![](”http://static.flickr.com/44/116364022_14e11279b9_o.jpg")
Tuesday, 3 Oct 2006
Not sure what I think about this. These guys are pretty sure what they think though.
On the one hand, if the US had legitimate reasons for not letting this guy in, who, incidentally not many other people seem to think is a terrorist, then why don't they just say so and save themselves the embarrasement of being accused of supressing politicsl views.
On the other hand, the US doesn't exactly have an ugly history of political repression and silencing of criticism. Many foreign academics who are critical of US policy are allowed onto US soil and into US academic circles all the time.
Perhaps they were suspicious of him at first, it turned out to be nothing, then they were too embarrased to let him in because it would have been proven that they were un necessarily paranoid. What am I saying, only the Egyptian government would do something that illogical and winding.Perhaps they're still suspicious of him, although I think the guy is harmless to say the least, if not useful.
What do you think?
Dandash
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Doesn’t matter what I think, nor anyone else. The guy isn’t a US citizen. He isn’t entitled to disclosure (ie, given the reason why the State Dept. won’t grant the visa). Besides, we don’t need him - we already have CAIR …
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:40 pm
He ain’t harmless. He is being refused entry, tumor has it, because of his ties to several charities linked to suicide bombers. He dresses his fundamentalism up a little, he is careful about the words he uses, especially in French or English, but the guy is a supporter of terrorists and America is right to refuse him entry. The UK ought to have done the same. Entry is not a right after all. It is a privilege and it ought to be reserved for people who do not defend the murder of Jewish babies in Palestine.
October 3rd, 2006 at 2:03 pm
we know well this man in France too, he appears regulary on TV each time there is a conflict ( ex. veil).
He is a very clever man, well bred, very cultured, but dangerous in the way he is displaying reactionary views to empech islam to adapt to modern societies
my opinion, he is a man who wants to install a fondamentalism islam over France, a kind of Benedict XVI , but more perfid !
October 3rd, 2006 at 2:06 pm
I seriously don’t understand why LGF and the far right keep bashing Tariq Ramadan.
I agree with Dandash. I think the man is harmless and in fact usefull. I’ve read a lot of his works and I like his ideas. I haven’t seen anything presented forward by him that advocates or supports terrorism, not even terrorism against Israelis.
Assumptions are what they are… assumptions! People like Qaradawi have openly stated their support for suicide bombings in Palestine but condemned the rest. Until I see clear proof or hear Tariq Ramadan saying some weird shit like that,, I won’t change my mind. The guy’s working very hard trying to get Muslims to integrate in Europe and many of his ideas are not bad at all.
October 3rd, 2006 at 2:14 pm
I second HeiGou. It’s not as though America has placed him under arrest.
America doesn’t need proof of material aid to terrorism.
America simply chooses, to not let him in. Going to America isn’t some God-given right.
The fewer the people like Tariq Ramadan in America, the better. Britain has suffered a lot (as has the rest of Europe) from not screening the views of those they let in.
(One correction to HeiGou, “jewish babies in Palestine” - I think you mean “in the Palestinian Authority and in Israel”).
October 3rd, 2006 at 2:37 pm
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2043
QUOTE:
* He has praised the brutal Islamist policies of the Sudanese politician Hassan Al-Turabi. Mr. Turabi in turn called Mr. Ramadan the “future of Islam.”
* Mr. Ramadan was banned from entering France in 1996 on suspicion of having links with an Algerian Islamist who had recently initiated a terrorist campaign in Paris.
* Ahmed Brahim, an Algerian indicted for Al-Qaeda activities, had “routine contacts” with Mr. Ramadan, according to a Spanish judge (Baltasar Garzón) in 1999.
* Djamel Beghal, leader of a group accused of planning to attack the American embassy in Paris, stated in his 2001 trial that he had studied with Mr. Ramadan.
* Along with nearly all Islamists, Mr. Ramadan has denied that there is “any certain proof” that Bin Laden was behind 9/11.
* He publicly refers to the Islamist atrocities of 9/11, Bali, and Madrid as “interventions,” minimizing them to the point of near-endorsement.
