>It is hardly surprising that there were effective no-go
>areas normally avoided by police in some of the French
>riot areas.
And that the very first incident involved entry by French police into one such no-go area and some reports of chasing Arab youth into an electrical transformer.
I don't think the "irresponsible immigration policies" are necessarily to blame. The lumpen may be involved but even if they were neurosurgeons they still want their Islamic Law to prevail over French law. These unemployed youths are running the immigrant areas and while they may not enjoy being unemployed they do enjoy closing down ungodly institutions. Thats why some of targets attacked during the rioting were day care centers: these are viewed as improper attempts to allow a woman to be employed rather than stay home and take care of her husband's children. This is 'un-Islamic' and therefore wrong, irrespective of whether the neighborhood is filled with lumpen or elite.
Well, my feeling is, that if one is a neurosurgeon and making a lot of money, ones time is too valuable to be racing around closing down mcdonalds, and day care centers, and putting fatima back into the burqa.
And ones kids will not be likely to be doing such things either. And I based my evaluation on the premise that the lumpen wouldnt be around at all if immigration policy was correctly framed.
No lumpens, fewer, better educated (possibly even nonmuslim) immigrants, no ghetto, no time for islamism, no inclination for same, eventual integration, and so forth is how my logic flowed.
Good point. Large percentages of the Muslim terrorist leadership are well-educated (e.g., Zawahiri was a physician), or wealthy, and/or of elite backgrounds.
The emphasis on poverty and French racism (which is real) is a smokescreen.