"While dictators rage and statesmen talk, all Europe dances — to The Lambeth Walk."

Wednesday, 1 July 2009

Fears for France (II)

What is the worst thing happening in France today?

If you are French, or you happen to live in France, what should you be concerning yourself with the most?

Well, the Open Society Institute of American billionaire George Soros carried out a study in France using French researchers - and they came to the conclusion that French people should concern themselves with the 'ethnic profiling' which is increasingly being used by the police to justify stopping and searching suspects.

From Expatica:
Paris – Police in Paris pick out people for identity checks mainly depending on their ethnicity and the way they dress, rather than based on suspicious activity, a study released Tuesday said.

investigators observed police stops at five sites near busy train and metro stations.

The study found that overall blacks were six times more likely than whites to be stopped by police, while Arabs were 7.6 times more likely to be controlled than whites.

The rate ranged widely across the five sites: blacks were between 3.3 to 11.5 times more likely than whites to be stopped while Arabs were 1.8 to 14.8 times more likely.

"The study confirmed that police stops and identity checks in Paris are principally based on the appearance of the person stopped, rather than on their behavior or actions," according to the report.

"Persons perceived to be ethnic minorities were disproportionately stopped by the police," it said.

"People wearing "youth clothing" -- different clothing styles typically associated with young French persons such as "hip-hop", "goth", and "tecktonic" -- were also targeted by the police."

Between November 2007 and May 2008, the investigators watched police stop people for identity checks near the Gare du Nord train station and the Chatelet-Les Halles metro hub.

The investigators observed 525 police checks during that time and then tried to speak with the people who were controlled.

"This study marks the first time that ethnic profiling by French police has been statistically proven, confirming decades of anecdotal reports," Rachel Neild, of the Open Society Justice Initiative, said in a statement.

"French youth of immigrant origin feel singled out and stigmatized by constant police stops," Neild said.

"Not only does our study question the effectiveness of these police stops, it also makes clear that these practices underlie the increasingly frequent and often violent altercations between young people and the police."

Paris police spokeswoman Marie Lajus said officers do not aim to do identity checks in a "statistical manner".

"What we look for is to prevent misdemeanors or more serious crimes committed in these locations ... along parameters that are empirical and police work," she said.

"Statistically, you have a better chance of finding hashish on a rasta than on an executive in a suit," Lajus added.
Right. There is only one problem with this article - there is evidence to suggest that some ethnic groups and cultures are far more likely to be involved in crime, statistically.

Are not more than 70% of those in French prisons from an immigrant background? The profiling is not only ethnic - people wearing 'youth' clothing are targeted because they are far more likely to be up to no good than the elderly, presumably.

Whilst ethnic or age profiling is not a perfect tool for law enforcement, anecdotal evidence suggests that the police form these opinions for a reason - and often, they are right. You would hope so - if they don't who is committing the majority of crime in a certain area, then what hope is there?

I couldn't help but notice that Expatica found space for this story, which almost seeks to justify violent attacks by immigrant youths on the police, but could not find any for several stories which have emerged over the past few days - all of them fitting the pattern of immigrant-on-French violence.

  • Gagny (Seine St Denis): two off-duty policemen were attacked and beaten. They came out of the police station and were "expected" by their alleged assailants who "was fully aware of their duties as police".

  • Jacky Paillard, a former football player living in Toulouse, was viciously beaten by two youths who he admonished for blocking traffic.
At around half past five in the evening, he was returning home with his wife. Two men were stopped in the road and talking on the pavement, but he managed to squeeze by - then shouted out that they were wrong to halt the traffic in such a way.

He was knocked off of his scooter, and violently attacked by the two youths, who were kicking, punching and beating him with a car aerial.

He managed to headbutt one whilst wearing his helmet,and a woman screamed out that the police were on their way.

Police say he could have been killed had he not been wearing his helmet.

He is devastated not only by the brutality of the violence, but of the lack of respect youths have for their elders, lack of etiquette, and the way most witnesses stood by and did nothing.

  • Three journalists from France 3 were attacked and had their camera stolen around midnight in the district Tarterêts in Corbeil-Essonne, Essonne.
The area had been the scene of tension earlier when Police officers who wanted to verify the identity of a young man to see if it matched the description of an individual who had insulted and attempted to assault a group of police officers, were surrounded by about fifty people.

Covered by a hail of projectiles, the police used tear gas, which inconvenienced the public attending the fair, including children and mothers.

Twenty seven complaints against the police were filed by residents protesting against the use of gas. "Such an assault was not warranted," said Radia Soualhi, friendly member of the tenants of Tarterêts saying she understands "that young people are outraged."

Four police officers were taken to hospital after being covered by a hail of cobblestones on Monday afternoon. Sunday's events would not have occurred if there had been no resistance to control. According to a police source, some offenders take a dim view of the arrival of the police patrols.

  • Two journalists were assaulted yesterday in La Courneuve while doing a story.
A writer and a photographer with Le Parisien were the victims of a robbery. The attackers used tear gas and stole a briefcase. The two journalists had gone to a report in the Comorian community after the crash of the A310 when two people each wearing a hood attacked them. They snatched the camera and kicked them.

Journalist Yacine Bellatar said: "Yes it is tricky when you're a journalist and white, to go to the suburbs. I tell you specifically, today it is a fact. [This is] hostile environments, it must be admitted. It's like an abscess. They are hostile to everything which is foreign and everything that comes from outside, to protect [their] territory. "

  • Paris, June 26, 2009 — A 31-year old woman has been arrested in Paris because she is suspected of stabbing a passenger who was too slow to get out of a Metro carriage.

The incident, reported by police headquarters, happened on June 19th around 8.30 p.m., at the Gare du Nord station on line n°4 [Gare du Nord is one of Paris main railway stations].

