Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Merde en France

By thankyougustad in News
Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 07:07:44 AM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

On Thursday October 27, 2005, Bouna Traore and Zyed Benna, French teenagers from the outskirts of Paris, were electrocuted while hiding from the Police in an electric substation. An official denial from the police was not enough to stop a night of rioting: the police spent the night clashing with groups of young people from the banlieue. That first night, 27 people were arrested. In the eleven nights since, the rioting has spread to more than thirty cities, from discontented community to discontented community all over France. Thousands of cars have been destroyed. Many public buildings have gone up in flames, including schools, stores, and police stations. More than one-thousand arrests have been made

And yet, the police are unable to control the rioters who, in a country where guns are illegal, shoot live ammunition at them. Every night, as the sun sets, France erupts in flames. In cities like Paris and Lyon, but also in smaller cities like Avignon, small communities like Valréas and Carpentras. Why is this happening? Why are rioters saying that it will not end until there are two dead cops?


ADVERTISEMENT
Sponsor: rusty
This space intentionally left blank
...because it's waiting for your ad. So why are you still reading this? Come on, get going. Read the story, and then get an ad. Alright stop it. I'm not going to say anything else. Now you're just being silly. STOP LOOKING AT ME! I'm done!
comments (24)
active | buy ad
ADVERTISEMENT

La Racaille

While French President Jaques Chirac impotently calls for the reestablishment of Order and Respect for the Law, hardline Minister of the Interior Nicholas Sarkozy has called the rioters scum and called for them to be pressure cleaned from the cities. Whatever the purported original causes for the rioting, many young people in the suburbs claim that it is Sarkozy's disdain for their complaints that is provoking them now. They further insist that the rioting will continue until he resigns. Meanwhile, every morning the damage is reassessed and the cleanup begins.

Who is doing the Rioting?

After the breakdown of European colonialism, millions of people from the former French colonies were brought back to help reconstruct the damage from World War Two. Some, like the Harkis, who fought at the sides of the losing French army in The Algerian War for Independence, had little choice but to come back to France. They were put in grim edifices on the outskirts of France's biggest cities, Paris, Marseille, Strasbourg, Toulouse, and left there for thirty years. The people who live there, mostly the second and third generations of North African immigrants, complain of disastrously low employment rates, drugs, crime, police abuse, and the feeling of being neglected by French society. They are political mutes; There are no major political figures that are French of North African extraction.

France knows it has a problem. It has been less than a month since the fires in slum buildings that killed entire families of African immigrants. The French population has shown its support countless times in demonstrations against the absurd and inhuman governmental policies toward the immigrants. In film, literature, music, and television, the plight of young urban people, white and otherwise, has been explored.

There have even been precursers to these riots, going all the way back to the late 70's. In April, the death of a youngster shot by police in Aubervilles sparked rioting on a small scale. To keep things in perspective: in the first ten months of 2005, 28,000 cars were set on fire in France. Police in Marseille say that no more cars burned there over the weekend than do on any other weekend. The discontent has been smoldering for a long time; people are unhappy.

Sarkozy is a future presidential candidate and it seems unlikely that he will resign from his position. In fact, his current approval rating among French people is a healthy 57%. He is a law and order candidate, and indeed, his forceful words are likely to improve his standing with middle class people in France. The left wing has denounced him for coddling the right wing, but their own position in France has been consistently eroded the past couple of years as their policies have failed to improve social conditions.

What is the role of Islam in the riots?

Despite the claims of right wingers in both France and America, Islam seems to play only a minor role in the current unrest. The head of the Mosque in the flash point of the conflict, Clichy-Sous-Bois, has called for peace. Islamic leaders all over the country are joining tired and scared citizens in marches denouncing the violence and calling for a dialogue.

The French police launched a tear gas grenade against the Clichy-Sous-Bois Mosque, further enraging the already allienated community. The attack seems more an attack on them and their way of life than it does on Islam itself.

The Union of Islamic Organizations in France has issued a Fatwa against the rioting, saying that "It is strictly forbidden for any Muslim... to take part in any action that strikes blindly at private or public property or that could threaten the lives of others." It has, however been mostly ineffective so far. Although the disaffected youth are predominantly from North African immigrant families, who follow an Islamic tradition, they are generally not practicing. The use of hash and alcohol is high in these communities. Arabic is widely understood, but fewer and fewer people can speak it. Their knowledge of the Qu'ran is passing. Islamic religious law has less and less hold on them.

Sunday night marked the first time two Catholic Churches were attacked, at Saint-Edouard à Lens (Pas-de-Calais)and l'île de Thau à Sète (Hérault), but this seems to be more an attack on the institutions of France than it does on Christianity. There are even alarming suggestions that the rioters are competing with each other in a chauvanistic fashion to wreak the most havoc.

However, there can be little doubt that religious extremists are in France and that they have fomented Islamic fanatacism in the dissaffected areas. Although the attacks do not seem to be religious in nature, religious fundamentalism is almost certainly present in a minority of rioters. There is a risk that leaders of terrorist cells will tap into this fact to organize mob attacks on civilian targets.

This doesn't change the fact that the rioters are from a poor, uneducated jobless stratum of society. Most Islamic funamentalists are from the middle class. Making this into an issue of Islamic Jihad and Sharia is to ignore the true problems. In order to find real solutions, the real problems need to be addressed.

The rioting is so widespread that authorities are talking about, at the very least, organized crime involvement. Molotov cocktail factories have been discovered, on the internet one can read incendiary calls to rioting, outraged at police brutality and a government that ignores them. This video gives an image of the riots. They complain of a "Facist" Sakorzy. They speak of "two brothers of ours, killed. That and the Mosque, that's too much." They are used to the police violence, being asked for their papers over and over. At the end of the video, a stoney faced but powerless Sarkozy threatens them with MORE police and MORE prison time (France's prisons are all ready over-crowded and dangerous) the very thing they are ardently fighting against! How are these two things to be reconcilled?

At the time of writing, the first rioters were coming before France's Judges.

The presumed authors of violence in the suburbs, presented Monday in courts across France, are mostly very young and seem to have acted without coherent motives and without organization. - La Libération

There is widespread discontentment in France, and now that Saint-Gillis, Brussels, Belgium, has seen violence, and there are possible copycat indcidents in Bremen and Berlin, Germany, the European failure to integrate their immigrants has taken on a new immediacy. There are violent protests in Denmark. Politcal leaders in Italy are calling for urgent action, saying that "We have the worst suburbs in Europe. I don't think things are so different from Paris. It's only a matter of time."

Is this The Revolution?

France has a proud tradition of revolution. Indeed, the current government is the Fifth Republic since the famous French Revolution. There are whispers in France of chopping heads, of tearing down the government. People are angry, and despite night after night of rioting, the Government seems unwilling or unable to respond to their complaints. For thirty years people have been complaining from the hideous concrete building complexes on the outskirts of European cities. The list of rioting communities is breathtaking.

