>>51If I didn't fall for the Breitbart meme, what makes you think I'd fall for a site that is just as fringe, but not even as well known?
>>52“WHAT the f**k are you doing?” asks a Muslim youth at the wheel of a shiny black BMW.
Young men being rude to strangers is not exactly newsworthy, never mind being a sign of a "no-go zone". Maybe that's not considered acceptable behavior in British culture, but as an American, I don't find it particularly unusual - so I don't see why Muslims being rude is a sign of drastic societal collapse.
I ask whether the nasty passages couldn't be simply erased from the Koran just leaving the good bits but my scholarly interviewee laughs.
The writer previously indicates they are previously familiar with at least the text of the quran, but unless they're a rabid atheist it seems odd for them to think intentionally editing holy texts is something that people would consider acceptable. The Old Testament has plenty of nasty stuff too (though generally not as bad as the Quran), but Christians and Jews don't edit it out, they mostly just ignore it instead. I would expect the same pattern to occur during a reform of Islam - they wouldn't censor the violent passages, just change the emphasis of their interpretation.
Oh wait, nvm, a few paragraphs down he mentions he is an atheist. However, regardless, I suspect most religious people wouldn't be okay with removing "nasty" aspects of their holy texts, even if they do disagree with them. Of course, that's kind of the danger of religion - they're not intended to evolve with the times.
Anyways, I'd call the town a ghetto, not a no-go zone. The term ``no-go zone" originally referred to areas that were basically a war zone that even the police couldn't enter safely. Considering that the worst this guy seemed to face was some dirty looks and rude words, calling it a no-go zone seems like a pretty drastic exaggeration.
And also, in response to what others have posted, the fact that police are getting attacked with molotov cocktails isn't proof that it's a no-go zone, either. Europe tends to have pretty strict gun laws, so violent criminals using "unconventional" weapons is hardly something to freak out about. It looks to be on the same tier as organized crime gangs in the US - and while having organized crime in your city is
obviously not a good thing, it doesn't make it a "no-go zone" either. There's a crime problem in these places, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to use this exaggerated rhetoric.
>>56Even more disturbing is that it appears NATO arms shipments and payments are being diverted to an "EU Army" which does not exist officially. This is disturbing because an EU army would be concerned with enforcing EU objectives even if they run contrary to the needs of specific countries within it.
What do you mean "it appears"? What sort of evidence are we talking about? Are there any names or places, any sort of concrete facts or even rumors about this alleged EU army?
And for an army to be a credible threat to even mostly-demilitarized Europe, they need numbers, so are there any hypotheses as to where they get their manpower from without having an official existence?