The woman, of Haitian descent, who was travelling with her partner, struck a 56-year old man in the chest with a kitchen knife, slightly wounding him. She complained because she thought he was too slow to step out of the carriage.
Using CCTV images, the regional transport police were able to identify and arrest the woman on Wednesday. She is well-known to the police. [This cookie-cutter formula usually refers, in the media, to repeat offenders guilty of regular assaults, robberies or drug dealing, who are seldom if ever convicted, either through lack of evidence or judges’ leniency.] At the time she was arrested, she was hiding a kitchen knife in her underwear.

She was taken into custody and was expected to be presented to the public prosecutor on Friday.

So there we have it. A couple of days, five violent incidents which demonstrate that perhaps the police have a good reason for their actions.

The ethnic tensions in France have become all but a civil uprising in many parts of the country; why do some facets of the media see fit to only report one side of the story?


DP111 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DP111 said...

"Ethnic" profiling is too wide a term, for it gives the impression that the police are stopping all those who are not whites ie racism.

Now I will hazard a guess that the police are not stopping Buddhist monks, or Chinese, or Indian women wearing saris, or Sikhs.

If this is the case, then the police are profiling not on the basis of ethnicity, but from their experience ie it is not racist profiling. In which case it is not ethnic profiling, but common sense, and the knowledge that comes from experience.

If it turns out that the persons most stopped are Arab/ME looking young men, or Black men, who also happen to be more then adequately represented in prisons, then tough.

DP111 said...

OT but Disturbing but not unexpected recordings from the Mumbai terrorsit massacre

The chilling words of the Muslim Mumbai killers recorded during their murder spree: "Keep killing, keep killing, the dogs.' "Insh'Allah" 'The manner of your death will instill fear in the unbelievers. This is a battle between Islam and the unbelievers"


Solkhar said...

I have no problem with ethnic or cultural profiling if it produces results. None what so ever. Also if certain communities, such as North African youth turn into gangs or are following fundamentalists (which they do not in their own countries) then they are criminals and should be targetted.

Question though, why did you put "Islam" as one of the tags. You were so carefull this time not to use the word Muslim to avoid being pointed out as a bigot and hate-poster but then you showed it anyway by associating the article with Islam.

Well, guess the evidence always comes out.

DP111, yep the Mumbai attack just shows how dangerous heretic fundamentalist militants are to us all. Shame you spend so much time giving them ammunition to show the moderats and conservatives that they are right that the west is bigotted and evil.

DP111 said...

A cogent article on dhimmitude and its effects on freedom of rexpression

The Impact of Islam on Free Speech in America


It is not just America. Without freedom of expression without fear of death, is the basis of western civilisation.

DP111 said...


You will have to make up your mind which side you are on. You cannot pretend to be a moderate, but then take offence at any criticism of Islam. If that is the case, then there is not much to choose between yourself and the fanatic Muslim – you yourself admit as much.

You flatter me by claiming that my criticism of Islam is harming the so-called moderates. It is patently absurd. The fact that you make such a charge tells me that your motives are different from what one infers.

The Mumbai terrorists were not heretics, just as the 9/11, 7/7 suicide bombers, Madrid terrorists, to name just a very few, were not heretics. If such were case, then heresy seems to be running rife in Islam. But I don’t think so, for it takes conviction and surety of faith in the doctrine far in excess of the ordinary, for people to become suicide bombers. No heresy here I'm afraid.

The Venerable 1st Earl of Cromer said...


Simple - the territorial violence is found in certain immigrant communities that are non-Muslim, but systematically it tends to be an Islamic thing, especially in France.

You do make me laugh - the idea that I would leave a out a certain word because you might rant about 'bigotry, 'hate-posting' or the more puzzling 'there's your sign!' is ludicrous.

Just who do you think you are?

Anonymous said...

Fact: Between 2005 and 2008, homocidal offending rates for U.S. blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites. (From U.S Dep't of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.) Common sense, then, dictates that racial profiling is sensible and practical. So,to all politically correct pundits and stupid loud-mouthed race mongers such as
Al Sharpton, go scratch with a broken bottle.
Fed-Up & Disgusted in America

Nemesis said...

I was in Amiens (France) in late April last year in company with my wife and a bus load of Aussie tourists.

It is very difficult, for an ex cop, to completely forget everything he has learned while on the 'job'.

And in that regard, assessing potential trouble spots when visiting unfamiliar places, is always at the back of my mind. It has, for all intents and purposes, become a basic instinct.

While the bus we were on had stopped at a red light, at a large intersection just out of Amiens, I witnessed the spectacle of several vehicles proceeding to execute U turns upon the intersection, which caused several vehicles with right of way to scatter.

Hanging out of the front passenger window of those several vehicles were young men of M.E. appearance, dressed quite well in suits or shirts with ties, throwing items such as plastic water bottles at passing vehicles.

The incident lasted less than a half minute but, while in progress was quite animated leaving me to wonder just how there had not been at least one motor vehicle collision. These were dangerous young men who obviously had no regard for anyone's safety, including their own.

Now, out of the forty odd souls on that bus, I was the only one to witness this event. Even my wife sitting next to me saw nothing out of the ordinary!

Why was I the only one to see this incident? When the bus had stopped at that red light I noticed several vehicles with men of M.E. appearance in them, that is why I witnessed what I did. My basic instints were right...trouble was ahead!

Dr.D said...

Anything that George Soros funds is a priori a pack of lies. The man is a Leftist's Leftist, and he would not know the truth if it bit him on the nose. He never does anything without an evil agenda; that is the one constant in his life. Never trust anything with his mark on it.

WAKE UP said...

I suppose it's too much to ask these pricks to spend the same amount of time observing, analysing and reporting WHO is actually committing the crimes.

Solkhar said...


It is your imagination that results in your presuming that "You cannot pretend to be a moderate, but then take offence at any criticism of Islam."

