News
No-go zones: invasion begins
This week, Muslim terrorists made the news in their typical bloody way. The latest mini-war in France came to a bloody end yesterday. Casualties numbered twenty: seventeen Kaffirs (eleven editors, cartoonists, and other staff of a weekly specializing in satirical cartoons, two police officers, and four Jewish shoppers) and three mujaheddin (the notorious Kouachi Brothers and their accomplice, Amedy Coulibaly). But the mainstream media, except for one American outlet and her sister outlet in the United Kingdom, lost one vital element. The Kouachi Brothers, and Monsieur Coulibaly, could never have done what they did, but for a new feature of French civil life: no-go zones.
What are no-go zones?
Wikipedia (“The Free Encyclopedia”) today best defines no-go zones. (Note: the editorial committee of Wikipedia threatens to remove the article unless anyone “[cites] reliable sources.”) A no-go zone, or no-go area, according to Wikipedia,
a region where the ruling authorities have lost control and are unable to enforce their sovereignty.
The particular Wikipedians who so define the term, draw on the revolutions in South Africa and Zimbabwe (once Rhodesia). As the fighting wore on, rebel forces took over spots or tracts of land, until at last they had it all. By that logic, the Islamic State holds sway over many “no-go zones” in Iraq and Syria.
But the worthies at Wikipedia do not define “no-go zones” completely. CNAV would like to add: Any region of any country, over which the authorities have ceded control and relinquished sovereignty, either at their own will or to acknowledge armed conquest for any reason whatever, becomes a no-go zone to that authority.
The Wikipedians gave the concept “no-go zone” these elements: loss of control, relinquishment of sovereignty, and military conquest. But the concept needs no elements other than loss of control and relinquishment of sovereignty. Once one defines “no-go zones” this way, one realizes the world has “no-go zones” in many places beyond Iraq and Syria. (South Africa and Zimbabwe do not count any more. They who seized the original no-go zones became the authorities.)
Where can one find no-go zones?
Muslims set up no-go zones easily. They move into a neighborhood, or a city quarter, in large numbers. They enhance those numbers through simple breeding. (Muslims have higher birth rates than their non-Muslim co-residents in all Western lands.) They then demand that the police not enter those quarters without first asking permission from the local cleric. And: the authorities accede to this demand.
Western authorities have known about no-go zones for more than three years. The Gatestone Institute studied no-go zones in August of 2011, or three years and five months ago. They found:
Many of the no-go zones function as microstates governed by Islamic Sharia law. Host-country authorities effectively have lost control in these areas and in many instances are unable to provide even basic public aid such as police, fire fighting and ambulance services.
How did this happen? The Gatestone Institute blames
decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged Muslim immigrants to create parallel societies and remain segregated rather than become integrated into their European host nations.
General Charles de Gaulle reminds all the French to fight on. Photo: User Semnoz at Wikipédia française, CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License
“Multiculturalism” demands “respect” of cultures other than the dominant one. Multiculturalism weakens the glue that holds societies together. Darius III, emperor of Persia, could testify to that. His multicultural empire lost to the unicultural Greco-Macedons under Alexander the Great.
Gatestone described in detail no-go zones across Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Holland, and Sweden. The French experience gives the best instruction. As of July of 2010, French authorities listed seven hundred fifty-one “Sensitive Urban Zones” where the police dare not go on patrol. Twelve of these zones lie inside the city limits of Paris. During the recent terrorist drama in France, the Kouachi Brothers were trying to drive into a no-go zone when the Gendarmes got too close and chased them into the print shop where they finally shot it out. That drama might not be over yet had they made that escape.
No-go zones in the United States
Yes, the United States also has no-go zones in its territory. Many of these lie along the U.S.-Mexican Border and belong to the “drug cartels.” At the “turn of the century” (meaning from the nineteenth to the twentieth), Pancho Villa controlled a no-go zone.
Today, independent investigators know of thirty-five armed camps, in rural or near-wilderness regions, where Muslims not only live but train in terror tactics. WND broke that story three years ago. And the FBI did nothing.
Besides those thirty-five camps, at least three urban regions almost qualify as no-go zones:
- Dearborn, Michigan.
- Paterson, New Jersey (with Arabic street signs)
- The Muslim quarter of Jersey City, New Jersey, between Journal Square and New Jersey City University.
Northern Virginia has drawn a large Muslim population. If that region does not have no-go zones yet, it may within a year.
What shall we do about it?
