Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Warpig1815 wrote:
@whembly - So, by the same token, I imagine we should all dispense with any and all forms of respect. 'Salute an officer, ah well I don't feel like it today so - freedom of expression!' - because freedom of speech/expression/action handwaves it all away. I appreciate the need for freedom of speech, but we should appreciate the need for restraint, respect and manners. That's all...

I'm not saying that we should dispense with "any and all forms of respect". That's called "moving the goal post".

I have a right to be an donkey-cave, as long as it doesn't fall under the extremely high threshold of libel/slander laws.

Just as you have the right to call my gak out, in front of everyone else.

As Voltaire famously said:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Here's the key distinction that I'm trying to articulate:
We should NOT be having discussions about "respect for the other side" if there's any physical reprisals over what I said, or in this case over fething cartoons,

Plain and simple, it's an assault to our way life.

People, probably Atheists, still comparing Christianity and Islam as if they were the same thing.

The worst thing is that SD, a political party in Sweden, are blaiming muslims for this.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Since when do Christians, Hindus, or Buhddists move to a place with different beliefs and demand them to be changed?

Genuinely curious because I never hear about anything like that. Its only Muslims demanding changes that I see.

How about groups of Christian missionaries that go to Asia, Africa and South America? Granted they aren't doing it through militant extremism, but they have run into plenty of opposition for promoting western values and religion to the local populations. I'm not bagging on them for doing it as they feel that spreading the word is important, but they are going into other parts of the world and expecting that their belief system be upheld and respected in the same fashion as it is here.

My cousin's church does a lot of missionary work in China and other areas, Burma, Chile and there's always a threat of their members being arrested and imprisoned for defying the local governments. They expect to have the same legal rights and treatment as they do in the US, which is not the case in those countries. That naivety could just be because they are dumb upper class Americans who think that the world works the same everywhere as it does here. But they do go into other countries and expect that they can freely impose their western and religious ideals on locals even when they are at odds with the local customs and culture.

 Medium of Death wrote:
People, probably Atheists, still comparing Christianity and Islam as if they were the same thing.

They are certainly not the same thing, however they are "siblings" from the same "parent". Perhaps you could argue that Christianity is the child of Judaism, while Islam is the grandchild, in that it incorporates both Judaic and Christian theology. And lets not forget that Zoroastrianism and Ancient Greek religion is mixed in to all of them as well.

One big difference is that modern Christianity has been largely domesticated by Western values, while modern Islam is largely in a more retrograde, fundamentalist state.

 whembly wrote:

 Warpig1815 wrote:
@whembly - So, by the same token, I imagine we should all dispense with any and all forms of respect. 'Salute an officer, ah well I don't feel like it today so - freedom of expression!' - because freedom of speech/expression/action handwaves it all away. I appreciate the need for freedom of speech, but we should appreciate the need for restraint, respect and manners. That's all...

I'm not saying that we should dispense with "any and all forms of respect". That's called "moving the goal post".

I have a right to be an donkey-cave, as long as it doesn't fall under the extremely high threshold of libel/slander laws.

Just as you have the right to call my gak out, in front of everyone else.

As Voltaire famously said:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Here's the key distinction that I'm trying to articulate:
We should NOT be having a discussions about "respect for the other side" if there's any physical reprisasl over what I said, or in this case over fething cartoons,

Plain and simple, it's an assault to our way life.

Yeah, sorry. I realise, I probably confuse my own opinion of humour (I like clever humour, not crude humour) with what should be published (Which I appreciate can be anything due to freedom of speech).

EDIT: Actually, I get it now. The Voltaire quote puts it into perspective. It's not so much that it's right to post the images of Mohammed, but you should always be allowed to say your bit - if only for others to change your mind. Really that's all I wanted. I wasn't trying to appease terrorists like PhantomViper suggests, I just wanted others to hear my point of view and correct me where I'm wrong. I get it now, thanks whembly.

 Matthew wrote:
The worst thing is that SD, a political party in Sweden, are blaiming muslims for this.