It is the same imagination on the other thread "dhimmitude in America" that you made up histories as the basis of your argements and when shown incorrect that you change the subject. So I except you to now change the subject and similarly make it into an emotional and illogical point.

I was going to explain about what core beliefs and principles are and how important to humanity they are but I think you only select those that interest you and bag the rest. People are willing to die for their basic beliefs, including freedom and democracy if that is what their society is based on.

So your argument falls flat each time and considering now your proven lack of understanding of history, I have no way of telling what you would consider serious or not.

So what you think in Islam is herecy is thus even more absurd considering you still have not even understood what that word even means let alone other subjects that you failed.

The Mumbai attacks, just like 9/11 and every other of these terrorism attacks were condemned by every respectable Islamic College, especially those five that together represents theological laws in Islam. That should tell you that it is the acts of individuals that though a serious threat to us all, is herecy.

Solkhar said...

Nemesis and others, just a thought here.

When immigrants come to a country and to large in numbers, the population tends to at first reject them, the government though claiming to make no destinction puts them in ghettos and they are usually the most economically poor.

What happens? There youth are angry, they see everyone is against them and quickly they consider it bigotry or racism. Their anger is shown and in return the locals, who did not want their presence in the first place will say "see I told you so". The immigrants will say the same about the locals.

This scenario is repeated, over and over again, often escallating and not allowing for natural integration, with extreme views on both sides ensuring it will not happen smoothly. In some areas there has been success, but unfortunately not everywhere.

Chinese immigrants from the 1800s onwards, Polish and other Jews in Europe and America, Hispanics, Blacks, Indo-Chinese, North Africans, South Asians, Iranians, Black Africans and so on.

Yes, Blacks in America are a disproportionately high number in American jails and criminals. North Africans and Turks in Western Europe are a similarly high proportion of both troublemakers and prison inmates there. In the UK it is a different mix as it is in Australia, Canada, etc. In Morocco it is Saharans and Black Africans refugees as it is in Algeria and Lybia.

In all situations, the authorities and studies all understand that it is a matter of the clash of those who do not want them versus the aspirations of those that want to be there and the marginialization of those immigrants because they are a minority. That instability creates ghettos, crimes and feeds radicalization - on both sides.

Then also who suffers - those locals aposing will show the violence as to justify their view, the mothers of the migrants will cry to why their children are given no chance and why is it only their boys are in prison.

The police have no choice but to only react as this is a political issue. Profiling is of course necessary because yes - the statistics show it.

The reality of the marginalization of one community against another is collective bigotry - recognized and well studied. The long-term examples is that of African-Americans and still there are those who will avoide it and claim something else. it happens everywhere, from Europe, in Asia, in the Middle-East, Americas and Australasia - humans are after all the best and worst that this planet has to offer.

For WAKE UP - the who is mute in this case, it is the how and why.

DP111 said...


There is nothing imaginative about the genocide of Armenians, except your attempts to let off Turkey. Turkey was secular, but the prime culture is Islamic, and they can never admit to any wrong doing when it comes to killing infidels.

There is nothing imaginative about the genocide of Christians and Animists in Sudan, except your delusions that Islam has nothing to do with it. In a Muslim society, Islam has everything to do with it. Has the Islamic world apologised for it?

But the holocaust of south Asia has no parallels.

"The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying from within."

- W. Durant, "Story of Civilization"


Entire cities were burnt down and their populations massacred. Each successive campaign brought hundreds of thousands of victims and similar numbers were deported as slaves. Every new invader made often literally his hill of Hindu skulls. Thus the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000, was followed by the annihilation of the entire Hindu population there; indeed, the region is still called Hindu Kush, 'Hindu slaughter'. The Bahmani sultans in central India, made it a rule to kill 100.000 Hindus a year. In 1399, Teimur killed 100.000 Hindus IN A SINGLE DAY, and many more on other occasions. Koenraad Elst quotes Professor K.S. Lal's "Growth of Muslim population in India", who writes that according to his calculations, the Hindu population decreased by 8O MILLION between the year 1000 and 1525. ...We will never be able to assess the immense physical harm done to India by the Muslim invasions. Even more difficult is to estimate the moral and the spiritual damage done to Hindu India.

- from Negationism and the Muslim Conquests by Francois Gautier

Have Muslims in whatever form apologised?

To imagine that all the depredations that Islam has wreaked through history and continues to do so to this day, is the work of heterics, is deluded or intentionally and deliberately disruptive.

If you take offence at any criticism of Islam, then I'm afraid you cannot be termed a moderate, as any discussion with you, may lead you to take offence. Nothing to imagine, just an obvious conclusion. To take offence enough to murder, is frankly beyond the pale, but that is what Muslims do.

Solkhar said...

DP111 - Evading, twisting and fabricating each time you are shown as incorrect is rather embarassing.

We start with the 1930's amateur historian by Will and Ariel Durant. Great effort but as they were not professionals, it falls into all the 1930s bigotry and lack of expertise in evidence collecting.

Just go to Wiki for an example of the tonnes of criticisms of those volumes of so-called-histories:
"The Story of Civilization has been criticized by some for simplifications, rash judgments colored by personal convictions, and story-telling, and described as a careless dabbling in historical scholarship. Professor J. H. Plumb's opinion on the series was that “historical truth… can rarely be achieved outside the professional world [of historians].”[2]

François Gautier is a self-confessed Hinduist activists (Hindutva or Hindu Nationalist), not a professional journalist and fulfills all the concepts of being biased and agenda based. Certainly there would be considering him reliable for a research/reference purpose. Gautier quotes and you use it as well which is a perfect example of unprofessionalithy and agenda bias - Koenraad Elst whom I know about very well. A Flemish far-right antiIslamic activist that was kicked out and banned from the VUB/ULB (Free University) in Brussels - I was there as I did my MA there. But do not take my word for it...... try wiki again for an example "Koenraad Elst (born 7 August 1959) is a Belgian writer and orientalist (without institutional affiliation). He was an editor of the New Right Flemish nationalist journal Teksten, Kommentaren en Studies from 1992 to 1995, focusing on criticism of Islam, various other conservative and Flemish separatist publications such as Nucleus, 't Pallieterke, Secessie and The Brussels Journal. Having authored fifteen English language books on topics related to Indian politics and communalism, Elst is one of the most well-known western writers to actively defend the Hindutva movement (along with François Gautier). "

There is no doubt that the conquests of the Moghuls and Persians and subsequent internal conquests were bloody but as much as others in various parts of the world. That is clear from real historians, evidence and not agenda based or unprofessionals.