Some of the stories are ugly. A 56 year old women was sprayed with gasoline and set on fire as she tried to get off a burning bus. No one was arrested when the police showed up and had a showdown with 200 masked teens.

In another incident, the paramedics were called to the apartement of a man sufferening from a heart attack. Local youths stoned them, forcing them to barracade themselves in the victim's apartement. The ambulance was then set on fire.

The first casuality since the death of the two boys has been marked:
Jean-Jacques Le Chenadec, 61, was reportedly struck by a hooded man in the street after he and a neighbour went to inspect damage to bins near their apartment block in the town of Stains, in the Seine-Saint-Denis region outside Paris. - BBC
These barbaric acts underline the fact that there is no guiding philosopy for this revolt. There are no high ideas that dictate morals. It is unbridled frustration unleashed on victims in reach. Although the actual city of Paris has seen spotty car fires, the vast majority of arson has been taken place in the suburbs. The rioters are effectively shitting in their own beds, and yet they deem this a necessary act of revolution.
Why burn these cars that, more often than not, belong to those around them? "We don't have a choice. We're ready to sacrifice everything since we don't have anything," justifies Bilal. "We even burned a buddy's car. That pissed him off, but he understood." - Le Monde
While the right wingers sweat behind their gates, the poor people are destroying their own communities. It is hard to see anything revolutionary.

What course of action, then, is the government to take? They are unprepared to unleash force, out of fear that the population, already practically out of control, will become unstoppable. Many citizens are calling for the Army to be deployed. But what will happen when the first young French Arab from La Cité is killed by forces of law and order? And indeed, what will happen when the first policeman is killed by a young French Arab? The French government seems stuck in a very tight spot that has needed addressing for fifty years now. They either can stop the rioting by any means necessary, or risk a veritable civil war.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o banlieue
o thirty cities
o cars
o police
o impotently
o provoking them now
o continue until he resigns
o cleanup
o people
o film
o literature
o music
o television
o rioting on a small scale
o Most Islamic funamentalists are from the middle class
o calls to rioting,
o video
o prisons
o La Libération
o breathtaki ng
o 56 year old women
o BBC
o Le Monde
o Also by thankyougustad


Display: Sort:
Merde en France | 314 comments (281 topical, 33 editorial, 0 hidden)
Finally, an excuse to buy a digital camera... (2.25 / 4) (#8)
by kuro5inner on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:37:52 AM EST

I couldn't make it for the tsunami, but there's no way I'll be missing the riots. \(^_^)/

What needs to be done? (2.66 / 3) (#12)
by nebbish on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:39:19 AM EST

Sarkozy needs to apologise. Calling the rioters "scum" and "germs" has infuriated suburban teenagers. The words are loaded with class and even racial hatred. He needs to take them back.

France needs to invest in the banlieues. They have been ignored and left to rot for too long. They are much more isolated than English estates and American projects, so the decay and claustrophobia is multiplied. You can't exclude a section of society in this way and not expect unrest.

And the French need to change their attitude too. I've heard supposedly socialist Parisien friends complain about youths from the banlieus coming into the city. There is an ugly, borgeoise streak in French socialism, more concerned with art and philosophy than poverty and reality.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee

Reubeuh (none / 1) (#13)
by thankyougustad on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:43:22 AM EST

And the French need to change their attitude too. I've heard supposedly socialist Parisien friends complain about youths from the banlieus coming into the city. There is an ugly, borgeoise streak in French socialism, more concerned with art and philosophy than poverty and reality.
I too have French friends who casually joke about the people from la cité. "Ca va cousin, je te fais le kebab?" A casual and prevelent attitude.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Mmmmm... kebab... (n/t) (none / 0) (#126)
by smithmc on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 04:28:34 PM EST



[ Parent ]
My 0.02€ (2.00 / 2) (#20)
by bob6 on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:29:47 PM EST

This boils down to racism. If these exact same events came from white middle-class youngsters from colleges inside Paris, then it would be treated as a social protest, everybody would pay more attention, unions would get involved, etc. Since we're dealing with supposedly unemployed, underschooled, muslim, black or arab population, the whole thing is treated as a security and order issue.

Bleh! This is disgusting, inefficient and quite dangerous.

Cheers.
[ Parent ]
Spot on (none / 0) (#62)
by nebbish on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 04:40:29 AM EST

I hadn't thought about it like that.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

Probably because that thought is insane (N/T) (none / 0) (#164)
by mrcsparker on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 11:44:05 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Why? (none / 0) (#182)
by nebbish on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 05:33:03 AM EST

Clever-clogs

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

Yes (3.00 / 4) (#94)
by starsky on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 01:00:49 PM EST

That's right. If white kids burnt out 25000 cars, shot police and killed people in the street, no action would be taken. In fact, no one white has ever been imprisoned or charged with any offense ever.

[ Parent ]
I'm not taking this out of the blue (none / 0) (#183)
by bob6 on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 05:52:18 AM EST

France had large movments in 1992. Few remember that it started with college kids demos, including acts of vandalism (granted, less violent). In less than a month all unions and nearly all left parties were supporting them.

Cheers.
[ Parent ]
That's interesting (none / 0) (#184)
by starsky on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 06:22:04 AM EST

but your original statement was still PC-bullshit.

[ Parent ]
Sarkosy needs to apologize? (none / 1) (#21)
by LilDebbie on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:54:26 PM EST

If someone was burning cars left and right in my neighborhood, I'd call them scum too. If they did it for a week and a half straight, I wouldn't be concerned with "fixing the projects," I'd want to know why the police haven't started using live rounds.

Civil society cannot stand for violence against it. People like you will be swept away by these scum as Sarkosy rightly calls them.

You will not be missed.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

Perhaps (3.00 / 3) (#22)
by thankyougustad on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:57:52 PM EST

the RESULTS of hardline action need to be examined. An apology from Sarko would be an empty gesture but one that would help. It's lucky you're not making decisions for the French government.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
lol what (3.00 / 2) (#28)
by Orange Tanning Cream on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:27:01 PM EST

...an empty gesture but one that would help.

Is there some sort of French logic that the rest of the world is just missing out on?

[ Parent ]

maybe you just can't read (none / 1) (#29)
by thankyougustad on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:41:05 PM EST

an empty gesure = one that is not sincere one that would help = would in a humble way give lip service to the ignorant poor people, which aside from I-pods is all they ever want anyway.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
The French welfare state provides iPods? (3.00 / 5) (#31)
by Orange Tanning Cream on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 03:25:21 PM EST

Hot. It's a hell of an upgrade from cake.

[ Parent ]
and the falcon returns home to roost (none / 0) (#84)
by zenofchai on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 11:42:57 AM EST

The Duke University Blue Devils were named for the WWI-era French fighting force. Last year and this year, Duke has been giving iPods to students. I guess France can borrow an idea once in a while.
--
The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph
[ Parent ]
They would kill you before anyone else (none / 1) (#55)
by Lemon Juice on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:08:07 PM EST

for treating them like children. You need to treat them like human beings. Kill them all.