Well, it wasn't committed by Pastafarians now, was it?

 stanman wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Since when do Christians, Hindus, or Buhddists move to a place with different beliefs and demand them to be changed?

Genuinely curious because I never hear about anything like that. Its only Muslims demanding changes that I see.

How about groups of Christian missionaries that go to Asia, Africa and South America? Granted they aren't doing it through militant extremism, but they have run into plenty of opposition for promoting western values and religion to the local populations. I'm not bagging on them for doing it as they feel that spreading the word is important, but they are going into other parts of the world and expecting that their belief system be upheld and respected in the same fashion as it is here.

My cousin's church does a lot of missionary work in China and other areas, Burma, Chile and there's always a threat of their members being arrested and imprisoned for defying the local governments. They expect to have the same legal rights and treatment as they do in the US, which is not the case in those countries. That naivety could just be because they are dumb upper class Americans who think that the world works the same everywhere as it does here. But they do go into other countries and expect that they can freely impose their western and religious ideals on locals even when they are at odds with the local customs and culture.

I never met a missionary who expected no opposition or that he could freely impose western culture on people. Or that he would be magically protected because he's a US citizen. Not to say they won't claim any US rights that country may honor, but they're certainly not naively thinking they'll always be protected like its a magic force field around them.

They're preaching the gospel, and willing to suffer the consequences of persecution when it happens.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
People, probably Atheists, still comparing Christianity and Islam as if they were the same thing.

They are certainly not the same thing, however they are "siblings" from the same "parent".

One big difference is that modern Christianity has been largely domesticated by Western values, while modern Islam is largely in a more retrograde, fundamentalist state.

Other way around. Those values come from Christianity. They certainly didn't burst out of nowhere.

 Grey Templar wrote:


They're preaching the gospel, and willing to suffer the consequences of persecution when it happens.

They're preaching the Quran, and willing to suffer the consequences of persecution when it happens.


One might say there's not all that much of a difference there.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
People, probably Atheists, still comparing Christianity and Islam as if they were the same thing.

They are certainly not the same thing, however they are "siblings" from the same "parent".

One big difference is that modern Christianity has been largely domesticated by Western values, while modern Islam is largely in a more retrograde, fundamentalist state.

Other way around. Those values come from Christianity. They certainly didn't burst out of nowhere.

Western values are certainly influenced by Christianity. As well as Greco-Roman religion and thought, and everything else that came before it by which it was influenced. When I say "Western values", I am talking about the post-Enlightenment West. The Enlightenment was probably the biggest domesticating force on Christianity.

 whembly wrote:

I'm not saying that we should dispense with "any and all forms of respect". That's called "moving the goal post".

I have a right to be an donkey-cave, as long as it doesn't fall under the extremely high threshold of libel/slander laws.

Just as you have the right to call my gak out, in front of everyone else.

As Voltaire famously said:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Here's the key distinction that I'm trying to articulate:
We should NOT be having discussions about "respect for the other side" if there's any physical reprisals over what I said, or in this case over fething cartoons,

Plain and simple, it's an assault to our way life.

We disagree on a lot of things.

This is not one of those things. Very well said.

 stanman wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


They're preaching the gospel, and willing to suffer the consequences of persecution when it happens.

They're preaching the Quran, and willing to suffer the consequences of persecution when it happens.


One might say there's not all that much of a difference there.

If Muslims are just preaching, thats fine.

Killing people and demanding that they receive special legal treatment is about as different from Christian Evangelism as you could get.

You might as well claim that MTG and 40k are the same thing just because they're both games.

I'd say Christianity in the US has shown that it wants special treatment at least in so far as being able to openly discriminate.

I mean, it's a far cry from shooting people, don't get me wrong. But let's not pretend Islam is the only religion in the world that wants special treatment.

 Grey Templar wrote:

If Muslims are just preaching, thats fine.

Killing people and demanding that they receive special legal treatment is about as different from Christian Evangelism as you could get.

You might as well claim that MTG and 40k are the same thing just because they're both games.

