Charles Krauthammer makes this interesting observation: we are now in a new stage of the war on terror. ( http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396499/obama-charlie-who-char... ; focusing not on his complaints about Obama, but on terror attacks )
Stage one: terrorists from abroad come into the West to attack. 9/11.
Stage two: lone-wolf terrorists within the West attack their countrymen.
Stage three: linkup -- homegrown terrorists in the West coordinated and instructed from abroad.
Is this the beginning of something, or can France and others roll it back?
Meanwhile, in the Third World, we've gone from terror attacks to conquest of territory (Iraq, Syria, Nigeria).
Also in the Third World, the newly conquered areas are under rule by terror (not to be confused with terrorism); that's a new development. Maybe it'll be temporary, or end after all Christians, pagans, Yazidi, and Muslims of the wrong branch are exterminated.
There are also things that aren't new but are being noticed more. [Edit: removing reference to French "no-go" zones -- I haven't had time to vet the story.] The terror of living Jewish in France. What else?
So: what else do we know, or can we infer, about general trends? And what's next?
Ethnic cleansing in France is under way; maybe that's really stage 3.
Another idea comes from this video (link below). I find it hard to believe, and would like confirmation (or better yet, refutation!). But if it's true, I think we can see stage four being prepared: homegrown terrorist cells organized, trained, and directed within the US. I don't know how long it takes to lay the groundwork for attack, but surely it won't be too long before we see the outcome (again, if this is authentic).
"No-go zones" are a myth.
The first evidence is that the sources of this information are so misinformed, so grossly negligent in their "reporting" that it is difficult not to call it willful ignorance and propaganda.
Steve Emerson claimed that the entire city of Birmingham, U.K., was a "no-go zone". The Prime Minister said he choked on his porridge when he heard that. Props to Emerson for sticking it to the PM, but he was clearly so wrong that he offered an apology. Birmingham is a city of over a million with a wide variety of religious, ethnic, and social communities, which all seem to get along. The police and other government agencies can and do go where they need to go.
I have clearly made a terrible error for which I am deeply sorry. My comments about Birmingham were totally in error. And I am issuing this apology and correction for having made this comment about the beautiful city of Birmingham. I do not intend to justify or mitigate my mistake by stating that I had relied on other sources because I should have been much more careful. There was no excuse for making this mistake and I owe an apology to every resident of Birmingham. I am not going to make any excuses. I made an inexcusable error. And I am obligated to openly acknowledge that mistake. I wish to apologize for all residents of that great city of Birmingham.
Nolan Peterson claimed on 10 January that there were no-go zones across France. He made a reference to about 750 such zones. However, Peterson didn't bother (or deliberately omitted) to say that these were the special urban zones as designated by French law.
This is also demonstrably untrue. These claims are really making it easy for other media outlets to mock Fox News, which gives a platform for all of these erroneous statements.
Peterson claims, "You see young men wearing Osama bin Laden t-shirts in hookah shops." He has been to Paris once, a decade ago. Is that a reliable methodology?
Let's take a look at these supposed no-go zones today. As reported by Bloomberg news, a resident of the "no-go zone" responds:
"That's pretty funny," says Hait Abbas, a non-practicing Muslim who runs a wine shop in a Paris neighborhood among those identified by Peterson as a no-go zone. Far from being Muslim-dominated, the neighborhood near the Gare du Nord train station bustles with Italian delis, African hair-braiding shops, and Chinese massage parlors. If it's governed by Islamic law, Abbas says, "I guess I better cut my hand off."
The Local, an English language news service with bureaus in many major European cities and reporters actually on the ground in Paris (unlike Emerson or Peterson), records another resident of the “no-go zone” in the 18th Arrondissement:
"And of course non-Muslims are welcome. Everybody is. The atmosphere is very social, everybody sticks together. You could walk into that restaurant right now [over there] and the people would give you food for free if you didn't have any money. Try doing that at the Champs-Elysées."
Personally, I have been to Paris. I arrived near the 18th Arrondissement,at the Gare du Nord. I walked around this supposed no-go zone--of course at the time I had no idea that anyone was making these claims--and had no problems whatsoever as an infidel American whose government was at that very time fighting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sened Dhab, a Parisian, has taken photographs of the supposed no-go zones, and there's a surprising amount of going for a zone where Peterson believes going is prohibited: https://medium.com/@sened/this-is-paris-e8729d0108c1
There is also a guide to eating and drinking in the “no-go” zones. Restaurants include Le Chateaubriand, one of the top 50 restaurants in the whole world and surely an attraction to tourists, who presumably go into the no-go zones.
Funny enough, an American-style restaurant exists in one of these zones. Floyd's Bar and Grill must really be a poke in the eye to the Caliphate of Paris, where the obnoxious and arrogant staff dare to grill up pork (gasp) in Kansas City style barbeque, right out in the open as if they weren't being oppressed by Sharia law! Check it out at http://floyds.fr/index.php?page=menu-soir.
Pro-ISIS militants in Paris' no-go zones should also be surprised to find a Kurdish sandwich shop in their midst. Urfa Durum cooks up lamb sandwiches with apparent impunity from Islamic terrorism, even if their ISIS brethren are fighting the Kurdish Peshmerga in Iraq and Syria. Google reviews from users in both English and French attest to the amazing food, and to the fact that both Anglophone and Francophone Caucasians can go into this no-go zone.