[ Parent ]
We don't all want civil war (none / 1) (#61)
by nebbish on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 04:38:27 AM EST

Calming the situation will work better than infalming it.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

s/infalming/inflaming .-.-. (none / 1) (#83)
by zenofchai on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 11:41:05 AM EST


--
The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph
[ Parent ]
Ufortunately the US has weakened France's ability. (none / 0) (#156)
by hackwrench on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 09:56:20 PM EST

Because the U.S. has taken over for much of the military of so many countries it has weakened their resolve to address threats to themselves.

[ Parent ]
Did the US take over (none / 0) (#200)
by Cro Magnon on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 10:37:39 AM EST

or did the countries decide to give the US responsibility for military matters while they sit on their butts and call us barbarians?
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
The US took over. (none / 1) (#204)
by hackwrench on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 01:22:21 PM EST

After WWII, the US was dominant, having suffered the least losses, and initiated the Marshall Plan, the centerpiece of the new doctrine of containment. Thus the United States built bases in a Europe that was unable to say no, and the United States has made no moves to transfer power back to the affected countries.

[ Parent ]
Everyone is special (none / 1) (#297)
by duffbeer703 on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 08:41:21 PM EST

Its funny to listen to American do-gooders talk about how the French should be nice to the poor, downtrodden folks that are pillaging out of political frustration.

Give us all a fucking break. 99% of the asshats on this board wouldn't be preaching tolerance if their car was burnt.

[ Parent ]

Google AdWord (none / 1) (#71)
by ffx on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 07:51:21 AM EST

This article states that Nicolas Sarkozy's political party bought the google adWords corresponding to "racaille" and other words related to these events in order to display an advert to their website. While trying now, it does not seem to work any more.

[ Parent ]
Riots? Unrest? Injustice? (2.00 / 3) (#14)
by jubal3 on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:47:11 AM EST

George Bush and the Neocons are clearly at work here. How come they aren't getting the blame yet?


***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***
His French cousins (none / 0) (#16)
by thankyougustad on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:56:52 AM EST

are getting blame they deserve.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
are you certain? (none / 0) (#93)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 12:56:06 PM EST

this probably scares the common frenchman

if anything, it brings even more people into the way far right: lePen's fold and his nazi-esque solutions

the failure here is of leftist politics in france, not rightist

banning headscarves? are you fucking french fucking for real? is THAT a rightist position?

if you deny people their identity, and yet you have millions of them in your country, your going to get things like these riots

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Not only a matter of left/right (none / 1) (#131)
by emmanuel.charpentier on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 05:51:53 PM EST

but of republican in the old revolutionnary way. Chirac and villepin, just like jospin or holland (left ones) are statists that don't want to give up powers, powers to forbid a scarf for exemple.

Le pen is probably grinning from ear to ear, his best dreams being fullfilled :-(

I still wonder if sarkozy is not the one and only one culprit, in a very machiavelic manner. He stands to gain a lot from thoses riots, if correctly managed... It's sometimes easy to extinguish the very fire you started.

[ Parent ]

if the center does not lead (none / 0) (#222)
by circletimessquare on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 08:29:27 PM EST

the far right or far left will

get to work moderate france, or your country is going to become an ideological hell hole

it's been there before


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

But (none / 1) (#25)
by ljazbec on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:05:58 PM EST

other than that, very nice article. Actually explained to me what the hell's going on...

Please France (2.60 / 15) (#32)
by NaCh0 on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 03:35:49 PM EST

Use words, not violence.

Chirac is right in condeming the actions. Perhaps next he could send them a stern written letter.

My friends at the UN tell me that works well against armed thugs.

--
K5: Your daily dose of socialism.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (none / 0) (#123)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 04:19:32 PM EST

aw man, thanks for that ;-)

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
You're right (none / 0) (#231)
by gdanjo on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 12:18:30 AM EST

He should send them a 'stern mailbomb' instead.

Fuck words altogether, I say. Let's fight for everything.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

The French government (3.00 / 5) (#33)
by vivelame on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 03:43:39 PM EST

seems stuck in a very tight that has needed addressing for thirty years now.
Fuckin' right, and a bit wrong too: it's been around since WW2. Lots of slums were razed around the 60's, their inhabitants (poors, a majority of them foreign and brought in to work for cheap on the reconstruction of infrastructure devastated by WW2 and german looting) moved to what is now "les Cités".
I'll add that i second nebbish about the snotty 'socialists' who have, for about the last 30 years, only paid lip service to caring for the poors.
Basically, the rioting youth have been denied access to middle class to, well, preserve the lifestyle of those already there. Were i born in Grigny, i'd probably be killing people right now or trying to storm the Elysée.

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
FWIW (3.00 / 6) (#34)
by vivelame on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 03:47:37 PM EST

tomorrow's weather.

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
My bloody valentine's day riot (none / 1) (#35)
by killmepleez on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:18:07 PM EST

Normally I'm one of those peaceful tolerance guys, but today I'm in a more foul mood and would just like to say there's no hope for the underclass. Let's just liquidate them all - "empty the cities" to borrow a phrase - and start over... this time with the bees.

__
"I instantly realized that everything in my life that I thought was unfixable was totally fixable - except for having just jumped."
--from "J
Oh and by the way (1.25 / 4) (#36)
by killmepleez on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:28:37 PM EST

Let me be the first to post the obvious assertion that these riots are part of CIA manipulation of french politics. Because if the bastards can run an international off-the-books network of tortu^H^H^H^H^H prisons, we can't trust them not to do any number of things.

Swordfish was a really shitty movie, other than perhaps Halle Berry's naked 8008135, but like a repeatedly unfaithful lover, we have not reason to believe they're not f---ing around over and over and over.

__
"I instantly realized that everything in my life that I thought was unfixable was totally fixable - except for having just jumped."
--from "J
Note to American reactionaries (2.50 / 12) (#37)
by The Diary Section on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:42:46 PM EST

France's problems do not make your problems and failings somehow OK.

Seen quite a few dispicable comments from American right-wing agitators who quite clearly see this as an opportunity for "revenge" and somehow linked to France's dislike of involving themselves in illegal wars of aggression (apparently all the kids are in Al Quaeda or something). Or something to do with NOLA, the connection I don't really get.

They were playing one clip this morning of an American talk radio host who was talking about "the french word schaudenfraude" which, as they said afterwards, really sums up all you need to know about that broadcaster (whose name I missed I'm afraid, anyone catch it?).

That is all.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.

NOLA Connection: GWB is the better leader! (none / 0) (#49)
by NaCh0 on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:53:07 PM EST

It took just 5 days for Bush to be on the scene in NOLA. Chirac didn't step outside of his mansion gates for 11! And most of the idiots in the EU press still don't think there is a problem!!