[ezadsense midpost]
Authorities everywhere must recognize: an irregular Muslim army has invaded their territory. As surely as Zimbabwean rebels seized control of lands in the former Rhodesia, so have these Muslims seized control in the lands where they live. They never meant to assimilate into the host culture. The Koran and the Hadiths tell them to respect no culture but Islam. They consider all other cultures inherently evil and weak. When authorities cede control, Muslims win a no-go zone without firing a shot in anger.
This week, at least three terrorists staged out of one or more no-go zones in and around Paris. They killed seventeen non-Muslims before the Gendarmes killed them. (The fourth named suspect might have fled to Syria even before the Kourachis fired their first shots.)
The French have arrived at a moment of truth, for themselves and their society. As George C. Scott memorably said in Dr. Strangelove (1964), truth is not always a pleasant thing. But one of two things will happen:
- The Gendarmes will move into those no-go zones, ignore the “sensibility” of these “urban zones,” and tell the local clerics either to accept the government presence, or leave. Or:
- France will become the French Emirate of the New Baghdad Caliphate.
The British, the Belgians, the Dutch, the Germans, the Italians, and the Swedes will all have to decide similarly. So will we Americans. Our country cannot tolerate thirty-five armed camps, and three independent Muslim city-states (and perhaps more suburb-states in Northern Virginia) and still call itself sovereign.
The adherents of no other religion demand no-go zones for themselves. The closest thing to that happened when the Jewish leaders of Tenafly, New Jersey, tried to string an eruv, or cloth Sabbath-journey border, around the town. They sought only to define any point within Tenafly as a Sabbath-day’s journey from any other. The city fathers refused. Yet authorities let Muslims set up zones where police may not enter? (Note: the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held the Borough of Tenafly could forbid the eruv if it wanted. But it could not forbid the eruv while at the same time letting people attach other things to the town’s utility poles.)
Selective cession of control and relinquishment of sovereignty define no-go zones. A country kills itself slowly by doing this. The Charlie’s Weekly incident should warn everyone: reclaim these no-go zones, or cede your whole country.
In closing let us remember what Charles de Gaulle said about the Germans declaring a no-go zone in his country:
TO ALL THE FRENCH!
France has lost a battle!
But she has not lost the war!Some that have happened into governing positions may have capitulated, ceding to panic, forgetting honour, delivering the country to servitude. However, nothing is lost!
Nothing is lost, because this war is a world war. In the free universe, immense forces have yet to get into the fray. One day, those forces will crush the enemy. That day, France must be there for victory. Then she will find her liberty and her greatness again. Such is my goal, my only goal!
This is why I invite all Frenchmen, wherever they may be, to join me in action, in sacrifice, and in hope.
Our motherland is in lethal danger. Let us all fight to save her!
LONG LIVE FRANCE!General de Gaulle
Head-Quarters,
Carlton Gardens 4
London, S.W.1.
[ezadsense leadout]
Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.
-
Civilization4 days agoFederal government taking shape for next year
-
Civilization2 days agoKennedy to become Health Secretary
-
Constitution3 days agoMatt Gaetz getting the Trump treatment
-
Civilization5 days agoFEMA aid withholding – policy?
-
Constitution3 days agoLinda Goudsmit on Dissent Television: ‘Space Is No Longer the Final Frontier—Reality Is’
-
Executive2 days agoIt’s Trump’s Transition and He Calls the Shots
-
Civilization2 days agoDisruptive force at the Pentagon
-
Executive3 days agoTrumping the Electric Vehicle Mandate
Terry King liked this on Facebook.
Live with Pastor Al liked this on Facebook.
How about the west as fundamentalist Muslim no go zone?!
Terry, there are no such places. Not in London, not in Paris, not in Birmingham, not anywhere in Europe. Not in the USA either, but that’s your problem.
The list of “Sensitive Urban Zones” in France was created to highlight areas with a variety of social problems, and has nothing to do with areas that police won’t enter and absolutely nothing to do with ethnic or religious makeup.
As for London, I seem to remember volunteering this before. I, a middle-aged white male, will go anywhere in London and provide photographic evidence of what a vibrant and friendly area it is. Let me know where you want me to go. I’m not going to volunteer to go to Birmingham, but only because it would be a long round trip just for a few photos. Say the word and I can find someone to get their photo taken in any area you like.
To be totally fair, there was a case at the end of 2013 where a group of young men was indeed trying to enforce Sharia law in Stepney (that’s East London). They were jailed for doing so: link to theguardian.com
In other words, people trying to enforce non-UK law were jailed under UK law for doing so. Please show me the no-go zone.
