I agree that Muslims will not peacefully co-exist with Western society, their ultimate agenda is to convert and control, then why continue to allow Muslims to emigrate into the West?

People who want something done about the violence might get a better government response  by emphasizing the carbon footprint  of all those burning cars. 

It's so much more fashionable than the  personal safety of your constituents.

Point taken. However, the response to the plight of New Orleans is not without precedent - American law enforcement authorities have historically permitted civil unrest, riots and low-intensity conflict in non-White areas, as well as the existence of "no-go" areas. When problems break out, they usually move to keep them reasonably contained and from spreading into affluent and commercial districts.

Moreover, I gather that French authorities are pursuing a similar containment policy with regard to the banlieues. Modern democratic states are not willing to suffer appalling casualties to establish law and order in areas of such marginal importance. The American experience, along with those of the UK, France, Australia and others, have indicated that certain groups - especially Africans (irrespective of religion) and Muslims - are incapable of co-existing with the larger state and society around them; more importantly, once state and society have left them to their own devices, their alternative is chaotic anarchy and the worst aspects of tribalism and religious zeal.

Not since the Axis and Allies fought room by room, house by house, and street by street for every inch of European soil, did Western states commit the necessary manpower and materiel to occupying a territory. Of course, the consequences for a stubborn defender were considerably harsher than an interview with Canadian intelligence officers.

But what about Katrina and those racist fat americans?