--
K5: Your daily dose of socialism.
[ Parent ]
you mean like the ivory coast in 2003? (1.50 / 2) (#91)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 12:50:53 PM EST

what's that about neocolonialism?

you mean like nuking tahiti?

you mean like supplying arms to asshole regimes everywhere, including our old friend saddam?

you mean like banning headscarves? what's that about cultural imperialism?

france is hypocritical

every problem you say the usa have, france has as well

it's not a matter of excusing american problems, its a matter of showing that our problems are frances problems, always has been

and so when france abandons the us in a time of need, as if they didn't ahve anything to do with us, as if france didn't have the same problems as the usa has, as if we weren't in the same boat, you can understand how that would piss americans off

comeuppance is in order


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

"Hour of need" (3.00 / 2) (#99)
by The Diary Section on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 02:45:17 PM EST

What hour of need? Defending yourselves against invisble bombs that didn't exist that you yourself have since said you never believed in? Honestly, even fishing for controversy I think you can usually do better than that.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]
One more thing (none / 1) (#100)
by The Diary Section on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 02:48:20 PM EST

You zeroed my original comment. Why? Think about what it actually says. Note how specific I am. Honestly, I think I care more about America than most Americans do.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]
france has all of the problems the us does (none / 1) (#118)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 04:15:34 PM EST

they share our history

but they don't support us

france can do whatever it pleases

but if they don't act with us, they can reap what they sow

i in no way am saying france should act with us

but if they don't, then they will lose a friend

why is this concept so hard to grasp?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I grasp that perfectly well (none / 1) (#176)
by The Diary Section on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 03:58:01 AM EST

Let me make it explicit: every time someone with a voice either through election or because they have a place of influence within the media spends time getting "revenge" on the French, that is time they could have spent reforming or critiquing pressing problems closer to home. But go ahead, support people who spent legislative time renaming fried bits of potato, but don't you dare complain about a single thing that wasn't done or could have been done better in that time or a public issue that has not had the exposure it deserved.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]
the french deserted their friend (none / 1) (#221)
by circletimessquare on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 08:27:34 PM EST

leaving only hate

teach me how not to hate a friend who abandons you


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I don't know about your friends (none / 1) (#230)
by gdanjo on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 12:18:12 AM EST

but all my friends have outgrown the "you're either with me, or we're not friends anymore" bit. It may have worked once or twice, back in primary school, but, really, there's better ways to communicate one's desires.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

how do you define friendship? (none / 1) (#234)
by circletimessquare on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 02:42:17 AM EST

and please don't try to pigeon hole me into something i'm not really saying

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
To witness the lowest (none / 0) (#236)
by emmanuel.charpentier on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 05:52:39 AM EST

and still expect the greatest?

To help you in time of need?

Did the us need to preemptively attack irak in that second war? Why did you not topple saddam during the first one? Do you trust your current president?

[ Parent ]

apparently you've been backstabbed a lot (none / 1) (#242)
by circletimessquare on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 04:13:30 PM EST

the french were just placing their own self-interest above all

not that the us wouldn't do the same, but the point is, friends work together because their self-interests overlap

france doesn't recognize that


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

What was the self interest (none / 1) (#243)
by emmanuel.charpentier on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 04:58:56 PM EST

in that "preemptive" invasion? Except for petrol of course.

Why did georges bush senior and bill clinton leave saddam in power?

You might have enumerated the reasons you see in the attack, please point me to your post, I'm interested.

And don't forget, france already had a muslim country to manage. And we did so badly this shaped our present times, and repercutate into our current riots. In fact so much so, that some us officers watched movies over the alger battle to understand what were the mistakes not to do.

[ Parent ]

the spread of democracy (none / 1) (#261)
by circletimessquare on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 06:24:00 PM EST

to stop the socioeconomic, theohistoric, and geopolitical phenomena that turn men who would otherwise be doctors and lawyers into bombers

iraq is just the first, obvious step: saddam hussein has no legitimacy in the eyes of his people or anyone else, and would he fall, were it not for the usa, than it would be to the same kind of islamofascists in afghanistan

iran and syria and saudi arabia fall to deomcracy next, whether by peaceful example of iraq, or by the sword should another 9/11 style attack happen again

no one is immune to the madness that the middle east spawns, not least of which middle easterners and europeans, so the world must work together to solve the situation

but if they don't agree for their own self-interest, then fine, we'll do it alone

anything else i can help you with?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Why did georges bush sr and clinton (none / 0) (#266)
by emmanuel.charpentier on Sat Nov 12, 2005 at 04:50:48 PM EST

leave saddam in power then? Particularly when you consider the rebellion that we (the first coalition) encouraged, but which was bloodily repressed without any help.

Was it saddam who started the socio/theo/geo/politico process that lead normal men to become kamikaze? Or was it saddam's future departure?

Do you know that irak was one of the only secular countries in that part of the world? That Saddam HATE ben laden and iran?

How many leaders in that part of the world actually have any sort of legitimacy? Pakistan with their nuclear bombs, their military junta and their religious schools? Turkia with their islamist government and their military junta? Egypt and its, what is it now, 25 years long president mubarak?

> iran and syria and saudi arabia fall to deomcracy next, whether by peaceful example of iraq, or by the sword should another 9/11 style attack happen again

Why didn't you attack saudi arabia after the 9/11 then? Are they not the one that harboured the terrorists? Isn't their theocracy what is nearest to ben laden's?

> but if they don't agree for their own self-interest, then fine, we'll do it alone

Who is the "we"? What would you do alone? Impose democracy? What if they democratically choose to have a theocracy? Do you impose it again?

Ok, I will try to resume what I understand of your position. You correct me if necessary please:
you want to impose democracy in the countries that could generate the most terrorism.

First I don't agree that democracy should be imposed through an invasion. It's far more legitimate and intelligent to encourage change from the inside. And even thus it must be done very intelligently, in the open.

Second, why choose irak as an example? It was a secular state where women had rights and the sharia was not extensively applied!!! Why not saudi arabia, from which the terrorists were actually coming???

Do you realise that imposing democracy could be resented as imperialism? Could it also lead to hideous regimes like iran? History is complex, personally I still don't exactly follow the extent of consequences that unraveled from the brits creating kuwait, to the CIA meddling in iranian internal affairs. Saddam attacked iran with the blessing and the help of the occident AND of the cccp. He didn't win, and later on he tried to pull out of his economic problems through the invasion of kuwait. Britain being one of kuwait friends, Margaret thatcher convinced the US to, this time, fight against irak.

Do you know one direct consequence to toppling saddam? al qaeda operating and certainly recruiting in irak! One more country for them, curtesy of the United States of America :-( What is next, having iran overtaking irak?

See, complexity in all its cruelty. It's not just a matter of us against them. Of "you are with me or against me".