So far your authoritarian versions of life, culture and history has been a rather serious blunder, and your changing of subjects each time to avoid answering your mistakes is not doing well.

I agreed with you three times that the Turks should recognise and apologise, they are not because of those "ultra-right" secular powers within the military refuse to do so. The conservative but moderate Muslim government in place has been trying to change that, albiet without causing another military coup. I lived and represented The Netherlands in our Embassy in Ankara as First Secretary for two years. I know it well enough. That is why even without the history references your complete crap on Turkish and Ottoman history was caught out instantly as rubbish.

Suppose you cut and pasted these items out of some antiIslam website?

Go on, embarass yourself more...

The Venerable 1st Earl of Cromer said...


It's OK, I think you're embarrassing yourself enough for everyone in this conversation.

Your apologies for Islamic crimes and transgressions would beggar belief, if we weren't already so familiar with your agenda (there's your sign!).

To see you accuse someone else of 'evading, twisting and fabricating' whilst preventing false, biased history is amusing and interesting - that's all you ever do.

Would you care to tell us about the agendas of those who have criticised these histories in so much depth?

Solkhar said...

So let me get this right, you also believe the imaginary history of NP111 that said:

The Ottoman Turkish Empire was responsible for the Bosnian Civil War as was the attrocities that was done under the nationalistic Serbian, Croation and secular Bosniak banners? Also that the Ottomans created this under divine guidance from the Qur'an. All this regardless of that no University or College in the world teaches this.

That the genocide of Armenians by the military of the Turks is not still acknowledged because they are Muslim, regardless that the right-wing military that insist this are as secular to the point of violent about it.

That all armies in history that brutally conquered another people did so for 'normal reasons' except those that are Muslim who did it for some Jihad concept. This, even though most conquests claimed God was on their side.

Get a grip.

This belief, even though not supported by all Universities (maybe not in republika serbska)including by SOAS, but perhaps only supported by unafilliated and well-known right-wing activists of which NP111 has quoted, and one well discredited 1930's volume of history that was not done by a historian. You accept this and defend this?

"There's your sign" Mr Blogger.

The Venerable 1st Earl of Cromer said...

All I said is that you're happy enough to use imaginary history and an agenda-driven interpretation of actual history yourself, despite constantly accusing others of it.

The Ottoman Empire was responsible in the sense that if it wasn't for their aggression against Europe for centuries, there would be no Slavic Muslims (who generally converted to get special concessions, curry favour with their new rulers and oppress their own people), and the dispute would not have reached quite the dimensions it did.

You can't deny the way the Serbs were treated by Muslims and Catholics who fought for Hitler during WWII also had some impact on that war and the atrocities committed.

Are you seriously denying the Islamic element in the Bosnian side of the Yugoslav civil war?

I know soldiers who were there; who sat and had tea with 'British' Muslims who were there to fight as Mujahideen (obviously, it is OK to have our soldiers present on Muslim soil when they are there to help extend the Ummah).

I was under the impression that the involvement of foreign Muslim volunteers on the Bosnian side was quite well known; perhaps it is well known only this side of the Atlas Mountains.

But I suppose any British soldier is by definition a 'Right-wing activist' in Solkhar's view, and therefore must be wrong; after all, how dare they disagree with Solkhar?

Solkhar said...

Ni imaginary histories with me, sorry no. I stand by my sticking to historical facts, prove otherwise and we will see, I am happy to defend all aspects I have said.

Your still attempting to defend DP111 over the Ottomans is rather sad, he specifically stated that in other threads that it was the Muslim domination and attrocities within the Balkans that was the direct reason for Serb actions, when it certainly was not. It was after communist collapse the Serbian Nationalism that caused first Croatia to split and when the Bosniaks (of Muslim and Croat origins) that wanted to do the same, the Serbs there started the real fight. You also are unaware that there were Muslims in the region of Bosnia before the Ottomans and it is apparent in the different family names. There are many articles available on that.

I do not dispute any historical event, from the Bosniak Muslims siding with the Axis Powers as I am just as aware of the Croat Catholic use of that war for their benefit to push against Serbs. It is a subject of nationalism, not religion and that it always comes back to.

Similarly, I do not despute that at the end portion of that conflict that fundamentalists made it a religious issue, for their own benefit as well as the universal sympathy by most Muslim communities globally regarding the attrocities aimed soley at Muslims. It was the one of the very rare times that for instance the Government of Isreal voted on a UN Statement formed by the Muslim nations. I am certain that there were those fundamentalists that travelled their for individual reasons as well as those who did so collective. There are 4 Bosniak Muslims who are now imprisoned by The Hague tribunals, they diserve it as much as those Croats and Serbs.

Your instant diffensiveness brings accussations that are questionable, I made it clear that I support history, truth and evidence, which were all lacking in NP111's postings and makes your defence of it also questionable.

Your presumption that because I disagree with your agenda based attacks on the religion instead of the people instantly presumes that I condemn any attack on Muslims in general, that is wrong. I have met British Soldiers and other Blue Helmet troops in the Balkans, what they witnessed is all documents, thus right-wing is not an issue.

On the other hand, NP111 used the ravings of two known right-wing nationalists as proof of history, that is another matter.

So again, what is your point here?