And here are other reasons, dug up by Jean-Charles Brisard, a former French intelligence officer doing work for some of the 9/11 families, as reported in Le Parisien:
* Intelligence agencies suspect that Mr. Ramadan (along with his brother Hani) coordinated a meeting at the Hôtel Penta in Geneva for Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy head of Al-Qaeda, and Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh, now in a Minnesota prison.
* Mr. Ramadan’s address appears in a register of Al Taqwa Bank, an organization the State Department accuses of supporting Islamist terrorism.
October 3rd, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Tariq Ramadan is a master of taqiyya and tu-qoque. He is a liar and a terrorist sympathizer. CT Blog had a piece on him the other day.
CT Blog makes a good point: he has no right to even visit America.
October 3rd, 2006 at 3:19 pm
A liar who didn’t cause the death of thousands is better than a liar who did.
October 3rd, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Ramadan’s washington post article makes him sound benign. In fact, exactly the type of guy the usa needs to have around, and to encourage.
On the other hand, if it’s true that he refers to suicide bombers as a “sacrifice” that “finds its justification in decades of accumulated suffering and western passive responsibility”, and to the taliban as an “exemplary” regime - then he’s just what tommy says - a master of taqiyya. Because there’s not even a hint of these views in his wp column - he present himself as someone who would believe just the opposite. Added to this: the qualms surrounding the “charities” to which he’s donated.
I see why Dandash is not sure what to think about this. I’m not sure either. But I think us immigration is right in their response. They shouldn’t be giving anyone the benefit of the doubt at this point. If in doubt, slam the door. Or close it politely - but firmly.
October 3rd, 2006 at 4:02 pm
I wish the State Department was always this careful. Unfortunately, they are not. After all, we let Raed Jarrar in, and he has advocated the deaths of Americans when he lived in Iraq.
On a semi-related note, I just saw a breaking news story that a passenger jet has been hijacked in Greek air space. Appears to be a Turkish airliner.
October 3rd, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Taqiyya indeed. This is the Islamist MO everywhere in the world. Put on a pretty face until you get to be about fifteen or twenty percent of the local population. Then start demanding that the country convert to Islam. This is usually the point at which the murder and mayhem begins. Naturally, every rational objection to this behavior is taken as a slap in the face of the prophet and cause for even more orgies of violence. This clown is nothing more than an advance man for the global Jihad. I’m relieved that we’re finally keeping these sleeper agents and propagandists for “The Religion of Peace” the hell out of my country.
Another good sign is that more and more Westerners are aware of the common practice of taqiyya by these Islamist scum. Muslims have repeatedly complained that Westerners don’t know about Islam. Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it. Personally, the more I learn, the more alarmed I become.
October 3rd, 2006 at 5:31 pm
I don’t knwo who this guy is but shouldn’t the fact that his own country is banning him entry be a sign that there is something wrong? As they say in Egypt, there is no smoke without fire. And while I don’t usually agree with Craig, I have to agree that the US is a sovreign country and can deny entry to any one at any time without being accused of anything. Just a thought.
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Bush is a liar.
Bush is a criminal.
American are murderers, just look at all the school shootings. you got more people interested in shooting up schools than you have people interested in learning.
“American way of life” my ass.
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:01 pm
“Bush is a liar”
Most politicians are …
“Bush is a criminal”
Most politicians are …
“American are murderers, just look at all the school shootings. you got more people interested in shooting up schools than you have people interested in learning.”
So, but virtue of Bush being a liar and criminal (ie a politician) all Americans become murderers? Is that a large logical fallacy or are you just happy to see me?
““American way of life” my ass.”
Tisk tisk - now you’re just being mean …
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Lee Iacocca:
“More people interested in shooting up schools than interested in learning”?
You know, you really need to reduce your caffeine consumption. Or whatever else it is that’s stimulating you.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:58 pm
From a link on the page of your second link:
“In addition to the above, Tariq Ramadan issued statements or publications in support of terrorism:
1. The website of the Islamic Center of Geneva (of which Tariq Ramadan is still an executive director) released a sermon on Iraq in August 2005 calling “to support our brothers in Fallujah and Southern Iraq against this unjust occupation, in reality the terrorists are the US administration, the Sharon government and the Putin government”. This statement was clearly referring to the only insurgency force stationed at the time in Fallujah, Tanzim Qa’idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (Al Qaeda in Iraq), in opposition to the “true” terrorists.
