Posted by Tina
A claim has been made on this blog that our nation is threatened more by Radical Christians than it is by radical Muslim terrorists. I thought the notion absurd but let it pass. Then this morning an article in National Review affirmed my suspicions:
A tiny, hardcore subset of environmental activists is so moved to violence that they’ve been repeatedly labeled America’s top domestic-terror threat by the FBI. Most domestic terrorism is committed by individuals, not groups, but eco-terrorist organizations have been responsible for more domestic-terror attacks than anyone else, and it’s not even close…
What comes next is a chart showing that the two most threatening domestic terror groups are ELF and ALF. Number one is the Earth Liberation Front.
Number of Christian terrorists groups in the top five? Zero.
I thought you should know the truth.
Very interesting stuff–thanks for posting.
I’m not surprised that Eco-terrorist groups are at the top of the list, though I wonder how a list of individual terrorists would differ. My hunch–and I could be wrong–is that right-wing terrorists are less likely to be part of an organized group and act more as lone wolves. I’m not sure you can say for sure based on this list that left-wing terrorism happens more often than right-wing terrorism, just that left-wing terrorists are much more likely to operate as a group.
It’s also important to note the low number of fatalities (though of course burning down houses is nothing to scoff at). And then of course there’s the huge number of fatalities caused by Islamic terrorism, particularly 9/11. I’d be curious how that stacks up with fatalities caused by homegrown terrorists operating based on a left or right-wing agenda. I may have to look into that.
I don’t know how far you want to go back, but you could start in the sixties and seventies, you’d find a gold mine. Several left wing groups were murdering people, burning, bombing, robbing banks and generally creating mayhem…oh, and at least one lone wolf lefty, Ted Kazinsky.
I wonder why serial killers are not included in the terror column. We had several of those going on too.
This is one of the reasons I hate seeing what’s going on today. I came to adulthood with this garbage going on, I sure hate the idea of going out in the same atmosphere!
“Most domestic terrorism is committed by individuals”…I would assume that many of them are not affiliated with the left or right but quite possibly influenced by the news and ongoing debate. Voices heard through the fog of mental illness could produce a mixture of irrational left and right wing thoughts.
Many of the recent lone wolf actors have been characterized as right wing and later found to be mentally unstable instead. The left is quick to label…maybe it’s their past sins they wish to erase in the mind of the public.
I don’t know how far you want to go back, but you could start in the sixties and seventies, you’d find a gold mine. Several left wing groups were murdering people, burning, bombing, robbing banks and generally creating mayhem…oh, and at least one lone wolf lefty, Ted Kazinsky.
I wonder why serial killers are not included in the terror column. We had several of those going on too.
This is one of the reasons I hate seeing what’s going on today. I came to adulthood with this garbage going on, I sure hate the idea of going out in the same atmosphere!
“Most domestic terrorism is committed by individuals”…I would assume that many of them are not affiliated with the left or right but quite possibly influenced by the news and ongoing debate. Voices heard through the fog of mental illness could produce a mixture of irrational left and right wing thoughts.
Many of the recent lone wolf actors have been characterized as right wing and later found to be mentally unstable instead. The left is quick to label…maybe it’s their past sins they wish to erase in the mind of the public.
And by the way “no-go” zones have NOT been debunked. They exist and after the latest bombing more of the French authorities are willing to talk about them. From news sources around the world before and after Paris:
Jewish Press:
The Gardian
NewsBusters (see link to NYT
american Spectator;
The left leadership is afraid that speaking about the realities we face truthfully will “make them mad.”
PC is allowing these enclaves to spread and it’s putting everyine in greater danger and getting people killed.
Demonizing those who do attempt to warn us of what’s happening is stupid and dangerous.
Tina, the guy who coined the phrase “no go zones” said he was wrong to have ever used that word after visiting many of the areas in person, and that no go zones do not exist. I’m not sure how much more “debunked” this myth can get.
From Daniel Pipes:
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.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/nogozones.asp
Tina, the Jewish Press article you linked to is fascinating, and deserves a closer look.