The Venerable 1st Earl of Cromer said...

So again, what is your point here?

You just made it for me.

How about you respond to what I actually said, rather than what DP111 said, or you think I said?

So again, what is your point here?

Solkhar said...

I did answer what you said which appeared to defend NP111 but if you like a summary for you here it is:

"that you're happy enough to use imaginary history and an agenda-driven interpretation of actual history yourself, despite constantly accusing others of it."

No not at all and never have - give me evidence of that I am sure you will find it not the case.

"The Ottoman Empire was responsible in the sense that if it wasn't for their aggression against Europe for centuries, there would be no Slavic Muslims..."

Actually no. There were Muslims in Bosnia before the Ottomans, of course there were more after, most immigrants and not local converts. Is that "fact" disapointing to you, did you find something in some low-life website?

"You can't deny the way the Serbs were treated by Muslims and Catholics who fought for Hitler during WWII also had some impact on that war and the atrocities committed."

No, never did deny it, facts are facts and history is just that. The only impact that it had on the later Civil War and attrocities was that Serb Nationalists blew it up and made it into an unjustified case.

"Are you seriously denying the Islamic element in the Bosnian side of the Yugoslav civil war?"

No, and never did I once say there was not. At the later half of the Civil War, fundamentalists started joining in, some for dubious reasons, some because they believed it was their duty. Either way they were fundamentalists and trouble makers.

"I know soldiers who were there; who sat and had tea with 'British' Muslims who were there to fight as Mujahideen"

I know soldiers as well who met fundamentalists. I was there to support the Dutch inquiry into Srebrenica, I did not meet any but the signs were clear in the Mosques that still stood.

"I was under the impression that the involvement of foreign Muslim volunteers on the Bosnian side"

There were not that many, they were clearly told also to stay under control of the Secular Bosnian forces and if it was not for the fact that they needed every hand available, they would have been told to "piss off". That I was told by a Colonel of the Bosnian forces, a Muslim as well.

"But I suppose any British soldier is by definition a 'Right-wing activist' in Solkhar's view",

No, I have respect for the British Forces that I have met at various times, I also have no problem with people's opinions. It is when the publish them AND put false evidence that I jump down their throat.

So, what was your point? Oh, just more fabrications and accussations that you have actually put no substance with.

The Venerable 1st Earl of Cromer said...

I specifically said 'Slavic Muslims', as in Serbs and other Slavs who converted to Islam, not Turks - the former are the significant Muslim population in the specific region.

The fact is not disappointing to me, as you admitted there were far more Muslims there after - but I feel the fact that Muslims were once in control and then lost that control is very much a factor.

As we know, land that is taken by Muslims remains Muslim territory.

To be honest, I haven't read the sources DP11 has quoted, which is why I have no opinion on them.

What sources did you cite again?

Solkhar said...

First, yet again another example of error on your part "As we know, land that is taken by Muslims remains Muslim territory."

Please clarify that statement, from who and where and in what context. I know of no such statement so the We is You.

That the Ottomans controlled the area from the 15th to the early 20th century is of course an important historical factor BUT the reality is that Islamic heritage of that region is with the Muslim communities themselves, that of the Bosnians and Albanians and Kosovans. The Croats, Serbs, Montenegrans all remained in tact and were part of the administration of that area. What the Balkans got from the Ottomans, apart from obviously no independance and a Sultan in Istanbul running the show (under local Pashas) was in fact administration, central education, sewerage and better roads, protection from crime under policing and those not Muslim, rights to their religious belief and in the case of the Serbs strong relationship with the Clergy and the central administration.

I am certain that during this 600 years of rule, there were good times and bad times, injustice and at times justice. Be sure also at times fundamentalists and others who were so secular that they even forgot how to do their prayers.

But the impact on modern day Balkans from 1912 was nothing compared to what happened under Tito who broke up the ethnic communities, spread them around particularly in Bosnia and that created ethnic natinalism, particularly amongst the Serbs. That is the cause of the Civil War and I have personally had some say to me that if the Ottomans were still there it would have been at peace!

For a good simple but correct summary go to Centre for Balkan Development at http://www.friendsofbosnia.org/who.html.

As for NP111, he is just mouthing off without thought and reference and as for asking me about references. Just go to the nearest History teacher from High School to Colleges and Universities and ask. Try Britanica or any good bookstore, avoid fiction and right-wing propoganda though.

Nexhat Ibrahimi's "Islam’s first contacts with the Balkan nations" is not bad, he is a bit conservative, a Kosovan but from the Sarejavo school of theology which is very moderate. He is factually correct and is considered an expert but has not been allowed to leave the region as the Serbs consider him devisive.

What his importance is for this subject is this:

"Insofar as the people of the Balkan Peninsula are concerned, the Ottomans were crucial in spreading Islam. However, it would be a great error to qualify the Islamic civilization in the Balkan Peninsula as "Turkish,"

Harry T Norris's Islam in the Balkans (Univ.Southern California) gives both a good discription of the arrival and ethnic mixes of Muslims in the Balkans as well as the events starting in 1992.

"Studies on Ottoman social and political history" By Kemal H. Karpat is a thorough almost text-book like factual study, with little personal content which for me is the best form.

Interestingly the one criticism towards the Muslims of the Balkans and those living in under control of the Ottomans was that they identified themselves as one community and ethnic group (Ottoman subjects) and not individual identities and the very beurocratic Ottomans obliged and thus eliminated by pen and book the real origins of these people, most of whom were from the region and not immigrants. Because of this, the DNA mix of Bosnians, Kosovars or Albanians is very mixed and not linked to one area.

DP111 said...

Any and all evidence that shows the sheer brutality of Islamic expansion in Solkhar's eyes, suspect. The fact of the matter is that Buddhism and Hinduism, peaceful religions and people in Afghanistan, have virtually no representation in that benighted country. Even the last vestiges of Buddhism were blown away by the Taleban. Same is happening in Kashmir.

