Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 11/08/05 11:51 am:
>>>In many areas of America, Muslims are "not-ghettoized", are integrated into neighborhoods and they have good jobs. That is totally different from Europe.<<<

Yes it is. However, we have had our share of riots in the past, have't we. The LA riot, the Crown Heights riot, etc. The fact that our minorities are better integrated than they are in France doesn't preclude the possibility of a riot.

The Crown Heights riot clearly was able to take place because then-Mayor David Dinkins allowed it to occur. He didn't take a strong hand in stopping it, so it wasn't stopped. By contrast, under Rudy Giuliani, who it could be argued was someone under whom minorities had more to complain about, there were no such riots... because Rudy took a strong stance on crime and the law.

Similarly, in the wake of hurricane Katerina, we saw looting in NO, but not in other effected areas. Why? Because the local government took a soft touch on crime in NO, but not in the other areas.

In France, the reason the riots have continued for the past two weeks is because for years they failed to police the Muslim areas, and turned those areas into a de-facto demilitarized zone. They took a soft touch on crime committed by their Muslim immigrants, and they are unable to change that stance now without a lot of bloodshed.

Had they been strong on crime and the possibility of terrorism, had they shown a willingness to fight to protect a civilized society from Islamofacism instead of using "kid gloves", this would have never happened... or at least not for as long and as violently.

By contrast, Islamofacists in the USA know that Bush has no problem with calling out the army to put down violent riots if he has to. So they won't try it. Maybe they'll try something else. But the type of Muslim riots we are seeing in France won't happen here, because Bush has an air of willingness to fight if he has to, and nobody questions his willingness to do so.

What is happening in France is a complete vindication of Bush's strategy of fighting them over there to avoid fighting them over here.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 11/08/05 11:51 am:
Choux,

Perhaps this will make it more clear:

>>OK, So We Got Even for 9-11<<

I don't remember it being about getting even.

>>NOW WHAT?????<<

1. On a personal level, get up, go to work or whatever and enjoy your life.

2. In the grander scheme, win. Defeat terrorism and crush radical Islam.

>>WE IN AMERICA ARE WORSE OFF THAN WE COULD EVER HAVE IMAGINED.<<

Speak for yourself.

>>TONY BLAIR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER, SHOULDN'T HE???<<

Yeah, he should have taken Saddam out and cracked down on radical Islam in his country a long time ago.

Steve

Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 11/08/05 12:03 pm:
NO, it's ........."or the extremest right"....

You have been a proponent of the radical right agenda while here....apparently up until today!!!! Rewriting history 'cause the execution of your agenda by Bush has gone down in flames???

I'm a Moderate, and you are no Moderate. LOL!!

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 11/08/05 12:37 pm:
Choux, you're actually right in one thing, I'm no moderate.

The problem, ok, one of the problems with people like you is you tend to write your own 'history.' When you can find anything that demonstrates I've been "a proponent of the radical right agenda" (whatever that is) you be sure and let us know.

Steve

Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 11/08/05 12:44 pm:
You would be wise to examine yourself.

You have been a rabid right winger here for three years. And, you disavow that today?? YOu're not extreme left or extreme right....per your comment....that makes you a moderate....then in the above clarification, you say you are not a Moderate.

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 11/08/05 12:59 pm:
Choux, as a wise old conservative once said, "there you go again." You are but one of at least dozen or so to label me as "a rabid right winger" here without showing one shred of evidence it was so. If you can't back up this claim then you'd be wise to use a little restraint (not to mention your brain) before typing it out.

I am for the most part a "conservative," one who generally ahderes to "a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change." (http://www.m-w.com)

One can be a conservative and not walk in lockstep with his party. One can be a conservative and still think for themselves. One can be a conservative without being "a rabid right winger," whatever that is. I've heard of them but I've never actually met one as far as I know.

Steve

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 11/08/05 3:38 pm:
Chou,

>>>Intelligence has to remove(murder surrepticiously(?sp?)the leaders and violent psychos...that's for sure.<<<

Whoa!!! Wait a second! Torture and coercion of prisoners for information is wrong, but surrepticiously murdering them is okay?

How about if we disappear them from public view and then torture them to our heart's content. When we have all the information we need, we can kill them and stick them into unmarked graves. That way we can do both at once.

Why is murder okay but torture for intelligence isn't?

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 11/09/05 1:35 pm:
Elliot, Hmmmmm.....I guess I didn't think through my answer....cancel it, I have to come up with something better. :):):)

Steve....OK, Conservative you are. In the tradition of George Will or Tom Delay Duke?.....:):):)

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 11/09/05 4:31 pm:
No prob, Chou.

But just for the record, I don't have a real big problem with either torturing or killing the terrorist animals in question, if it will give us a tactical or strategic advantage to do so.

Elliot