I suggest to you, in the light of information developed over the past week, your information is out-of-date.
And I suggest yours is incorrect. Steven Emerson has had to apologise to the city of Birmingham for his remarks, and made a donation to a local hospital to make amends.
In France, after Fox News claimed certain parts of Paris were worse than Afghanistan, reporters went around those areas interviewing residents. Their reaction was usually one of laughter at the suggestion.
If you know of such an area in London, take me up on my offer. But you won’t, because the fact is that there are no such places.
In Her Majesty’s courts, even truth is not always a complete defense (defence) against a charge of libel. I would imagine Mr. Emerson felt he could not find a barrister, if he needed one, on the order of Horace Rumpole. So I don’t take that as an automatic refutation of the basic facts on the ground: that Shari’a law is beginning to displace English law in certain parts of England and even to subject Keffirs to it.
Terry, seriously, there are no such places. You’re falling for conspiracy nonsense from hysterical and racist websites. If you believe differently, name such a place and I will visit it. If you aren’t prepared to name specific locations, you should stop repeating such nonsense.
Deny all you want that (a) such places exist, and (b) those who live there, and more particularly those who run those places, mean devilment to all the rest of us. I searched the Koran in three authoritative English translations on the day of the Manhattan Incident, for the word “Fight.” And I found it.
Other witnesses will corroborate what Steve Emerson originally said, if they do not succumb to fear, as he did.
Yes I deny it, but the difference between you and I is that I’m offering to go out and collect evidence one way or the other. I, in other words, am prepared to be proved wrong. You are simply relying on the words of others; words that have been derided as nonsense by people who know the areas involved.
So, again, name an area in London that you believe to be a no-go area.
Do you deny, then, that Shari’a law applies in any precinct of London, or Birmingham, or any other British city?
What happened to the notice on the CNAV page that showed recent comments/tweets/what have you? It made it easier to keep track of discussions that were still ongoing even after the instigating post fell off the front page.
Had to change the layout; that seemed redundant.
While waiting for rpeh’s response, I’ll go ahead and deny that there are no-go zones in Britain where the authorities have ceded control and relinquished sovereignty; where the police will not enter without permission from local _de facto_ authorities. Now it is your turn to state where these areas are, and then someone local can check out your claim. Perhaps you can change my mind.
As for whether Sharia applies in any precinct of a British community, that’s a different question. I suppose a claim could be made that anytime two observant Muslims appeal to a religious leader for help in resolving a dispute instead of involving the police or the courts, then Sharia has been applied. It would be analogous to Christians asking their minister to help settle a disagreement rather than going to small claims court, or married Jews seeking counseling from their rabbi over a domestic dispute. Or atheists going to arbitration, I suppose (that’s a joke, son). Or if two persons enter into a contract that invokes Sharia law or principles for whatever reason, and then a standard court enforces the terms of the contract because the contract is valid. You get the picture. That’s a far cry from a claim that Sharia is the de jure or de facto law of the land in those places, though. Maybe you should clarify exactly what you mean.
No doubt there are persons or groups in Great Britain and elsewhere who advocate for Sharia to be the law of the land, just as in the US we have Christian Reconstructionist groups advocating for frank Christian theocracy, or Hasidic groups who want to enforce Talmudic restrictions on everyone who enters their area. But that doesn’t make Hasidic Williamsburg in Brooklyn or Vallejo, CA a no-go zone. A no-go zone would be more like the Bundy Ranch, right? Where armed militants refuse to let law officers execute lawful orders with threats of violence, and the law officers back down rather than spark a bloodbath? Or maybe spots like Cabrini-Green in Chicago at its nadir, when organized criminal activity took over.
Anyway, I begin to ramble. So: where in Great Britain is there a no-go zone, +/- where Sharia is the law of the land?
At least you admit certain groups want Shari’a to be the law of the land for everyone. Which is more than your friend seems to want to admit. Where we differ is in our assessments of the success said groups have thus far enjoyed.
Yes. I deny it. I deny it emphatically. There is no place in the UK that runs according to Shari’a law – not even inside mosques. Just to be clear: that means that even if a particular group attempted to impose Shari’a law by, say, cutting off a shoplifter’s hand, the people that performed the act would still be prosecuted under UK law (for Grievous Bodily Harm in such a case, I imagine) even if all parties concerned had agreed to be governed by Shari’a.
I don’t know what else I can say to persuade you.