You are aware that Christina "Evangelists" have bombed abortion clinics and government buildings, right? Not saying this strain of Christianity is mainstream, or anything, but its there.

And good lord, Christians are seeking special legal treatment all the friggin time (Christian prayer in schools, creationism in schools, etc.).

 Warpig1815 wrote:

Spoiler:

 whembly wrote:

 Warpig1815 wrote:
@whembly - So, by the same token, I imagine we should all dispense with any and all forms of respect. 'Salute an officer, ah well I don't feel like it today so - freedom of expression!' - because freedom of speech/expression/action handwaves it all away. I appreciate the need for freedom of speech, but we should appreciate the need for restraint, respect and manners. That's all...

I'm not saying that we should dispense with "any and all forms of respect". That's called "moving the goal post".

I have a right to be an donkey-cave, as long as it doesn't fall under the extremely high threshold of libel/slander laws.

Just as you have the right to call my gak out, in front of everyone else.

As Voltaire famously said:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Here's the key distinction that I'm trying to articulate:
We should NOT be having a discussions about "respect for the other side" if there's any physical reprisasl over what I said, or in this case over fething cartoons,

Plain and simple, it's an assault to our way life.

Yeah, sorry. I realise, I probably confuse my own opinion of humour (I like clever humour, not crude humour) with what should be published (Which I appreciate can be anything due to freedom of speech). My point was not "respect for the other side" where the 'other side' is terrorism, but just respect towards those who share the religion, just not the more radical views. In any case, sorry for my point of view, to be honest I'm not fully on either side of the freedom of speech argument. I just like to ask though (If PhantomViper doesn't bite my head off and accuse me of being a terrorist appeaser):

Why is it not all right to dispense with 'any and all forms of respect' (Which you say is moving the goalpost), but it is alright to dispense with respect to fellow people who believe in a religion that has been unfortunately hijacked by others - that's the bit I haven't got my head around...

Because you not free from speech.

See the distinction?

In the the case of Islamic extremism... there's a subtext. Here's what I mean...

I've never understood the logic that believes savagely murdering innocents in the name of a religious figure brings honor to said religious figure. Omnipotent figures fear no one. Omnipotent figures fear no cartoon. Omnipotent figures fear no free speech.... etc...

This isn't so much about some cartoons or 'free speech' as much as it is about the forced, whole-hearted acceptance of Islamist principles.

The subtext here is this... join us or die.

Extremely liberal, Bill Maher is right:http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/08/bill-maher-hundreds-of-millions-of-muslims-support-attack-on-charlie-hebdo.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Warpig1815 wrote:

EDIT: Actually, I get it now. The Voltaire quote puts it into perspective. It's not so much that it's right to post the images of Mohammed, but you should always be allowed to say your bit - if only for others to change your mind. Really that's all I wanted. I wasn't trying to appease terrorists like PhantomViper suggests, I just wanted others to hear my point of view and correct me where I'm wrong. I get it now, thanks whembly.

Cool beans!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 streamdragon wrote:

Spoiler:

 whembly wrote:

I'm not saying that we should dispense with "any and all forms of respect". That's called "moving the goal post".

I have a right to be an donkey-cave, as long as it doesn't fall under the extremely high threshold of libel/slander laws.

Just as you have the right to call my gak out, in front of everyone else.

As Voltaire famously said:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Here's the key distinction that I'm trying to articulate:
We should NOT be having discussions about "respect for the other side" if there's any physical reprisals over what I said, or in this case over fething cartoons,

Plain and simple, it's an assault to our way life.

We disagree on a lot of things.

This is not one of those things. Very well said.

Thanks mang.

 streamdragon wrote:
I'd say Christianity in the US has shown that it wants special treatment at least in so far as being able to openly discriminate.

I mean, it's a far cry from shooting people, don't get me wrong. But let's not pretend Islam is the only religion in the world that wants special treatment.

If you are referring to the Hobby Lobby case, thats not a case of the Christian wanting to discriminate, its wanting to stop discrimination against Christians. Forcing someone to pay for something that is antithetical to their belief is wrong.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

If Muslims are just preaching, thats fine.

