorant fog of
euphemisms and for confronting the cowardly kowtowing to purveyors of a
brutish ideology. Like Ronald Reagan bravely and rightly calling the
Soviet Union an "evil empire," Jindal was telling a crucial truth.
The
truth, as Jindal put it (after obligatory words differentiating
moderate Muslims from extremists), is this: "Radical Islamists do not
believe in freedom or common decency nor are they willing to accommodate
them in any way and anywhere." And: "Sharia law is not just different
than our law, it's not just a cultural difference, it is oppression and
it is wrong. It subjugates women and treats them as property, and it is
antithetical to valuing all of human life equally."
Jindal is right. Deal with it. And stop caterwauling.
"an inconvenient truth"
I mean, really, what is your problem?
You
people, you media jackals, are having crazy attacks because Louisiana
Gov. Bobby Jindal dared say there are areas in Europe, heavily populated
by Muslims, which effectively are "no-go zones" because police and other non-Muslims are largely unwelcome.
Oh, the humanity! Jindal dared trigger a politically correct trip wire! How could he?!?
Isn't it terrible when somebody tells an inconvenient truth?
Daniel
Pipes is a somewhat controversial but widely respected historian and
expert on Middle Eastern affairs who has taught at Harvard and the
University of Chicago and served in multiple diplomatic roles. Since
2006, Pipes has maintained and published a list of "no-go zones" in France - places "that the French state doesn't fully control."
One year and five days before Jindal's remarks, the London Times quoted Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Tom Winsor,
thusly: "Some parts of Britain have their own forms of justice." And:
"There are communities from other cultures who would prefer to police
themselves." In those places, Muslim patrol groups enforce Sharia law,
confiscating alcohol, forcing women to cover their skin, acting as
vigilantes without police interference.
As far back as 2006, the
respected writer Claire Berlinski published the book "Menace in Europe,"
whose dust-jacket summary's second sentence described a Europe with
Islamic "ghettos so hopeless and violent that even police won't enter
them." In those Islamic enclaves, Berlinski wrote, the residents "view
assimilation as something literally worse than death."
In 2011,
the Gatestone Institute also reported on "no-go zones," noting that a
group called Muslims Against the Crusades had launched a campaign to
turn 12 British cities into You are entering a Sharia controlled zone: Islamic rules enforced.' "And
on and on go the stories - fact-based reporting by reputable sources -
of areas in Europe that indisputably amount to what Jindal carefully and
accurately said were "so-called 'no-go zones.' "
Yet when Jindal
dared say it, in this era where President Barack Obama insists that it
is a horrible sin of insensitivity to identify terrorists and
lawbreakers as being Islamist, the wrath of a herd-mentality media came
down on Jindal's head. One would have thought, from reading the
fulminations against him, that Jindal was prevaricating and demagoguing
like, oh, maybe Bill Clinton.
All over the country, the columnists spewed forth to blast him,
saying there is no truth in his assertions. Here at home, Louisiana
papers have accused him of "fact-famished scandal-mongering," among other alleged crimes against good taste.
But
as shown above, Jindal's claims, far from being empty, are based on a
veritable cornucopia of facts. After all, the French government itself
maintains a Web page called the "Atlas des Zones urbaines sensibles," meaning a listing of "sensitive urban zones," 751 of them containing 5 million inhabitants, where police lack some control.
Indeed,
as long ago as 2002, center-left columnist David Ignatius, in the New
York Times - a winner of the Legion of Honor from the French Republic,
no less - was writing that "Arab gangs regularly vandalize synagogues"
in France while the heavily Muslim/North African suburbs there "have
become no-go zones at night, and the French continue to shrug their
shoulders."
So what did Jindal say that was wrong? Why should he
apologize? Rather than being ashamed of our governor, Louisianans in
this case should be proud of him for cutting through the ignorant fog of
euphemisms and for confronting the cowardly kowtowing to purveyors of a
brutish ideology. Like Ronald Reagan bravely and rightly calling the
Soviet Union an "evil empire," Jindal was telling a crucial truth.
The
truth, as Jindal put it (after obligatory words differentiating
moderate Muslims from extremists), is this: "Radical Islamists do not
believe in freedom or common decency nor are they willing to accommodate
them in any way and anywhere." And: "Sharia law is not just different
than our law, it's not just a cultural difference, it is oppression and
it is wrong. It subjugates women and treats them as property, and it is
antithetical to valuing all of human life equally."
Jindal is right. Deal with it. And stop caterwauling.
"an inconvenient truth"