If this stuff is true, I say they have reason to keep him out. That doesn’t necessarily mean that I think they should - only that I think they would have a valid reason to. No country has an obligation to let its enemies (even if they aren’t armed ones) over its borders.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:24 pm
“No country has an obligation to let its enemies (even if they aren’t armed ones) over its borders.”
I appreciate your reasoned approach to the issue Puniqe, but isn’t it also the case that no country has an obligation to let anyone over its borders, whether or not they pose any kind of threat? Isn’t it also okay for the US to refuse entry simply because it doesn’t like the guy, or because it would rather give a visa to someone else?
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:27 pm
“American are murderers, just look at all the school shootings. you got more people interested in shooting up schools than you have people interested in learning.”
I guess the American public has just taken too much advice from the cowards blowing themselves up around Iraqi women and children. Or perhaps that advice came from the Indonesian thugs who behead school girls. Wait, wait, no its from the radicals that took over that Russian school. Then again, it could be the cowards that blow up busses of women and children in Israel. Maybe its from the parents who feel compelled to kill their own daughters out of “honor”. Although it could also be from the radicals that invade Hindu homes in India to kill entire families. Ah hell, I guess we’ve just learned it from the bastards in Thailand who shoot Buddhists monks while they are shopping. Either that or the killers who shoot 70 something year old nuns in the back. At any rate we just need some better role models to copy.
Don’t give me that B.S. I spent over a year in the Middle East. You have just as many screwed up people. They’re everywhere and in every culture. The only thing I will agree with you on is that our education system sucks.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:28 pm
It’s nice to see the ICE is actually keeping someone out of the US. The US has no duty to extend Mr Ramadan a visa and no duty to explain why. It really doesn’t matter how much Mr Ramadan whines.
I expect ICE to do thier jobs and keep some folks out of the US. Moreover I wish they’d do it more often.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:27 pm
Tariq Ramadan talks with two faces. It’d be great if he was all one face & it was the face normal people could agree with, but I don’t feel that’s the real him. He’s a devil with a silver forked tounged. but that’s just me.
October 4th, 2006 at 12:37 am
I knew I should start using the sarcasm tag more often, BTW I am in Canada and not in the middle east. AND I don’t think that the Americans are a murderous bunch at all (how redneck of me), as a matter of fact when my workmates from the states come to visit our office in TO I always make sure that I take them out ( who want to be stuck in a hotel room?) and show them a good time; the nudie bars in canada are a lot better than the ones in NY.
October 4th, 2006 at 1:20 am
Jean-Charles Brisard has more on Tariq Ramadan at the Terror Finance Blog: http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/2006/09/us_visa_denied_.html
October 4th, 2006 at 3:35 am
The devil hath power
To assume a pleasing shape
Shakespeare
October 4th, 2006 at 5:54 am
When I first time heard about mr Ramadan I was suprised that some people thought he supports terrorists. Then I started reading his speeches, particularly the ones translated from arabic and changed my mind. I agree with dick and tommy, he uses taqiya. Furthermore if someone derides US why US should grant him/her a visa, that would be masochism.
On the other hand sometimes immigration people do make mistakes, they should have kept Raed Jarrar out of US. I only hope he will never be as popular as Tariq Ramadan.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:56 am
Tariq Ramadan can spin it anyway he would like but the US does not need any reason to deny him entry into the US. Tariq Ramadan has contributed financially to what the US has “officially” designated as a terrorist organization … end of story.
October 4th, 2006 at 9:52 am
I don’t get the point of this post. Every day, thousands of ordinary visa applicants are turned back and nobody cares. When they receive any explanation at all, it usually is, “We fear you will decide to stay”. A man I know was even asked during the interview to prove that he’ll return before the expiry date of his eventual visa. He said that the only way to prove this would be by actually returning, but in order to return, he should be let go in the first place.
What makes Mr. Ramadan so special?