I quoted Durrant and Gautier, but Hindu historians, such as Lal, or writers such VS Naipaul have shown the catastrophic effect of the horrendous Islamic conquest of India. My Indian friends tell me that there are no classic Hindu temples in north India, for the simple reason that Muslims destroyed and defaced the lot. The fact that Muslim conquerors explicitly targeted places of worship, is evidence enough of the religious nature of the invasion. Solkhar quotes Muslim historians, who he obviously regards as unbiassed and uncompromised. KS Lal is Hindu, but that in itself does not make him biassed. VS Naipual writes from Islamic sources showing the glee and sadistic pleasure that Islamic invaders took in murdering Hindus. There is no parallel for such widespread and continuous acts in history. Even to this day we see on Youtube, Muslims decapitating innocent people, while shouting "Allahu akhbar". There is something macarbe about such events, that I find difficult to understand.

Solkhar may like to see Turkey apologise for its genocide of Armenians, but I see no evidence of that. Neither do I see any evidence of apologies for the long history of Jihad against Christian countries of Europe.

I repeat that the Ottoman Muslim persecution of Serbs through the long centuries of occupation, led to the bitterness of the Bosnian civil war. Hatreds persist for centuries, and to imagine that it all started from the time of Tito shows a complete disregard for the historical memory of subjugated people.

As the Islamic Jihad by demographic means progresses in Europe, we see the appearance of Muslim spokesmen, attempting to deflect the fundamental nature of Islamic intolerance, first by suggesting that Christians were just as bad, or that things happen in invasions, or Jihad is a spiritual struggle, or as at present, that those carrying violent out acts prescribed by Islam, are really heretics. Then continue on to accuse people who point out the violent nature of Islam, as the ones responsible for the difficulty that moderate Muslims face. The excuses never cease.

Nemesis said...

Solkhar raised a point about mass immigrants being pushed into ghettoes, which ensuing crowding and shunning by the general population produces the problems most western nations now have.

Australia, Canada and the U.S. until the advent of Multiculti P.C. madness, were very successful nations in assimilating those who chose to settle.

Australia, after World War 2 ended, opened the flood gates to Britons, Italians, Greeks and any other nationality considered to be of European ancestry.

Anyone arriving in this nation was expected to live in migrant accommodation, which in most cases was very basic indeed, and those who could not speaka de English, were required to attend English language lessons prior to being sourced out for employment.

As a kid growing up in Sydney I can still remember the superior attitude that most Aussie's, regarded the 'New Australian' with, most being labelled with names such as wog or dago.

The vast majority of those that came to this land, prior to 1975, have become leading citizens and have a solid reputation as hard workers, which wins respect by most Aussies.

Sadly, that rule of assimilating the migrant into society has been thrown out with the bathwater and now, diversity rules.

Never in our short history as a nation, have we been witness to the violence and handout mentality that those from Islamic nations practice against us.

Using the 'victim' or 'racist' card to gain the upperhand in demanding their 'rights' under Multiculti policy is second nature to these people. Their attitude to the non muslim is publicly displayed for all to see, yet none in high office are willing to acknowledge.

So you see Solkhur, it is not just the culture that one has to be wary of, when importing from undesirable places, it is the religious ideololgy which becomes very self evident which is the greater problem. We now have trouble from ALL Islamic cultures which have been invited to settle here! Other cultures without Islamic background do not bother us!

Solkhar said...

Face it DP111 your out of your league here and your insistance that you know better than historians is laughable.

I notice that another squirm took place, to change the subject and falling at that as well.

No one denies that through the conquests of man, that the old religon of Buddism is gone from Afghanistan and that the existance of a fundamentalist power-house there demolished antiquities.

No the Ottomans had nothing to do with the Serb attrocities, are you of Serb origin perhaps? That would be the only reason to get this "fact" so wrong.

Your use of the word Jihad is also miserably wrong as well, though modern day fundamentalists use the word, the fact was that the word was unused in the Islamic World since the end of the Crusades. There were in fact only two officially sanctioned Jihads, one during the time of Mohammed and the second in the 11th century when Urban II claimed a Crusade and thus a Jihad in defence was called. So your phrase of Muslims terrorising through Europe on Jihad is utter rubbish. It was political conquest.

Emotional ranting about decapitations does not turn your joke of history into fact, I think we can assume people are smarter than that.

Get the facts right so that at least when you post something you have some credibility.

The Venerable 1st Earl of Cromer said...


You said:

No the Ottomans had nothing to do with the Serb attrocities, are you of Serb origin perhaps? That would be the only reason to get this "fact" so wrong.

Isn't this a racist comment? You seem to be implying that Serbs, or even those of Serb origin, are incapable of following logical, rational argument to your version of reality.

You are the only commenter here with no credibility.

When I asked you for sources which backed up your point of view, the first one you gave me was called 'friends of Bosnia'.

Now, I ask you - what would you say if I attempted to prove my case with a site called 'friends of Serbia'?

Nexhat Ibrahimi is, if I am not mistaken, an Albanian name - again, you feel there might be no conflict of interest?

But of course, an Albanian can write unbiased history of the region - and if anyone contradicts, they must be a secret Serb!

You are a joke.

Solkhar said...

No actually it is that the only group that is defending their part in the attrocities and actions of the Bosnian Civil War are particilar Serb Nationalists, even the current Serbian government condemns them. I have no problem with Serbs or any race or ethnic identity. It would be wrong and bigoted, wouldn't it?

So it would be rather rediculous to say "anyone contradicts, they must be a secret Serb" but anyone who defends the Serb attrocities would really have questionable motives, rather like holocaust denial.

It does immediately beg the question, why are you defending what was done under Serb Nationalism in Bosnia??