[ Parent ]

you're a racist (none / 1) (#271)
by circletimessquare on Sun Nov 13, 2005 at 03:13:53 AM EST

you can only understand things happening in the world form a western point of view

if something bad happens in iraq, it is the fault of the west, somehow, through some miraculous explanation

this is a reactionary attitude, blame game, incrimination... my attitude is positive, engagin, action-oriented

i am someone who looks at an iraqi, a middle easterner, an indian, etc., and sees my equal

equal in every way

including accountability and responsibility

you apparently see them and only see pawns of western colonial history or imperial influence

you don't see them as human beings, you see them as mirror-image relfections of the west's actions... are they not your equal? well then follow that logic to it's conclusion and find them equal in responsibility and accountability as well

i don't see the world in your antiquated way

your way is very patronizing, condescending, and very old world, colonial-minded

my way is the future: all human beings are equal

that blood of my countrymen is spilt so that some day iraqi children might know democracy fills me with immense pride, that all of your recriminations and cynicism and calls to nihilism and no need for action leaves me completely unimpressed

in 20 years, those iraqi children can tell you why the us is in iraq, no need for me to educate you

and france won't matter, or rather, matter even less in this world (if that is even possible... snicker)

listen carefully, this is the most important piece of wisdom you will hear: the world is owned by those who act. carpe diem. it does not matter at all what you think is right in this world. what is right, what is good, only comes from what you are willing to put forth and defend, from your actions, not your thoughts. your retreating, defeatist attitude is not right, it's simply unimportant, unimpressive, pointless, boring. you have no effect on the world, you don't matter to it when you don't act


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I'm trying to be subtle (none / 0) (#274)
by emmanuel.charpentier on Sun Nov 13, 2005 at 08:41:29 AM EST

and to understand the complexities of history. I am asking you, do you understand some of the intrigues that lead to our current world? Do you recognise that past actions lead to future consequences?

And yes, what is happening is the consequence of the past. Among the events that you should, I believe, take into account, are things like the second world war, israel creation or the US intervention in iran.

Do you know what was the ottoman empire, or the ba'ath party? Do you know why the red cross is not a cross in the middle east? Any idea why saddam hate iran AND ben laden? Why saddam invaded kuwait?

     Don't you think that understanding before acting is a legitimate course of action? (except for an urgency of course)

And as for races, well, I simply don't recognise the very concept of it. I don't think of myself as a celt, a pict, a basque, a gaul, a roman, a german, a frank, an alain, a burgond, an avar, a goth, an arab, a normand, an african, a slav, a vietnamian. I wonder what other groups constitute france...

If you don't recognise your past actions, then your future actions can only fail.

Countries are inhuman. They are manipulative in their own diplomatic ways. And in those machiavelian institutions, only a few humans can grasp and actually act. Sometimes you do seem pragmatic in what you say, and I hope you recognise some kind of pragmatism in my own sayings, and yet in that last post of yours you sound awfully out of touch with reality.

Please, and that's one of the things I genuinely don't undertand, why did Georges Bush sr and Bill Clinton leave saddam in power while junior obsessed over his removal? What was the actual, factual, link between 9/11 and irak?

[ Parent ]

Bush Sr & Clinton (none / 1) (#283)
by Cro Magnon on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 11:51:04 AM EST

Bush Sr bowed to the liberal UN. Unfortunately, Saddam continued to stir up trouble over the next 12 years. We had to constantly maintain the "no-fly" zones to keep him from wiping out the Kurds, and his complience with UN orders was sketchy.

As for Clinton, there are 2 reasons he never invaded Iraq.

1. The American people wouldn't have supported it. 911 was the catalyst that made "preemptive war" acceptable.

2. Clinton had expended his political capital out his penis. The right was already commenting that whenever Monica's name came up, Clinton would bomb another asprin factory. How much worse would it have been if he had tried to overthrow the bastard?

I'm not saying that the Shrub made the right choice in Iraq, I'm just saying that Clinton made different choices for reasons that had little to do with the situation in Iraq.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]

It was just politics then (none / 0) (#288)
by emmanuel.charpentier on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 08:33:21 PM EST

another diplomatic day as usual.

And bush didn't just comply with the UN, he encouraged a rebellion which could have lead to a complete change in irak. That rebellion was left undefended against saddams' army, unlike in kurdistan, which as far as I understand it, was not aligned as much with iran and was thus much less dangerous than those naive rebels.

... It's dirty, it's machiavelic, it's covered in filthy mud. This is the result of history and of those great things we so kindly call nations and states.

And now can anybody try to analyse all that and frame the US "preemptive invasion" into some kind of rational frame? Can anybody claim that the US stand on the high moral ground? Is a preemptive invasion even defensible in such a setting? The strongest EVER country of the world, was afraid of a small country with no infrastructure and no economy to speak of (due to and extensive blocade).

Saddam was warm and cozy when it was the cold war and WE wanted to fight against theocratist iran, but when he attacked a british ally and a huge oil reserve, we had to make a 180° turn and defend this tiny piece of theocracy to defend it against our former secular friend.

If saddam had managed to rationalise this invasion into some kind of "preemptive invasion" to defend itself against, I don't know, an economic war, would it have been different?

But, well, it's all right when it's the big guy that start a war of agression. It's all right when he invents reasons to have its friends to participate. It's all right when after the silly invasion, when it is demonstrated that the official reasons were fabricated, it still considers this wise friend as the low of the lowest.

Who said: "regime change cannot be the objective of military action,"?
UK Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, responding to a demand from tony blair about the legality of the war.

[ Parent ]

why do you mistake (none / 0) (#290)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 09:30:18 PM EST

cynicism for intelligence?

it's dull, boring, common


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

you're trying to justify your inhumanity (none / 1) (#289)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 09:29:17 PM EST

what does your education and intelligence lead you to?

well, you have a prejudice: "i am helpless, i cannot act, so find for me, dear reasoning abilities and education, a train of thought which justifies my inaction"

history is not dry chapters and movements we are helpless to escape, history is actions of individuals

we are not prisoners of it, we are not trapped in amber

what do you believe in? do you believe in the universality of human rights? do human rights end at gibraltar?

whatever you believe: defend it, fight for it

and that prime directive is not held hostage by history

or at least it shouldn't be, but you seem to think it is

try this for an intellectual exercise: for the sake of argument, let's assume that all of your creative fanciful reasoning about why the west is guilty for how things are in the middle east is 100% correct. all of your assertions above, and then some more you want to throw in: let's agree they are 100% correct for the moment...