Peterson apparently offered a half-hearted apology on his website Blue Force Tracker on 14 January, which he has since taken down. He threw Fox News under the bus for creating the map showing the “no-go zone” map and did not take responsibility for much beyond “truthfully” recounting his experiences of riots in Paris in 2005. Even in this he appears to have exaggerated in his claim that “hundreds of schools” were torched during the riots he supposedly witnessed, whereas most news sources from the time give numbers that range from several to perhaps dozens. Peterson plays fast and loose with facts. He hides behind his “personal observations” as something that is beyond criticism. He is too ignorant, lazy, negligent to make the appropriate distinction between what he (maybe) saw in 2005 and what is happening in France in 2015. Or perhaps he is simply intentionally deceptive: he's an adult and supposedly a professional. He should know better and I submit that such gross negligence is in fact purposeful.
Finally, the person who has staked his claim to inventing the term “no-go zone” has categorically repudiated its very existence. I argue that he is a trustworthy source, because he is recanting his own statements and therefore exposing himself to the ridicule and loss of credibility that goes along with it. He wouldn't do that unless he truly believed, based off of research and observation, that he was wrong about “no-go zones”.
In 2006, Daniel Pipes claimed that there were no-go zones in France in largely immigrant, Muslim areas where government agencies dared not go. Pipes believes he is the first to use the term “no-go zone” in reference to a Muslim-dominated area where government was not welcome.
To his credit, Pipes has maintained updates to his article, including this one:
Jan. 16, 2013 update: 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.
Pipes also wrote: “My experiences starting in 2007 belied this expectation. All the immigrant areas turned out to be well maintained, with safe streets, and no sense of intimidation. I walked around, usually with camera in hand, and felt at ease. I encountered no difficulties at all.”
The phenomenon of “no-go zones” has been debunked elsewhere:
Claims such as these “no-go zones” have to be met with criticism, not acceptance. The sources of this information are too often erroneous, too sloppy in their “fact” gathering. The platform, and there's really only one major platform involved, that offers an outlet for these lies has too checkered a history of Islamophobia and pandering to the racist and sexist tendencies of its audience. This platform offers no push back to claims of no-go zones. It demonstrates no critical ability. It asks no questions and seeks no justification for these erroneous reports. And its audience follows lockstep—asks no questions and accepts these reports as long as it confirms its biases. And the sad thing is that the truth is barely a few Google searches away.
Skepticism should be the default attitude towards these claims.
Starting to investigate this. France calls them "Sensitive Urban Zones" (ZUS) (Wikipedia entry), and lists them here. It looks like they are dangerous neighborhoods. As far as I can tell so far, they're "no-go" zones if you want to emphasize the danger, and they're a "myth" if you want to de-emphasize it. Maybe we can get harder information.
Google "Banlieue", i never heard anything of french no go zones. It´s just Ghettos with a high rate of Muslims. Lived in a similar type of neighbourhood in germany for a bit. It once was very dangerous to enter for the police at night but that has to do with youth violence not terrorism.
By "youth violence," you mean the burning of cars, gang rape, torturing Jews to death? It's been a while so I don't remember the details precisely.
never heard of the torturing jews part, but yes the rest sounds familar, including people going at each other with weapons, trying to burn homeless, raping 9 year old girls, theft and vandalism. And the things i added are just some of the things that happend in the idyllic 6000 soul village i grew up in. So i imagine youth violence to be of another caliber in Banlieues.
They are areas targeted for urban renewal. Has nothing to do with religious populations in those zones.
"Les zones urbaines sensibles sont définies dans la loi PRV comme des zones « caractérisées par la présence de grands ensembles ou de quartiers d'habitat dégradé et par un déséquilibre accentué entre l'habitat et l'emploi »"
Maybe we need to clarify what doesn't have anything to do with religious populations in the zones. The link didn't prove that this the alleged no-go-ness has nothing to do with them, or that the social ills there have nothing to do with them. It does prove that the definition "Sensitive Urban Zones" does not have component related to religious populations, should the wording of the phrase be insufficient.
A no-go zone indicates lack of government agencies. If anything, ZUS are areas where there is more government intervention in order to promote economic prosperity and social order.
So I finally had a chance to evaluate the claims that no-go zones don't exist, and that Fox either invented them or this year publicized an urban legend that respectable media outlets wouldn't touch.
I think I'll have to put "questionable" whether they exist, because it's too ambiguous. If first responder vehicles go in pairs for safety into Malmo (reported by Fox and conservative sites), is that a "no-go" zone? What if there are men walking the streets heckling gays, women in revealing clothing, and those carrying booze, but not clearly threatening violence? If an Islamic leader tells the mayor of his town, I won't meet with you in the Muslim area because that's my turf, maybe that's just him?
But here are sources that have reported on no-go zones before the recent hoopla about Fox. (I seem to remember MSNBC, but can't find a link.)
CNN: http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/01/20/jindal-nontrover... , skip Breitbart's commentary and watch the CNN video. Note that Islamic leaders in East London have expressed rejection of these Sharia patrols.
Valeurs Actuelles: http://www.valeursactuelles.com/societe/dossier-lenfer-en-france-47363
So: I don't know exactly what a "no-go" zone is. But there are parts of Europe where, Fox News or no Fox News, it wouldn't be wise to show up looking infidel. If you're Jewish, that includes some entire schools, and increasingly, Jews are finding it includes, well, France.