Look… in my day-to-day life I regularly walk past the East London Mosque in Whitechapel and often past the Brick Lane Mosque as well as other non-typically British places of worship such as the Bevis Marks Synagogue. Whitechapel is an area with a relatively large population from Islamic countries and I’ve never seen anything other than a typical London suburb. Men and women of all ethnic backgrounds browse the street markets with or without head coverings or other dress forms. Nobody comments either way. Not only have I never witnessed an incidence of racial/religious tension, I don’t know anyone who has. Compared to sporting rivalries, that’s a good record.
I won’t try to claim that there are no ethnic tensions in London. Of course there are. But there’s nothing like a “no-go” zone. Not even close.
I’ll ask again: if you know of such an area, please name it.
Your testimony runs counter to that of other witnesses.
I suggest that Mr. Emerson recanted his remarks (if he did) out of fear of legal action or physical attack. This much everyone knows, who knows anything about British libel law: prosecution for libel is much easier in the UK than in the USA. Public figures enjoy the same protection from simple “nastygrams” as do the anonymous masses. And truth is not even a complete defence.
Nobody was going to sue him for anything – everybody was too busy laughing.
Just to pick up a point of Matthew’s: I won’t deny that there are plenty of people who would *like* Sharia to be the law, and despite your claim to the contrary I have said no such thing (good grief, Terry, my very first post included a link to an article where people were demanding exactly that!). I will, however, continue to deny that any such places currently exist. Neither do I accept the existence of any “no-go” areas in the UK.
As for the testimony of other witnesses, I will *again* request specifics. The Gatestone Institute article to which you link mentions areas being marked for campaigns, and names a couple of places where incidents like the ones I linked to have taken place. That’s it.
So again: specifics, or it didn’t happen.
Aaand you should read this. I didn’t spot it until after I’d posted: link to bbc.co.uk
Top quote: “We could find nothing that indicated Birmingham is a so-called no-go zone.”
All right. Try this link. That speaks directly to the situation in the UK that you claim to know so well. And to the situation in Dearborn, Michigan, USA.
Were the multiple retractions aired by Fox News on 1/17 regarding this whole mess also driven by fear of litigation or reprisal?
“Last week on this program, a guest made a serious factual error that we wrongly let stand unchallenged and uncorrected. The guest asserted that the city of Birmingham, England is totally Muslim and that it is a place where non-Muslims do not go. Both are incorrect… Also, we could find no credible source that indicates Birmingham is a so-called no-go zone. We deeply regret these errors and apologize…” – from Jeanine Pirro.
“We showed a map of neighborhoods in France labeled as no-go zones. Some of the neighborhoods were highlighted incorrectly. We apologize for the error.” – that apology came from Anna Kooiman who also had to apologize back in 2013 for falling for a parody website story about Obama personally funding a Muslim museum through the government shutdown – a story that was not true.
“Over the course of this last week we have made some regrettable errors on air regarding the Muslim population in Europe — particularly with regard to England and France. Now this applies especially to discussions of so-called ‘no-go zones,’ areas where non-Muslims allegedly aren’t allowed in, and police supposedly won’t go. To be clear, there is no formal designation of these zones in either country, and no credible information to support the assertion there are specific areas in these countries that exclude individuals based solely on their religion…We deeply regret the errors, and apologize to any and all who may have taken offense, including the people of France and England” – from Julie Banderas.
So, again again again, where are the areas of Great Britain where Sharia law applies?
Try this link.
I have to ask… did you read the link you gave us? “There are cities in the Midlands where the police never go because they are never called”.
“Because they are never called”.
Not “Because the government has ceded control”.
Nothing in that article contradicts anything Matthew or I have told you. Try again.
Why are the police never called? Do you really mean to suggest crime never happens in those precincts?
No. No one calls outside police to those cities because every resident of those cities understands that calling the police is the equivalent of “narking on” or “ratting out” a fellow member of the community. I don’t know any community leader other than an imam who wields the power to give all members of that community such an understanding.
And Dearborn? Even Snopes debunks it: link to snopes.com
Snopes has reason to make light of anything alarming about the effects or the effectiveness (or lack of it) of the policies of their favorite politicians, who are all on the left.
Now you’re just moving the goalposts. You have signally failed to name even one no-go zone in the UK. The reason is that none exist. You need to accept that and move on.
[…] we will take it soon.” Apparently these demons are not content to stay within their notorious 751 no-go zones in France where Sharia Law reigns and non-Muslims tread at their own risk. So, will they be content […]