DOESN'T THAT FUCKING IMPEL THE WEST TO ACT MORE???!!!

if, according to you, arabs are helpless pawns in their own world (how utterly insulting and ethnocentric of you to think so, but let us go with your ridiculous pov for the moment), then WHY aren't you foaming at the mouth in support of the usa's actions to correct wrongs?!

given YOUR statements in your post above, not mine, that is the only conclusion you can draw!

if you analyze that thought, then maybe you can crystallize your central intellectual and moral failure: inaction, helplessness is your prejudice, and you will not act, and you will justify your inaction any way you can

this is the sum total of your so called intelligence and understanding of the world: pure bullshit... you're blind to your prejudice

you are devoid of morality

therefore you are devoid of meaning to the problems in the world

weclome to the new french reality: absurd and pointless to the world, by your own choice

so you sit in your ivory tower, ruminating on how us down in the mud sturggling for human rights is an ugly sturggle, and you won't dare dirty yourself or consider yourself part of the struggle

enjoy your sterile, hermetically sealed, cold ivory tower

you just don't fucking matter

it is your job, the job you chose, to fade away now, into utter meaningless to things you say you care about, but clearly, you do not really care about, for your "intelligence" and "eduction" above are tools for you apparently to do nothing but explain away your own human conscience, or care about anyone else in the world

you're cold, you're inhumane

your words simply don't matter to me

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Action or thinking (none / 0) (#294)
by emmanuel.charpentier on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 07:04:13 PM EST

are not a matter of one or another. The world is not binary, it is not a matter of good versus evil, of active versus passive. Manicheanism is an old religion that should be left to rot in its grave!

So, why are you trying to picture my discourse as one or the other? Don't you think one can act AND think? Isn't there any sort of a remote kind of dim possibility that, before you start a preemptive invasion, you think about the consequences of your acts?

It's not a matter of saying I want that oil, or I want to be good. It's a matter of recognising your past to prepare for your future.

Do you recognise the past acts of the US, of britain and, yes, france, in that part of the world, as an underlying frame that one must hold in its mind before launching a war?

The past exists and can not be modified (although history can of course be rewritten). Iraq is as old as civilisation, the present days are the product of that history. A few men, the wise, the powerfull, can act and shape the future. But I urge you, please please please, to consider the possible consequences before acting on such a scale!!!

I have seen a running headless chicken, it is not a pretty sight.

And there you go, in full upper case glory, wings up and legs spread in your wild posture:
"DOESN'T THAT FUCKING IMPEL THE WEST TO ACT MORE???!!!"

What is the funny name again, "chickenHawk"? Well, sorry for the name calling, not very civilized of me isn't it. Oh, by the way, your head is over there.

I'm trying to undestand why the US acted, because as silly as it seems from that side of the pond, you may have actual factual reasons to act. We waited eagerly for the WMD to be discovered, we wanted to discover the terrorists' training camps, we wanted to witness why ten years of economic blockade and inspectors could not result in anything. And there you add bewilderment to surprise, oh holy christ, we must act because we must act! Jesus marie josheph, we must correct our past errors with, what is it, future errors? Oh great, go ahead, we'll try to repair it.

Is there a curse of the all powerfull? Once, europe was strong and so stupid, are you competing?

And funny thing, when I ask why, you discourse about that great dichotomy, that incredible dilemma, that awesome dialectic: act is opposite to reflexion. Can't you consider a middle course, for exemple to reflect before acting??? You know, thesis, antithesis... synthesis!!! You seem to be blinded, but I can't seem to understand by what. Fear? Hate? Vengeance? The 9/11 did shake the western world, you more than many others? It's certainly difficult to accept that your acts could be fueled by such emotions... Tell me. Tell me about that moral imperative that drove the US to preemptively invade a powerless country!

I do like your attitude toward fanatics and wackos, and your analysis that a lot of the problems in the present world are due to religious extremists. Yeap, there are christan nutcases, I've met a few and years after years I tend to tolerate their attitudess less and less. There are also what you call islamo fascists, one more integrist brand, be it wahabists or salafists. They are the KKK of the muslim world, and yet should we bomb canada because there are KKK clubs in the south of the US? Where are the integrists of the arab world? They used to not be in irak...

And of course, the west is not 100% responsible for the problems in irak, did I ever say something along those lines? Nope I don't think so, I'm just asking, begging shall I say, for reason. For the reasons that lead to that preemptive invasion.

[ Parent ]

cutting through the bullshit: (none / 0) (#298)
by circletimessquare on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 02:38:27 AM EST

all of the potential negative consequences and proven negative consequences of invading iraq are less in quantity and quality than all of the potential negative consequences and proven negative consequences of NOT invading iraq after september 11th

got it?

that just about cuts through all of your bullshit i think

the solution the problem that is september 11th is cleaning up the entire middle east

invading iraq is but the first step of a process that will take decades

saudi arabia, syria, iran: these will fall next to democracy, whether by proof of a successful democratic iraq, or by the sword should another 9/11 type event befall the united states

that's about it

anything else i can help you with?

democracy is the cure to the theohistoric, socioeconomic, and geopolitical forces that conspire to turn men who would otherwise be doctors and lawyers into bombers: democracy points malcontent inward, at your own country, rather than projecting it in a fascist propaganda-driven outward fashion, blaming others for their own problems and failures to create anything except failed tyrannies, theocracies, and monarchies

see that? that's the power of belief

al qaeda has belief, belief in sharia law across the entire arab world of correcting its problems

i and others like me have belief, belief in democracy correcting the arab world's problems, problems we care about because if we don't fix their problems, they will continue to export it to us in the form of bali, sept 11, madrid subway, britain's bombing this summer, etc.

you? you don't have any belief, you just have "oh, it's all so complicated, we can't act because the world is so interconnected and complex and stuff"

it IS complex... but it is not devoid of progress, and progress is not driven by those who ANALYZE it, it is driven by those who ACT in it

understand?

the world is owned by those who believe in it

you don't believe in anything except wringing your hands

you simply don't matter, because you don't care: you don't care enough to act, you only care enough to explain away your need to act in this world against its decay

you fail to understand how utterly, absolutely pointless and empty you are


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Finally a beginning at rational thought (none / 0) (#300)
by emmanuel.charpentier on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 06:44:04 PM EST

> all of the potential negative consequences and proven negative consequences of invading iraq are less in quantity and quality than all of the potential negative consequences and proven negative consequences of NOT invading iraq after september 11th

Ok, see, that's rational, that's a logical approach. It is no flag waving, emotions or pure war mongering. It is a beginning.

So, you think invading a secular and weak country is the only mean to introduce democracy in that part of the world? You think that irak is the stepping stone, not because of its history, not because it is reasonable to start there, not because it had any link with 9/11, but because it was the political possibility available at this time? Where are the proofs? How can you even prove that kind of thing???

> that just about cuts through all of your bullshit i think

Nope it doesn't, it does not at all. To argue rationally about a question you need slightly more words than just state an objective, as interesting as it seems. And of course the one good way to decide between the available courses of actions is to choose the one that lead to the best envisioned consequences. OF COURSE!!! How else do you decide, with the flip of a coin? With astrology? Because your commander in chief say so?

From what you are saying it does seem that all your actions are not actions rationally decided according to a pertinent analysis, but because of irrational emotions. You, the US, are not acting you are reacting. Prove me the opposite, right now all you manage to do is to shout strong words and to wave logic aside with a move of your hand and a nod toward "deciding among different choices based on the best envisioned consequences".

Can you direct me or present me with your analysis of the situation beside some kind of "we must kill all nutcases". Can you go beyond a pathetic dialectic of us against them? The world is not painted in black and white and you know it!