He should be reminded that entering any foreign country is a privilege and not a right.
October 4th, 2006 at 11:35 am
Tariq Ramadan is a softspoken double-talker.
If you speak french, I highly recommend to watch a discussion between the french interior minister and Tariq Ramadan on TV. (And also the video below Envoyé Spécial “Who is Tariq Ramadan”.)
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbvaq_nicolas-sarkozy-vs-tariq-ramadan
SUMMARY:
Tariq Ramadan talks a lot (90% of the time?!) and with pleasant words. But his positions are not pleasant at all, if you take a hard look at what he ACTUALLY propagates.
Sarkozy asked very simple questions and got very long monologes from self-aggrandizing Ramadan:
1) Ramadan wrote an article accusing jewish intellectuals, that was in essence antisemitic. Will Ramadan admit a mistake on his part and apologize?
- NO.
(Ramadan: In fact I am the biggest fighter against antisemitism. There was a “deficit de formulation”. I got insulted. We should fight against racism and islamophobia.)
2) Ramadans brother supports stoning of women for adultery. Will Tariq Ramadan denounce stoning?
- NOT REALLY.
(Ramadan: I want a moratorium. We shouldnt apply the verdicts until there is a consensus among scholars. The majority in the muslim world today supports stoning according to sharia. So we muslims need to discuss whether and when to stone women. I am the teacher enabling the muslims to this discussion, therefor my position cannot be too progressive - like denouncing stoning.)
3) In France, islamic headscarves are prohibited in school and there is no total segregation based on gender in hospitals or in baths. Will Ramadan ask the muslim community to respect those french laws and traditions?
- NO.
(Ramadan: I am the biggest fighter for integration in France. I don’t call to respect those french laws and traditions, i call for a “dialogue” on those issues.)
Envoyé Spécial “Qui est Tariq Ramadan” par Sifaoui (33min)
http://www.dailymotion.com/visited/search/tariq%20ramadan%20/video/xdrxx_envoyespecialquiesttariqramadan
or in english:
http://www.tariqramadan.com/article.php3?id_article=277&lang=en
October 5th, 2006 at 5:27 am
Tariq Ramadan is quite an interesting chap. I’ve heard his speak both in Arabic and in French, and he is an excellent communicator.
I believe it is just easy for people to bash someone they disagree with, especially i he’s smart and well reasoned, which makes him for some dangerous for being able to counter whatever anti-islamic propaganda.
The man’s main message, in my point of view, is to empower a minority - in this case, Muslims in Europe - to recognise their identity and to take part in their country’s daily life. Quite an honourable cause, I believe. Muslims are 5 to 6 millions in France - I am one of them, for that matter, though i’m not living there anymore - and it’s quite about time that Muslims participate in the political, social and economic institutions that govern their citizen life.
Just because they are a minority doesn’t mean they don’t get their country’s politics and rights: they are entitled, by virtue of their citizenship, to discuss their community, to take part in shaping it. That’s what democracy
Unless you think that brown people with funny arabic-sounding names are not entitled to discuss the politics of their ‘host’ countries because they are, well, brown with funny sounding names; in which case this makes you a narrow minded feather-brained idiot.
How many generations will it take for a person of Muslim descent to be considered a full fledged citizen of …. (insert the country you want here). 1? 2? Will never happen?
Bearing in mind that France’s upcoming president - Nicolas Sarkozy, a right-wing prick - is the son of an immigrant who made it in the country two years before Nicolas was born, that the latter speaks of the Christian Orthodox community as ‘we’ in a country where religion and politics should never ever ever (ever!) mix, it is easy to see how bigoted people can get when faced with cases which bear quite an interesting similarity.
Enough digression, though.
The problem, however, is what some of the people who commented on this post exemplify: a very narrow understanding of, well, the world around them and the fear that basically an empowered Muslim is a dangerous one. Sad, sad… and kinda dumb as well.
And as for the visa matter: while a country is free to let whomever it wants in or not, it is a fact that the US is becoming ridiculously paranoid. It is almost shameful.
Well, their legal right nevertheless.
Only the US doesnt play it by the (legal) book.