Killing people and demanding that they receive special legal treatment is about as different from Christian Evangelism as you could get.

You might as well claim that MTG and 40k are the same thing just because they're both games.

You are aware that Christina "Evangelists" have bombed abortion clinics and government buildings, right? Not saying this strain of Christianity is mainstream, or anything, but its there.

Yes, but as you admit they're such an incredible minority they should be ignored as irrelevant. Also for the record IIRC nobody was actually hurt in those bombings, that were actually religiously motivated. A nutjob, who happens to be a Christian, who bombs something doesn't mean the bombing was a result of religion. You might as well claim that a guy who robs a bank did it because he also plays GTA.

Yeah, I'm with you now. Whether you like or dislike the satire, to cease to publish it vindicates their cause. Yeah?

And now I feel like a right goon for having had the 'wrong' opinion .

PhantomViper wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Since when do Christians, Hindus, or Buhddists move to a place with different beliefs and demand them to be changed?

Genuinely curious because I never hear about anything like that. Its only Muslims demanding changes that I see.

You can start with Europeans anywhere in the New World.

Thats reaching. Everyone knows that the primary motivation for everything done during the Age of Colonialism was wealth and profit. Religion was the thin veil of PR that everybody knew, but would never admit, was not the real reason.

It also happened more than 500 years ago, so it is a bit of a strawman.

It also continued well into the 20th century, so it's not some distant relic of the past. In the 1910s-30s the US government forced Native Americans into Christian run schools in very much the same manner that the Spanish empire forced both North and South American tribes into Catholic conversion. Pretty much convert or die. In the case of the 20th century reservation schools it's wasn't so much of convert or we burn you alive, it was convert or we cut off your food, blankets, and medicine so you starve to death in the cold of winter, but it has the same overall message.

I also hate to be that guy but what happened in WWII can be said to be caused by fanatical group with extreme religious & cultural convictions attempting to move in against another group and impose their ideals and culture. The IRA since the 60's, Bosnia in the 90's. Western civilization has no grounds to climb up on that high horse and say we've moved beyond fighting and killing each other over religious and cultural beliefs.



And for the record I'm Christian so I'm not saying that OMG faith is a blight on the world, but as with any religion it's name been used to justify all sorts of terrible events and we can't just ignore that history.

 Warpig1815 wrote:
Yeah, I'm with you now. Whether you like or dislike the satire, to cease to publish it vindicates their cause. Yeah?

You got it!

And now I feel like a right goon for having had the 'wrong' opinion .

No worries... I'm glad to help.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Yes, but as you admit they're such an incredible minority they should be ignored as irrelevant. Also for the record IIRC nobody was actually hurt in those bombings, that were actually religiously motivated. A nutjob, who happens to be a Christian, who bombs something doesn't mean the bombing was a result of religion. You might as well claim that a guy who robs a bank did it because he also plays GTA.

I concede its a minority, however I do indeed know of one case where a doctor was indeed murdered.

Just out of curiosity, if you think abortion clinic bombers are not inspired by religion, what do you think they were inspired by?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
I'd say Christianity in the US has shown that it wants special treatment at least in so far as being able to openly discriminate.

I mean, it's a far cry from shooting people, don't get me wrong. But let's not pretend Islam is the only religion in the world that wants special treatment.

If you are referring to the Hobby Lobby case, thats not a case of the Christian wanting to discriminate, its wanting to stop discrimination against Christians. Forcing someone to pay for something that is antithetical to their belief is wrong.

I'm not. I'm referring to places that want to make it legal for businesses to discriminate against gay people because of religious beliefs.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Yes, but as you admit they're such an incredible minority they should be ignored as irrelevant. Also for the record IIRC nobody was actually hurt in those bombings, that were actually religiously motivated. A nutjob, who happens to be a Christian, who bombs something doesn't mean the bombing was a result of religion. You might as well claim that a guy who robs a bank did it because he also plays GTA.

I concede its a minority, however I do indeed know of one case where a doctor was indeed murdered.