The intro, in which you quoted, says this:
“The French government has announced a plan to boost policing in 15 of the most crime-ridden parts of France in an effort to reassert state control over the country’s so-called “no-go” zones: Muslim-dominated neighborhoods that are largely off limits to non-Muslims.”
Interesting claim. I’m curious to see how they back it up: will they include a direct quote from the government’s announcement in which the term “no-go zone” is used, or in which Muslims are specified? I fully believe the part about “boosting policing in 15 crime-ridden parts of France,” but I’m not sure I’m sold that the second part is an accurate interpretation . Let’s see if they provide this evidence.
“These crime-infested districts, which the French Interior Ministry has officially designated “Priority Security Zones” (zones de sécurité prioritaires, or ZSP), include heavily Muslim parts of Paris, Marseilles, Strasbourg, Lille and Amiens, where Muslim youths recently went on a two-day arson rampage that caused extensive property damage and injured more than a dozen police officers.”
OK, so Muslim violence does happen in these areas. I won’t dispute that. I’m still unclear if the French government actually called out Muslim violence by name or used the phrase “no-go zones,” as the lede claimed.
“As of now, 15 initial Priority Security Zones have been designated. If the new policy results in a drop in crime, Valls is expected to name up to 40 more Priority Security Zones before the summer of 2013.
Many of these new Priority Security Zones coincide with Muslim neighborhoods that previous French governments have considered to be Sensitive Urban Zones. (Zones Urbaine Sensibles, or ZUS) – which were also “no-go” zones for French police.
At last count, there were a total of 751 Sensitive Urban Zones, a comprehensive list of which can be found on a French government website, complete with satellite maps and precise street demarcations. An estimated five million Muslims live in these “Sensitive Urban Zones” — parts of France over which the French state has essentially lost control.”
Everything in these three paragraphs other than the bolded portions are facts. The bolded portions are opinions. But they’re mixed together so well that it takes a critical reader to separate them. The article still has not quoted any French officials referring to these areas as “no-go zones” or “parts of France where the French state has essentially lost control.” Those are the author’s interpretations, which he is trying to pass off as fact. This is misleading. A reader who is not trained in critical thinking will assume that these statements were made by French government officials–which is exactly what the author wants them to believe.
“Consider Seine-Saint-Denis, a notorious northern suburb of Paris, and home to an estimated 500,000 Muslims. Seine-Saint-Denis is divided into 40 administrative districts called communes, 36 of the 40 districts are on the French government’s official list of “no-go” zones.”
And here is where I stop reading because there is no French government’s official list of “no-go zones.” It doesn’t exist. There is an official list “Sensitive Urban Zones,” but the French government itself has declared that that is not a list of “no-go zones.” The writer here is simply lying.
Notice how he eases into the lie. He starts with half-truths, mixing facts with unsourced interpretations and opinions. Yes, the French government announced an increased police presence in many areas, but did they ever say this was to combat Muslim no-go zones? The writer says they did, but provides no proof, hoping that his target audience (you) won’t require it. He then continues to conflate fact with opinion by giving facts about the list of “Sensitive Urban Zones,” and then adding a single phrase at the end of each paragraph to connect these to his imagined “no-go zones.” Before the article is halfway over, all of a sudden France has an “official list of no-go zones.” It’s a gradual transition meant to mislead the reader. Use just enough facts to give an air of credibility. Claim government officials have said things they haven’t actually said. Create an impression that you have provided evidence in the mind of the reader without actually providing that evidence.
It takes critical reading skills to notice these things. So thank you, Tina; you’ve given me an article I might use for an assignment on critical reading, bias and credible sources. It’s important to read carefully and critically so as not to be mislead.
Haven’t you tried to discredit Danial Pipes?
I remember this article from discussions we’ve had before. I don’t doubt the validity of his experience. I also cannot ignore police reports and more recent reports from the government. There is no doubt the western world has gone out of it’s way to show it’s tolerance. I think that tolerance is wearing thin.
Debka file:
More from Voice of America
I’d forgotten that Germany did the same thing after 911.
Given the west’s religious tolerance this is an extreme move that I doubt would be happening if there wasn’t a severe and growing problem of Muslim Extremists asserting themselves to control areas where they settle en masse under their belief that Islam/sharia law should rule the world.