The US and T.Ramadan have had quite a rocky relationship, for that matter - I recall when Ramadan got an appointment for Notre Dame Uni (in the US); he got his paper, terminated, his house contract, got his kids out of school and enrolled them in the US - and then, a few days before he was due to leave Europe, the US embassy revoked his visa. Now tell me that this is just a ‘legal procedure’. Sure like hell it isnt, it was highly motivated.
Am glad the lad ended up in the UK, though — quite a far more tolerant place. And, well, Oxford vs. Notre-Dame… (apologies to Notre-Damers out there
And to Curt from Huston who says that the more he learns about Islam, the more alarmed he becomes: well, read Tariq Ramadan, kiddo.
October 5th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Mohamed
there are many honorable muslin representants in France, no need this outside one
October 6th, 2006 at 8:13 am
Mohamed Says:”I believe it is just easy for people to bash someone they disagree with, especially i he’s smart and well reasoned, which makes him for some dangerous for being able to counter whatever anti-islamic propaganda.”
Well it is rare people bash those they agree with. Ramadan is not, imo, smart and well reasoned. He is slippery. He doesn’t out-right lie, but he hides, he shades, he avoids. There is no anti-Islamic propaganda - that is just typical Arab paranoia.
Mohamed Says:”The man’s main message, in my point of view, is to empower a minority - in this case, Muslims in Europe - to recognise their identity and to take part in their country’s daily life.”
That is not the problem with his message. Everyone wants Muslims to take part in their countries’ daily lives. The problem is that he is hiding essentially the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda under the cloak of “recognising their identity”. He is not, as it happens, encouraging Muslims to really take part in European life but to prepare to replace Western civlisation with Sharia.
Mohamed Says:”Just because they are a minority doesn’t mean they don’t get their country’s politics and rights: they are entitled, by virtue of their citizenship, to discuss their community, to take part in shaping it. That’s what democracy”
As opposed to Islam which would not give even majorities the right to shape their societies. Isn’t Europe so much nicer to minorities than Islamic law? No one is denying them said rights. You build a strawman and demolish it with ease. At best Ramadan is trying to shape the way that Muslims take part in European political life - as radical Muslims for instance and not as secular citizens.
Mohamed Says:”Unless you think that brown people with funny arabic-sounding names are not entitled to discuss the politics of their ‘host’ countries because they are, well, brown with funny sounding names; in which case this makes you a narrow minded feather-brained idiot.”
Another utter strawman. No one denies brown people the right to discuss politics. No one at all. At least in the West.
Mohamed Says:”How many generations will it take for a person of Muslim descent to be considered a full fledged citizen of …. (insert the country you want here). 1? 2? Will never happen?”
For the last 50 years that is precisely what the European countries, with the notable exception of German, have done. It has not worked. Muslims, or at least a significant minority of them, not only do not want to be full fledged citizens, but have rejected any attempt to take part in public life. Ramadan is not helping this. I think it is a waste of time and citizenship ought to be dependent on shared values - or conversion even.
Mohamed Says:”Bearing in mind that France’s upcoming president - Nicolas Sarkozy, a right-wing prick - is the son of an immigrant who made it in the country two years before Nicolas was born, that the latter speaks of the Christian Orthodox community as ‘we’ in a country where religion and politics should never ever ever (ever!) mix, it is easy to see how bigoted people can get when faced with cases which bear quite an interesting similarity.”
That is hardly bigoted. Sarkozy shares values with the French majority. He was born there and is utterly assimilated. He can speak of “we” without any problems as he thinks he is and everyone else shares that view. The Muslims in the suburbs reject that “we” and so can hardly complain if everyone else does too. I doubt that, for instance, Isabelle Adjani has any problems being accepted in that “we” or would not use the term herself. It is not a case of religion or origins but of share values. The French have foolishly let too many people in who reject French values.
Mohamed Says:”The problem, however, is what some of the people who commented on this post exemplify: a very narrow understanding of, well, the world around them and the fear that basically an empowered Muslim is a dangerous one. Sad, sad… and kinda dumb as well.”