Just out of curiosity, if you think abortion clinic bombers are not inspired by religion, what do you think they were inspired by?

Are you saying that it's impossible to be an Atheist and be pro-life?

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Yes, but as you admit they're such an incredible minority they should be ignored as irrelevant. Also for the record IIRC nobody was actually hurt in those bombings, that were actually religiously motivated. A nutjob, who happens to be a Christian, who bombs something doesn't mean the bombing was a result of religion. You might as well claim that a guy who robs a bank did it because he also plays GTA.

I concede its a minority, however I do indeed know of one case where a doctor was indeed murdered.

Just out of curiosity, if you think abortion clinic bombers are not inspired by religion, what do you think they were inspired by?

Are you saying that it's impossible to be an Atheist and be pro-life?

Actually no, I'm not. I sort of have pro-life tendencies, although I wouldn't dream of inposing that choice on anyone else. I've never ever heard of an atheist abortion clinic bomber though.

 jasper76 wrote:

Actually no, I'm not. I sort of have pro-life tendencies, although I wouldn't dream of inposing that choice on anyone else. I've never ever heard of an atheist abortion clinic bomber though.

I am reminded of this:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
I'd say Christianity in the US has shown that it wants special treatment at least in so far as being able to openly discriminate.

I mean, it's a far cry from shooting people, don't get me wrong. But let's not pretend Islam is the only religion in the world that wants special treatment.

If you are referring to the Hobby Lobby case, thats not a case of the Christian wanting to discriminate, its wanting to stop discrimination against Christians. Forcing someone to pay for something that is antithetical to their belief is wrong.

I'm not. I'm referring to places that want to make it legal for businesses to discriminate against gay people because of religious beliefs.

Is that the continuation of the wedding cake story?

I do think its wrong to discriminate on employment for any reason. But I think I should have the right to refuse service to someone for any reason. If I have a business I should be allowed to pick and choose which customers I serve.

I do admit that some special privilege is often asked by Christians, and in many cases its crossing a line. But they're all so minor in comparison to the outrageous demands of Muslims in european countries, and the actions of Jihadists. The comparison is intellectually lazy and speaks to an agenda.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
I guess the outlawing of Islam in Europe is worth a facepalm, but stricter immigration policies? What's wrong with that? Multiple countries across the globe have strict visa regulations in place right now.

My english is not good enough to explain thoroughly how things work in France, but most of these young guys are definitely french. Stricter immigration policies would keep some crazy imams out of France, that would help, but wouldn't really solve the core of the problem.

I'm both french and tunisian. Most of the french young people who may have tunisian ancestors are definitely not welcome in Tunisia, because they're socially inept. Same thing applies to most french-african young folks.

Long story short: after WW2, France had to build lots of housings. We got our ass kicked pretty quickly and our country wasn't as devastated as some others were, but there was still a lot of things to rebuild. The french state (we're a socialist country, we love our nanny-state) built what was called grands ensembles, or cités outside of the largest cities. Then we put all the blue collars here and locked everything. We're still in the Cold War, and the French Communist Pary was quite powerful, so the then-gaullist state chose to lock the system and monitor everything. Due to the casualties and the need for workers (and also because many of these guys fought for De Gaulle), many people from the colonies were also brought in these cités. And they stayed here. These cités quickly decayed and are now ghettos. You don't see them when you travel to The Most Beautiful City Of The Universe (except if you take the RER B from the Roissy Charles de Gaulle airport), but Paris is actually surrounded by these cités that are now ghettos. Those ghettos are pretty much like the ones you can find in most advanced countries, there's not slums, but you'll still find sub-par schools, public transportation, cops... sub-par-pretty-much-everything.

French people who live in those places are second class citizens, they live outside of our cities, use their own slang, have their own fashion trends, when they go downtown, they are forced to submit to frequent identity controls (especially if they're from african lineage), and have progressively slipped out from the "civilized society standards"... they're supposed to be french, but they're almost never treated as such. They're treated like gak.