So, please point me toward that analysis that weight the pros and the cons, and, if at all possible, stop your silly discourse and your shouting.

From what I gather the discussion should be toward democracy and how to spread it to the world. To you democracy is the panacea to the ills of mankind, who is angelic and overly optimistic there? On one side you seem driven by desire for a democratic utopia, and yet you also recommand "preemptive invasions". Am I right? Sounds horribly like "dictature of the proletariat", it started from an interesting analysis, and lead to things like gulags and dictature of the aparachiks. Do you even recognise the dangers of such a precedent as a preemptive war? Can you aknowledge my position as something other than a pointless intellectual racist?

You seem to be very interested into al qaeda, the sharia and islamo fascists. Do you know that irak was mostly devoid of those, that it is your actions that actually result in their apparition in that country... :-(

You see, I try to be rational, to accept your position (the one that seem rational anyway), and I bow to the possibility that you may be right in the end, that it will all be for the better. In fact I do hope that the consequences of this illegal US war will be positive, and they may still be. But please you should accept that others have different and still rational analysis.

> it IS complex... but it is not devoid of progress, and progress is not driven by those who ANALYZE it, it is driven by those who ACT in it

See, funny and silly you, you keep and keep and keep, boringly and stupidly, to pound on the supposed opposition between action and reflexion. Will you ever open your eyes and accept that reflexion can occur BEFORE, DURING and AFTER action? Do you like playing the role of the headless running chicken? Are you sure you want to promote action without thought, without logic, without rational?

If you do, and you seem to because you keep repeating yourself over and over, then I explain your attitude by emotions. If you do, then you are driven by fear, by hate, by desire for vengeance.

Do you?

[ Parent ]

you are full of fear, it clouds your reason (none / 0) (#302)
by circletimessquare on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 01:25:52 AM EST

your point is that action without thought can make things worse

what you don't understand is that thought without action can make things worse

the us acted on iraq

if not us, then al qaeda would have toppled saddam

and i suppose you think that would be a better world

you should study your european history:

the sudetenland

Benito Mussolini suggested to Hitler that one way of solving this issue was to hold a four-power conference of Germany, Britain, France and Italy. This would exclude both Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, and therefore increasing the possibility of reaching an agreement and undermine the solidarity that was developing against Germany.

The meeting took place in Munich on 29th September, 1938. Desperate to avoid war, and anxious to avoid an alliance with Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union, Neville Chamberlain and Edouard Daladier agreed that Germany could have the Sudetenland. In return, Hitler promised not to make any further territorial demands in Europe.

On 29th September, 1938, Adolf Hitler, Neville Chamberlain, Edouard Daladier and Benito Mussolini signed the Munich Agreement which transferred the Sudetenland to Germany.

When Eduard Benes, Czechoslovakia's head of state, protested at this decision, Neville Chamberlain told him that Britain would be unwilling to go to war over the issue of the Sudetenland.

The German Army marched into the Sudetenland on 1st October, 1938. As this area contained nearly all Czechoslovakia's mountain fortifications, she was no longer able to defend herself against further aggression.

you need to use your mind, and make a fair appraisal of the situation

you beleive war can be avoided, you are desperate to avoid it, but your emotion is clouding your reason

war is an evil ugly thing, but when your mind tells you it is unavoidable, avoiding it more only makes things WORSE

after 9/11, that anyone thinks that war is avoidable is a fool

the same kind of fool who thinks hitler could be appeased in 1938

the same kind of fool who believes al qaeda can be appeased

war is evil and ugly

and sometimes unavoidable

(2) Neville Chamberlain, radio broadcast (27th September, 1938)

How horrible, fantastic, incredible, it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing! I would not hesitate to pay even a third visit to Germany, if I thought it would do any good.

Armed conflict between nations is a nightmare to me; but if I were convinced that any nation had made up its mind to dominate the world by fear of its force, I should feel that it must be resisted. Under such a domination, life for people who believe in liberty would not be worth living; but war is a fearful thing, and we must be very clear, before we embark on it, that it is really the great issues that are stake.

(3) Statement issued by Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler after the signing of
the Munich Agreement (30th September)

We, the German Führer and Chancellor and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for the two countries and for Europe.

We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as Symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries.

(4) Winston Churchill, The Second World War (1948)

For the French Government to leave her faithful ally Czechoslovakia to her fate was a melancholy lapse from which flowed terrible consequences. Not only wise and fair policy, but chivalry, honour, and sympathy for a small threatened people made an overwhelming concentration. Great Britain, who would certainly have fought if bound by treaty obligations, was nevertheless now deeply involved, and it must be recorded with regret that the British Government not only acquiesced but encouraged the French Government in a fatal course.

(5) The Manchester Guardian (17th March, 1939)

Prague, a sorrowing Prague, yesterday had its first day of German rule - a day in which the Czechs learned of the details of their subjection to Germany, and in which the Germans began their measures against the Jews and against those people who have "opened their mouths too wide." Prague's streets were jammed with silent pedestrians wandering about, looking out of the corners of their eyes at German soldiers carrying guns, at armoured cars, and at other military precautions. Some Czechs were seen turning up their noses at the Germans. Germans were everywhere. Bridges were occupied by troops and each bridge-head had a heavy machine-gun mounted on a tripod and pointing to the sky. Every twenty yards along the pavement two machine-guns were mounted facing each other.

Suicides have begun. The fears of the Jews grow. The funds of the Jewish community have been seized, stopping Jewish relief work. The Prague Bar Council has ordered all its "non-Aryan" members to stop practicing at once. The organization for Jewish emigration has been closed. Hundreds of people stood outside the British Consulate shouting: "We want to get away!" This is only the beginning. According to an official spokesman of the German Foreign Office in Berlin last night, the Gestapo (secret police) will have rounded up hundreds of "harmful characters" within the next few days. So far about fifty to a hundred men have been put in local gaols. "There are certain centres of resistance which need to be cleaned up," said the spokesman. "Also some people open their mouths too wide. Some of them neglected to get out in time. They may total several thousand before we are through. Remember that Prague was a breeding-place for opposition to National Socialism." The head of the Gestapo in Prague is reported to have been more definite: "We have 10,000 arrests to carry out." Already, say Reuter's correspondent, everyone seems to have an acquaintance who has disappeared.

dear mr. neville chamberlain (that's you)

it's 1938, and you are desperate to avoid war with germany

will your desperation avoid the conflict?

or merely push it off to another day, when the enemy has grown more terrible?

you nip scum in the bud when it presents itself, or it grows, and you have a bigger problem to deal with later

you are simply desperate to avoid that which is unavoidable

fear drives you, not reason

how long do you wait before you confront the dynamo driving men to become bombers who should have been lawyers? how long can you wait?

was it certain that hitler would be defeated in wwii? could you have waited indefinitely?

you fight for what is right, you fight evil in this world when your mind beholds it, or it defeats you

evil does exist in this world

it is not an abstract or religious concept

it is merely those who do not value human life, who do not have a human conscience, and value instead the very antithesis of all you hold dear

that you are wracked with fear is proof you care

that you will not act is proof that those who do not value what you value will defeat you

act, or you and anyone who thinks like, ceases to exist

you must fight in this world

being right is not good enough


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You make ONE claim (none / 0) (#303)
by emmanuel.charpentier on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 07:49:42 AM EST

and only one (and it took you a long time to enunciate it) =>
> if not us, then al qaeda would have toppled saddam

Well, can you back it up? Any rational argument that shows saddam was to be toppled? I'm interested, particularly if this is your only argument.