No one minds empowered Muslims except when those Muslims interpret “empowered” to mean “suidice bomber”. Ramadan encourages the bombers. No one in their right mind would want him.
Mohamed Says:”And as for the visa matter: while a country is free to let whomever it wants in or not, it is a fact that the US is becoming ridiculously paranoid. It is almost shameful.”
Ridiculously paranoid? This is the country that produced a University that invited Ramadan, gave him a job, two in fact? You call that paranoid? The US is the most open and cosmopolitan country in the world. Unlike virtually every Muslim country it does not have a problem with preacher from other religions turning up, much less getting a well paid job to influence the minds of the young and impressionable. If you call the US paranoid, what do you call Saudi Arabia who this week claimed Bin Laden was in the pay of the CIA?
Mohamed Says:”Only the US doesnt play it by the (legal) book.
The US and T.Ramadan have had quite a rocky relationship, for that matter - I recall when Ramadan got an appointment for Notre Dame Uni (in the US); he got his paper, terminated, his house contract, got his kids out of school and enrolled them in the US - and then, a few days before he was due to leave Europe, the US embassy revoked his visa. Now tell me that this is just a ‘legal procedure’. Sure like hell it isnt, it was highly motivated.
Am glad the lad ended up in the UK, though — quite a far more tolerant place. And, well, Oxford vs. Notre-Dame… (apologies to Notre-Damers out there ”
That is not true. The US has played entirely by the rules. They did not claim it was a legal procedure. They claimed, and I quite, the Patriot Act allowed the Department of Homeland Security to deny anyone a visa if they “espoused terrorist activity”. When pushed by a court for specific reasons they have pointed out that Ramadan had given funds to the Comité de Bienfaisance et de Secours aux Palestiniens (CBSP) and the Association de Secours Palestinien (ASP) which were Hamas fundraisers. I see no problems with this whatsoever. And entirely proper. This guy ought to be stripped of his citizenship and sent back to Egypt. As for Oxford, well there is a struggle at the moment going on there between the “scholars” and the “missionaries”. The missionaries of course get all the Gulf Funding. We will see.
Muhammed:”And to Curt from Huston who says that the more he learns about Islam, the more alarmed he becomes: well, read Tariq Ramadan, kiddo.”
Well Ramadan is good at the Taqiyya game. He is slick I’ll give him that.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:38 am
HeiGou, Thank you for your reply. I enjoyed reading it. We should do that more often
I disagree with a number of points you raise, though. I won’t address the opinions you raise - but will challenge some of the claims you make.
“There is no anti-Islamic propaganda”: hmmm. Does Philippe de Villiers ring a bell? BHL? Come on, Islam and Muslims are an easy (and quite weak, which makes it even easier) target. From comments by a uni-neuroned Brigitte Bardot to writers like michel houellebecq (he doesn’t even deserve a capital letter to his name :)), Seriously, there is a whole load of racism in the french society. I give you that, in the French mindset, the identity of the Muslim/Arab/immigrant/suburbs dweller is mixed and an attack to one facet is not necessarily one against all others, although it is the same person being hurt ultimately. But this doesn’t mean there is no anti-islamism. From ‘Go back to your country, bitch’ yelled at my veiled friend (I quote ‘rentre dans ton pays, salope’) to trashed cemeteries, we’ve seen it all. And it’s still on, every day.
“Well it is rare people bash those they agree with”. True
“He is not, as it happens, encouraging Muslims to really take part in European life but to prepare to replace Western civlisation with Sharia”. That’s a sheer exaggeration, don’t you think? A) this is not true, and B) Assuming that the man is as devilish as you aim to picture him, he’s too bloody smart as to aim for something like that. What he could aim for, however, would be to encourage his audience - French Muslims - to maximise their influence in the society. And this, my friend, is what every minority, lobby, and group of influence - from pro-choice (pro-abortion) groups to tobacco producers - in the world evolving in a democratic state seeks to achieve.