The author in question is a Kosavar, that was already mentioned. His writings are supported globaly, it would certaily be prescribed reading at SOAS on Balkan history and politics. The man was awarded a peace-prize in-absence in New York about two years ago, he is banned from travelling by the Serb Government because, like the Turks, they deny recognition of certain communities. The new Government hopefully will change that policy.

The web address friendsofbosnia belongs to the Centre for Balkan Development, an organisation with good reputation, go to the board of directors and other well documented evidence of their standing. I see no problems supporting a nation, that includes thnic Serbs/Croats/Bosniaks - so what was your point about them?

I think your clutching at staws to find some excuse to put my argument down for the sake of my not supporting some - if not most of your postings.

The Venerable 1st Earl of Cromer said...


You said:
No the Ottomans had nothing to do with the Serb attrocities, are you of Serb origin perhaps? That would be the only reason to get this "fact" so wrong.

That seems to me to suggest that the only reason to disagree with your stance on this issue is that one is an ethnic Serb.

I think you should apologise for your overt racism and hatred of Serbs.

SOAS is well known for its Left-wing stance. Biased ideologues like Noam Chomsky are internationally feted and recognised - so that proves nothing in itself.

I don't have much time right now, but I checked your link.

This interested me:


Notice that there seem to be no campaigns to rebuild the Serbian Orthodox monasteries and churches destroyed by the KLA before, during and after the war, or any mention of the fact that Kosovo is historically the heart of Serbian culture and identity by this moderate and 'unbiased' organisation.

Solkhar said...

Still clutching at straws and deliberatly ignoring portions of what I said.

Unlike your general racism expressed within a great many of your postings, I have nothing to apologize for, and expressed a well know point that the only denial of attrocities in the Bosnian Civil War are a number of Serb Nationalist groups.

I can assume with quite a great deal of evidence that you are simply now supporting Serbian Nationalism only because you will take the opposite line that I made, that is rather petty, if not another "low-life" action, considering that you have basically supported attrocities based on nationalistic ideals.

I raised the issue of Bosnia because a poster on this thread presumed something incorrect. It had, in this case, nothing to do with Islam or Muslims, as I would argue the same with a Turk over the subject of Armenia anytime. In addition, Bosnia is not a Muslim state, it is a mixed religious state that as things are going, is doing very well at present in ensuring a good secular state with three predominant religous groups living in harmony. The only element that is failing of course is the self-imposed enclave of Republika Serbska who are even killing themselves.

Still not sure what you are on-about, SOAS was used as an argument to suppport cases about the Ottomans by DP111 in his mad-ranting, that is why I mentioned it. I do not care if left-or-right but I am certain you would have used reference to professors from SOAS if you thought it would advantage your argument.

I think your wasting your time and embarrasing yourself here, suggest you just give up on this. I do not only have documented history, mainstream education and commen sense on my side, it is also within the domain of what is now becoming 30 years of work.

The Venerable 1st Earl of Cromer said...


I'm not even arguing DP111's point - you simply assumed that because I don't agree with you, I am a 'Serbian nationalist'.

It's the same tedious nonsense as every other argument you make - if someone agrees with you, great, if they don't, they are evil.

If you don't care for 'left and right', then why do you so frequently accuse your opponents of being extreme right wingers?

The point we are arguing (that is you and I) here is that you said the following to DP111:

No the Ottomans had nothing to do with the Serb attrocities, are you of Serb origin perhaps? That would be the only reason to get this "fact" so wrong.

To presume that every Serbian or everyone who is an ethnic Serb raised elsewhere thinks the same, just to annoy a "moderate" Muslim like yourself, to assume that no pro-Serbian position can be justified on the basis of past atrocities, is the same stereotyping and discrimination you are always banging on about at such great length.

But once again, you are too busy accusing everyone else of all sorts and jumping ahead of yourself.

Answer my actual points, not the ones you made up.

Or, better yet - get back on topic, the subject here was about immigrant crime in France.

Solkhar said...

I suggest you read my last two replies to your comments, they answered your question/point clear enough, racism was not there so there is nothing to apologise. I find it quite clear you raised it because I have accussed you of collective racist postings quite enough, in fact you have just done so again in your latest (and I made a comment there about it).

I do not consider people who disagree with me evil, but if they are defending xenophobia, bigotry or racism, then it is clear. In this case it all started because some mad-ranter made indefensible and historically incorrect facts, and thus I pointed them out.

If anything, it is you who quickly condemns any Muslim who disagrees with you as an extremist or fundamentalist, a supporter of terrorism and misognist. A non-Muslim certainly would be an appeaser or something similar.

I made it clear I have an agenda, attack fundamentalism and radicalism, I make no apology for that. So I am neither to the right or left, I am a clear centrist politically. I will attack the far-right or the far-left as that is extremism. Not hiding that at all.

I know you are not DP111, you do not defend him but you used his excuses and tried to defend them, simply to make an issue.

I agree, this thread has gone way to long, I will not post on it again so do not think you will get a reply here, try it on another thread and be sure I will stick to the issue.

DP111 said...

Jihad does not have to be officially declared to count as a Jihad. It is like stating that there have been no wars since WWII, as none have been explicitly declared.

I wouldn’t presume to know as much as a professional historian on such matters as Crusades or Jihad. I can only go on what I consider reliable research.

1. The Jihad preceded the Crusades by 400 years or so.
2. That the natural mode of operation of Islam is one of war against non-Muslims
3. That the Islamic division of the world into two spheres, leads to perpetual theologically derived conflict and war – a Holy war.

On Jihad specifically, Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald, and Andrew Bostom, have written extensively of the modern day rise of Jihad, and the many forms it takes – from financial and demographic, terrorist attacks, and others. These are all available by Googling the above names. If you think they are wrong, then you can write at Jihad Watch, pointing out the deficiencies in their case. I’m sure you will get a response.

In any case, I do not think that historians are the only custodians of truth? Ordinary people can see the evidence before their eyes. If it happens to agree with the thesis of the above, good, if not, then the above writer’s thesis will automatically be discredited.