I know you have expressed doubt that this is a component of the enemy’s plans; I think people like you need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Tina: “Haven’t you tried to discredit Danial Pipes?”
I think I’ve said that he’s made some explosive and untrue statements about Muslims. The “no-go zone” myth was one of them. Since he’s walked that one back, I think he’s gained a little more credibility in my eyes; he was obviously wrong in his original assessment, and reached his conclusions without having all the facts, but he at least admitted that, despite the risk of alienating his target audience. That shows character.
“I don’t doubt the validity of his experience. I also cannot ignore police reports and more recent reports from the government.”
You have not cited any police reports or reports from the government indicating the existence of “no-go zones.” You cited a Jewish Press article which falsely claimed that the French police announced they were combating no-go zones, but that language was never used by the police. The other articles you cited all use that language as an opinion; no official government or police source has used it.
“French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve announced Wednesday that three mosques, two in suburbs of Paris and one in Lyon, have been closed by an order from his ministry under the emergency regulations France enacted after the terrorist attacks on the capital. Weapons were found in one of the mosques and an illegal religious school was run there clandestinely. Cazeneuve called the three mosques “pseudo-religious organizations.””
That’s very concerning. It also has nothing to do with “no-go zones.”
Chris: “You cited a Jewish Press article which falsely claimed that the French police announced they were combating no-go zones, but that language was never used by the police.”
Forgive me for thinking this sounds a bit arrogant. How do you know it was a “false claim” and that “that language was never used by the police.”
Unless you imagine being present every time the police spoke.
The French government “has announced a plan to boost policing in 15 of the most crime-ridden parts of France in an effort to reassert state control over the country’s so-called “no-go” zones: Muslim-dominated neighborhoods that are largely off limits to non-Muslims.
The government announced “a plan”…not a list. And what does it matter if they are called “no-go zones” or “neighborhoods that are largely off limits to non-Muslims”…its all the same!
Nit picking. It’s tiresome…and it doesn’t really make you look smart; it makes you look childish and stupid.
Also found this listing of sources:
Tina: “Forgive me for thinking this sounds a bit arrogant. How do you know it was a “false claim” and that “that language was never used by the police.”
So now the burden of proof is on me to disprove the author’s claim, not the author of the article who provided no quotes to prove his claim, and flat-out lied by saying there was an official French list of no-go zones?
Ridiculous. And gullible. You believe him because you want to believe him.
Show me French police actually announcing they were going after no-go zones, and I’ll have a reason to take your claim seriously.
“The government announced “a plan”…not a list. And what does it matter if they are called “no-go zones” or “neighborhoods that are largely off limits to non-Muslims”…its all the same!”
The government called them neither of these things. Both of those phrases were the author’s editorialization, AKA spin, AKA dishonesty, since the author clearly intended his readers to think they were the words of the police when they were in fact his own words that he put in their mouths. I explained this already.
Please read more carefully.
And please stop complaining about “nitpicking” every time you are caught making claims with no evidence. It makes you look like a sore loser.
The very long article you cited is by the same author I just pointed out was dishonest and unethical; I’m not sure why you’d think I’d waste time reading it.
See the comment above yours where you will find references such as:
“French politician Franck Guiot wrote that parts of Ãvry, a township in the southern suburbs of Paris, are no-go zones where police forces cannot go for fear of being attacked”
“The Socialist mayor of Amiens, Gilles Demailly, has referred to the Fafet-Brossolette district of the city as a “no-go zone” where “you can no longer order a pizza or get a doctor to come to the house.” Europe 1, one of the leading broadcasters in France, has referred to Marseille as a “no-go zone” after the government was forced to deploy riot police, known as CRS, to confront warring Muslim gangs in the city. The French Interior Ministry said it was trying to “reconquer” 184 square kilometers (71 square miles) of Marseille that have come under the control of Muslim gangs.”
“…the French Interior Ministry has designated as Priority Security Zones”
“…36 of which are on the French government’s official list of “sensitive urban zones” or ZUS.”
It would seem that no-go zone is somewhat common and interchangeable with words like “sensitive urban zones.”
Hmmm…does this remind me of “workplace violence?”
YES!