“Everyone wants Muslims to take part in their countries’ daily lives”. Nope, sorry. See my first point. What kind of weight does a minority of 5-6 million people in a country of 60 million people mean in terms of electoral power? A lot. Many people would love to see them fall off the loop (or stay there, since they’re already out
“No one denies brown people the right to discuss politics. No one at all. At least in the West.” Hehehe. Good point. A) Discuss, yes; participate? Hmmm… not really. And B) Good point about the ‘at least in the west:)
“For the last 50 years that is precisely what the European countries, with the notable exception of German, have done.” Not true. As long as we’re still hearing calls in Europe - in France, primarily, remember after the October suburbs riots? - that people who participated in the riots, most of whom born in France and citizens by jus solis should be stripped of their French citizenship, and sent back to ‘where they came from’, then we’re far, far from achieving Egalité for all. And the fact that it was the minister of interior who was uttering those awful comments scares the living hell out of me. The fact that you, however, suggested something like that, saddens me. I was hoping for more from someone of your intellect.
How do you define assimilated, after all?
“This is the country that produced a University that invited Ramadan, gave him a job, two in fact? You call that paranoid?” Not the Universities, silly. Unis, thank Goodness, remain a heaven of sanity among a wave of ambient paranoia. You want paranoia? Here’s a little example. A guy (of Iraqi descent, so he looks like an arab) was wearing a t-shirt that had Arabic and English writing on it. The t-shirt said ‘we will not be silent’, which was the slogan of a US-based campaign against the war in Iraq. He was getting on a plane from DC to the west coast. Guess what? Passengers complained. The airline asked him to wear his shirt inside out so as to hide the Arabic writing - and ultimately they got him another t-shirt to wear on top of his. (That was just this summer). Now tell me this isn’t extreme paranoia?? (I mean, seriously, what on earth could’ve been written on the t-shirt? ‘I’m gonna bomb this plane, motherfuckers’?
:)
“what do you call Saudi Arabia who this week claimed Bin Laden was in the pay of the CIA?” Ridiculous. And quite amusing, frankly. Why? (although, the man was indeed in the US’ good books - and weapons recipients list - in the late seventies..)
Two issues you raised I won’t even discuss because it’ll take us far too long - and too much space. The first is the issue of the funding to relief organisations alleged to be Hamas fundraisers. I’ll dodge the issue because the vast majorities of such claims are unproven. And the whole Hamas issue is simply not the topic of this thread.
Second, the issue of letting in people who reject French values’: a) the values of a country are those of its inhabitants. But clearly, you seem to believe that it is only those of part of its inhabitants. B) the people in questions are the children of the people France imported from tis north African colonies by the boat-load in the 40s and 50s to rebuild the country after WW2. Do you know that they used to send buses to high schools in Algeria to convince kids to get on the bus and go to France, without packing, and without saying goodbye to their parents? I knew people who came to France like that, HeiGou.
After things were rebuilt, well, those people were still in France. They found themselves with no particular skill that the country needed anymore. And they had children. And those grew up in mediocre conditions, torn between the only home they knew and between parents still dreaming of the time when they lived a decent life, ‘back home’. But the ‘back home’ of the grandfather is not the same as the ‘home’ of the grandson.
Well I guess I did address it after all (albeit very briefly
October 9th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
Mohamed said:
The first is the issue of the funding to relief organisations alleged to be Hamas fundraisers. I’ll dodge the issue because the vast majorities of such claims are unproven. And the whole Hamas issue is simply not the topic of this thread.
Wrong, this is exactly the original issue: Had the US legitimate reasons to deny the visa to Ramadan? Is he a financial and ideological supporter of terrorism and therefor a threat to national security?
Besides the US denial of visa, Ramadan is banned from Tunesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and in the 90ies: France.
He himself admitted to his donations to those foundations. Even in France, there was no question about the moral support that those foundations gave to Hamas, but as the funds could not sufficiently be traced to have directly financed terrorist attacks, the foundations were not prohibited.
Tariq Ramadan undoubtedly knew what kind of association he was donating to.
So, does Ramadan morally support suicide attacks in Israel?
FP: How do you think the Palestinians should resist ?