Some of them may have tried to do someting about it. They went to university, get nice diploms, instead of choosing to rob old ladies and steal cars. These guys now keep a low profile: they may have bragged about how their hard work was going to make them succeed in life, they're just as jobless as all the others, because if an employer may choose a Jean-Claude born in a crappy city over one born in a wealthy suburb, no employer will ever, ever choose a Mohammed over a Jean-Claude. Basically, if you see a tanned/black guy in a suit, chances are he's a football player. Or a security guard from the next mall. If not, expect to hear a lot of "oh", "ah", "wonderful", the "french integration", stuff like that. Truth is, that dark-skinned guy in a suit is a Django: one in ten thousands.
Nicolas Sarkozy's father immigrated from Hungary. Nobody cared about that. Two of his ministers were of african lineage. Everybody bragged about that, about how France was a wonderful country, for letting black/arab people become ministers. Those were our Djangos.

So, now, we may have a problem. Because some of these outcasts chose to become religious: when everything sucks, God's pretty much your last chance to do something about it. Some of these guys have north-african parents who are muslim, making Islam an "obvious" choice. Some of these people don't have any african ancestors, come from christian families and choose Islam "just because". All of these guys know close to nothing about Islam, and just like most noobs do, they tend to be very implied in their new hobby. They go way too often in their closest hobby center. They follow way to closely the neckbeards. And the red shirts. Especially the red shirts. Here comes the crazy saudi/qatari/whatever preacher who has an hidden agenda. Yup, islamic terrorism is actually backed, fueled and funded by some of our "allies". These imported preachers just brainwash them and promise lots of very, very nice things for all the holy warriors. Things we all enjoy. Things they can't have in France: love, respect, admiration... even sex. I'd rather bang forty pornstars (without ISD, please...) than 40 virgins in the afterlife, but to each one his own.

Some of these guys are so fethed up they willingly choose to travel to the ugliest warzones of the world, begin as latrine-cleaners, then be used as a cannon fodder and finally become the "holy warriors" of their new crazy belief. Some come back and exact revenge on the country that once treated them like crap.

If you knew the state of desperation of a not-so-insignificant fraction of the french youth, you wouldn't really be that surprised to witness what we've witnessed a couple of days ago.

I also think there's not much european countries can do about that now. Too little, too late. We now have to make a choice between liberty and safety.

And we may well lose both.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
I'd say Christianity in the US has shown that it wants special treatment at least in so far as being able to openly discriminate.

I mean, it's a far cry from shooting people, don't get me wrong. But let's not pretend Islam is the only religion in the world that wants special treatment.

If you are referring to the Hobby Lobby case, thats not a case of the Christian wanting to discriminate, its wanting to stop discrimination against Christians. Forcing someone to pay for something that is antithetical to their belief is wrong.

I'm not. I'm referring to places that want to make it legal for businesses to discriminate against gay people because of religious beliefs.

Is that the continuation of the wedding cake story?

I do think its wrong to discriminate on employment for any reason. But I think I should have the right to refuse service to someone for any reason. If I have a business I should be allowed to pick and choose which customers I serve.

I do admit that some special privilege is often asked by Christians, and in many cases its crossing a line. But they're all so minor in comparison to the outrageous demands of Muslims in european countries, and the actions of Jihadists. The comparison is intellectually lazy and speaks to an agenda.

I believe the wedding cake is what spurred the whole thing, yes.

And as to your last paragraph, I even made concessions in my original post that the magnitude of each incident was nowhere close. I only responded since your "demanding that they receive special legal treatment is about as different from Christian Evangelism as you could get". Christian Evangelists demand special treatment all the time. From "we're going to cancel all Holiday displays because omg those other religions want in", to "10 commandments on government property totally doesn't break the first amendment guyz!", to "we should totally be able to tell gays to frell off, because our book says so".

 daedalus wrote:

I am reminded of this:

"Christianist"? Is that even a word?

To my French-dakkanaughts...

Are there seriously 30+ "no go" areas in Paris? As in, the police don't go into by themselves?

o.O