Solkhar, you may think that pointing out the decapitations of innocents while chanting "allahu ackbar", or the fact that ex-Muslims in the UK are living in fear of their lives, or that it is highly dangerous to one’s health to criticise Islam, this even in England, is changing the subject - far from it. The purpose is to show that Islam, and the culture it brings with it, is incompatible with Western values and traditions. I fear, that at some time in the near future, a serious conflict will commence in England, or some other state in Europe. I sincerely hope though that it never comes to this, but given the rapid rise of the Muslim population in the UK, increasing demands for sharia, interspersed with terrorist attacks, the stage will be set. So far the security services have been lucky, but that wont last forever.

Solkhar said...

I think you shot yourself in the foot here, at least you acknowledge your poor understanding of history.

"1. The Jihad preceded the Crusades by 400 years or so."

No incorrect, but your interpretation (and understanding of the word Jihad) is something other than the dictionary or theological meaning.

"2. That the natural mode of operation of Islam is one of war against non-Muslims"

No, again completley incorrect, the "natural mode" of Islam is Qur'anic which has us at peace with the People of The Book and that "aggression and oppression is against the will of God".

"3. That the Islamic division of the world into two spheres, leads to perpetual theologically derived conflict and war – a Holy war."

Again, completely incorrect, Islam divides nothing, Holy War is only a defence and I can only assume you still read too many crap websites, such as JihadWatch which brings us to the most rediculous element of the last posting.

Robert Spencer is a well know extre right-winger and contributor to well known antiIslamic websites. His books are not supported in the academic field at all.

Hugh Fitzgerald is a co-founder of the antiIslamic hate-site Jihad Watch, that explains it all.

Dr Andrew Bostom is a medical doctor, a contributor to the popularist far-right political sphere, thus he is only invited by FOX News which links him to a political agenda.

None of the above are even remotely considered credibile resources and that explains your reading list and why all your postings are simply incorrect if not utter rubbish.

I do not need to discredit the above thesis, they are already discredited by the academic field.

Your constantly turning into the emotional to justify your incorrect facts is the point.

Do not think one bit that I am not affected when I see the horrors committed by fundamentalists. I am deeply, more than you will ever imagine, because of the event AS WELL AS the fact that they are corrupting and abusing my own faith.

But I do not confuse or abuse facts with these emotions, because facts are just that. History does not change.

DP111, do not let bigotry and personal emotions of events blur the overall realities and do not fall for the collective blame-game that this site lives off.

Mankind has been terrorising, conquesting, waging war, blaming others, claiming that God or The Gods have blessed them from day 1 of civilization.

To go down your track is just following the old way of the base element of humanity, I would rather you attempt to recognize and strive for the upper limits of humanity instead. I try and it starts by my understanding and accepting that many in my own religion are amongst the bottom of that base, but certainly not the majority.

DP111 said...


As usual a load of nonsense from you. If you have any problems with the definitions of Jihad, or the reason for the Crusades, then get yourself a proper book, or read the web, as most academic material is now available on the net, written by Western historians, rather then the apologist Muslim ones you read.

I know, I know, everyone is hate-monger that points out the intolerance at the heart of Islam. It is not just that central theme, but the fact that it actually manifests itself in deeds. So you think Robert Spencer and Fitzgerald are hate-filled. It is beside the point. What is to the point, is you take up their thesis on Jihad, and prove to them that they are in error. They are available you know where.

So what if Andrew Bostom is a medic. He has researched his material, and presented a cogent case. If you disagree with him, then write to him, just as I would.

DP111, do not let bigotry and personal emotions of events blur the overall realities and do not fall for the collective blame-game that this site lives off.

Thank you for your advice, I hope that you are giving the same advice to where it is most needed - to people in Muslim countries, where the persecution of Christians and non-Muslims is endemic. This persecution is just not some name-calling but burning of churches and homes, beatings, rapes, evictions, with or without official assistance. I have deep compassion for these people, locked in a situation of terror.

Indeed there should be no bigotry, but fighting against bigotry as that above, is not bigotry. Thank you all the same.

Solkhar said...


I find it rather amusing that it is your imiganary explanations of history that has failed the most. I certainly justify all that I have said based on standard academic texts, what is taught in real institutions and not from aganda-based web and blot sites who enjy selling contraversial books to make money. Your instant defence mechanism to say that I read apoligists is a standard quote from those very sites.

The authors that you have used and wish to defend are already condemned to be not included in University and College reading lists, as were the really pathetic quotes you made before to justify your points. Face it all of them so far fall flat on the academic side of things.

Again, you have to resort to the emotional to somehow but wait and value to the comments you have made, that is truelly sad, not on your value but on how you attempt to link it only devaluates how serious the issue of fundamentalism and terrorism really is.

I will not longer post on this thread as the blog owner has pointed out we have gone off-topic and at least on this point he is correct. So linking it as a last remark, I suggest you also start to learn what life is like in all of the Muslim World and again stop attempting to presume life and the actions of fundamentalists in say the Sub-Continent has to do with the life of millions of Muslims say over here in Morocco or in Tunisia which are shocked and abhored as much as those of you living in the west. There are no reprisals, violence and rapes against non-Muslims here or in fact in most of the Muslim World.

Shall we all paint the West with the brush of Evangalists like Jerry Falwell and others stating that you all are just after converts to Christianity? Condemn anything not in your version of the Bible? All your youth go bezerk at times and shoot fellow students at schools?

Get real please. This thread is closed for me.

DP111 said...


If you are so confident, why dont you go over and take on Robert Spencer et al. If you think you are right, you should have no difficulty in disproving them. He keeps open house. Simple really.

I wish you will turn away from a religion that has left nothing but devastation in its wake, with no meaningful redeeming features.

Despite your obvious arrogance and rudeness, I wish you well.