TR: It’s really difficult. In my view, it’s a legitimate resistance, but they have to use legitimate means to do that….a kind of determined nonviolent and primarily organized resistance…. The only way for us to hope for a legitimate resistance with legitimate means is for us to speak up in their name. But to keep quiet here and say, “Okay, stop this,” is not going to work, because for them, [this violence is] the only way for them to be heard at the international level.
http://www.tariqramadan.com/article.php3?id_article=159&lang=en
Asked whether it is right to kill Israeli children since they will become soldiers as adults, Mr. Ramadan responded:
“I don’t believe that an eight year old child is a soldier. These acts are condemnable; therefore one has to condemn them in themselves. But I say to the international community that they are contextually explicable, and not justifiable. What does this mean? It means that the international community today has placed the Palestinians in a situation where they are delivered [to? - JR] political oppression, which explains (not justifying it) that at a certain point people say: we don’t have arms, we don’t have anything, and so we cannot do anything other than this. It is contextually explicable but morally condemnable.”
Despite the fact that Tariq Ramadan is careful here to use repeatedly the word “condemn” and its variants, a “condemnation” which treats the ostensibly “condemnable” acts as, in effect, inevitable - and remember what is at issue is the assassination of children - is clearly not in fact a condemnation, since the very notion of condemning some act implies that the agent who performed it could have acted otherwise. It is also notable in this quote that Mr. Ramadan never says in the first person that he himself condemns the acts in question, but merely that in the abstract they are “condemnable” and that “one” has to condemn them.
http://trans-int.blogspot.com/2004/10/tariq-ramadan-non-violent-man-of-peace.html
(Read it all, good analysis)
The journalist Caroline Fourest interviewed on her book “Frere Tariq”:
http://www.dailymotion.com/visited/search/fourest/video/xgjuj_caroline-fourest-tv5
On the day of publication of the book, her adress and the code to her appartment were published on a muslim internet site…
http://www.les4verites.com/articles/Islam%20L%92intol%E9rance+islamiste+s%92%E9tend+%E0+travers+le+monde-1217.html
October 10th, 2006 at 6:39 am
Good evening all !!
I’ll be brief! Soupchef, I was going to avoid replying until i got to the part where you get to Caroline Fourest, who is a semi-interesting wannabe journalist who has published quite a naive hateful and angry book, (think of Alanis Morissette’s first studio album, hehehehehe.. .) with dodgy sources and where everyone she sees is a terrorist/integrist/extremist/etc. The mere fact that she uses those definitions interchangeably proves that she is, to use a french expression, ‘as dumb as her feet’
Won’t comment too much on her — only to say that her book was one of those that had a very, very short life, concentrated media coverage, then was trashed in the litterary garbage where it belongs.
And the fact that, as you said, she had her address on the internet (And is no longer there, of course, otherwise there’d be proof of her claim..):
Hmmm. Assuming this was true, so the way she figured it out was not by a knock on her door, not even a letter of objection, but she read it ‘online’. This sounds a bit exaggerated, no? I mean, if the purpose was to intimidate her by putting her address online, then at least ONE person would have sent her an angry postcard, no? Come on….
Now back to the comment on Hamas, etc.
I had said that this is not the topic of this thread because i knew that we be getting into the discussion of:
a) did he, or did he not, give money to those organisations? (short answer: yep, he did).
b) do these organisations fund Hamas? (hmmm.. less of a clear-cut answer, here. You admitted it yourself, although you attempt to picture them as nastily as your words allow. )
and the big c), which you have preempted and I will not discuss: does Tariq support armed resistance? and is armed resistance legitimate?
) them away?
Or, on the flipside of the coin: hell, so you think that occupation is legitimate and that the Palestinians should just sit there and wait for a caterpillar to bulldoze (how the heck to you write this word??
Don’t answer that. That was a rethorical question to show you what kind of debate I wanted to avoid going into.
But thanks for the interview link, though. It’s always funny to see a bad journalist ridiculise herself on television with her pre-rehearsed answers that don’t always match the questions, but i am disappointed that TV5 stooped so much as to invite the likes of her. For shame, TV5, for shame!!
I think i’ll stop my contribution to this thread here, I think. Got class tomorrow, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah….
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:11 pm
France props themselves up a great humanitarians and so inclusive. BS, they are the most racist society on the planet.AW’s Blog, click here