Do you know what are the current islamo fascists country? saudi arabia, qutar, somalia, possibly pakistan and kuwait. Irak had no operational link with al qaida, all of the world intelligence organisations know it and have said it. Blair and Bush had to "invent" WMD to have some kind of legitimacy, and yet the world population was marching in the streets to try to stop that preemptive invasion.

Do you have other reasons for that war? Can you go beyond name calling? In fact you should structure what you are saying, did France not back up the US because we were hypocrite or because we feared saddam? If we are driven by fear, why did we participate in the first irak war, in the balkans, in afghanistan, in the ivory coast? As silly as it may seem, france is one of the strong military powers in the world, we intervened in more that one place since the second world war.

Bloody hell!!! We intervened in the first irak war, why should we fear a second war against a weakened opponent??? If we were fearfull why did we oppose the strongest EVER country in the world? In fact we are courageous to stand up against the bully who wants to act despite reason.

And please, do you read what I am writing or do you just like repeating over and over yourself just for fun? You are getting dull and boring: ACTION IS NOT OPPOSITE TO REFLECTION. And I will add, action without reflection is stupid. Reflection without action is just pointless. You are choosing action over everything else, you seem to favor action despite reflection, you are a FOOL.

The US are driven by fear in their support for this invasion. You are driven by emotions, well, that's the only rational I can distinguish in your attitude. You feared the possible future toppling of saddam by al qaida, despite the fact, a fact not an emotion, that al qaida was not installed in irak.

You are foolish because despite your claimed objective, nowadays al qaida IS in irak.

A fool tries to rationalise his fear, and projects his own attitude to anybody who tries to oppose him.

> after 9/11, that anyone thinks that war is avoidable is a fool

I am asking and begging for the relations you see between irak and 9/11, please point me to something beyond your empty words.

And as for munich, yes, a shame definitely, a huge and incredible mistake, although the biggest mistake was not munich, it was the versailles treaty. After world war one we should have embraced germany, not humiliated it. We made many mistakes in the past and will most certainly do more in the future, but please show me rationaly and not with strong words and emotions that we are wrong.

[ Parent ]

lol ;-) (none / 0) (#304)
by circletimessquare on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 05:11:31 PM EST

dude, don't worry about it

in 50 years, china will be the new usa, and the usa will be to them like france is to the usa now: a loud, useless barking dog you just wish you could shoot in the head so you can get some work done ;-)

i, and people like me elsewhere in the usa, canada, western eruope, iraq... we believe in principles

we fight for them

we aren't like you: you start with the assumption that no beliefs are worth fighting for, and vehemently defend that pov so you never have to lift a finger AND feel smug and superior at the same time ;-P

so you keep barking dog, whatever makes you happy and feel all high and mighty and superior to us losers with principles and beliefs, ok?

but, unlike what you think, what i know is that you don't matter in this world

not because i say so, but because of what you have already said multiple times: you won't act

so why i again should i care what you think?

do you understand how the world works now?

you act, and you matter

or you don't act, and so you don't matter

throw a million pebbles at that rock of gibraltar with your words all you like:

it

just

doesn't

matter

(yawn)

i'm sorry that the world doesn't work like it works in your ivory tower, but it simply doesn't, and no amount of your hot air will ever change that

but an OUNCE of your action will!

has any of this sunk in yet?

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Boring and repetitive (none / 0) (#305)
by emmanuel.charpentier on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 06:10:20 PM EST

Repeat after me: action is not the opposite of reflection. Every morning 10 times in front of the mirror. And believe me, it seems like you will require many mornings to have it sink into your heavy skull.

Well, discussing with you is boring, you can't argue, simple and straightforward, Now I have learnt something. Maybe in front of a beer I could have had you to listen to my questions, and to stop babbling and repeating. Here you sound more like a bot than a reasonable human being.

So please, if ever I can tell you something that you will listen: use logic and reason to argue, don't simply yell at people hoping they will understand what you don't explain. In fact your attitude may explain why you shout at people so often: you live in a world where no one understands you!

I wonder about your social life, how many rolls of the eyes do you usually get in a day?

CU around, maybe we'll talk again about religion or something else, hopefully you will present arguments.... I don't lose hope you see ;-)

[ Parent ]

action IS the opposite of reflection (none / 0) (#306)
by circletimessquare on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 07:33:54 PM EST

you seem to think action without thought is the only danger

thought without action is EQUALLY dangerous, in every capacity you can imagine as action without thought

thoughtful aciton is what is required, obviously, but even then, it is more important to act in good faith, imperfectly, then to not act at all because you are afraid to make a mistake

acting and making mistakes is far superior to not acting at all

mainly because people see what your INTENT is

if you don't act, what is your intent?

it may be good, but no one will ever know, so you might as well just ACT

these are really boring repetitive simplistic mental exercises here, i can't argue with you on that

and they are repeated over and over to you because you apparently just don't fucking get it ;-P

we cna move beyond this simple boring point as soon as you fucking UNDERSTAND IT

i am talking about the real world, how things actually work

not as you think they should work, or as they work in your antiseptic hermetically sealed ivory tower

welcome to the real world: it is a struggle in the mud, it is vicious, evil, messy, imperfect, and hard

and not struggling doesn't mean you win the struggle, nor does it give you the right to pass judgment on the struggle

because only those in the struggle matter, those outside it, who have chosen to stand outside it, have given up their ability ot criticize the struggle, even if they keep talking: they may not realize it, but it is true

al qaeda matters: they have beliefs, that we both agree suck, but they ACT on their beliefs, therefore they matter

me and htose in the west fighting for humanism and the values of the west: individual freedoms, respect for human rights, etc.: we matter, because we fight for what we believe

you? you simply don't matter, you won't fight

you are the rich, self-absorbed, self-priveledged crust of malcontent on the western world

you whine, you moan, but you dn't understand you rplace int he larger scheem of things

you look at the ugliness of the world, and you judge it for being ugly

but you won't take part in making it less ugly will you?

no, heaven forbid you denigrate your high ideals by ACTUALLY DEFENDING THEM

life in the ivory tower of the rich spoiled children of the west

what a perfectly absurd, pointless self-important existence

so loud, so indignant, so useless and dumb


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Too easy (none / 0) (#308)
by emmanuel.charpentier on Fri Nov 18, 2005 at 06:28:06 AM EST

> action IS the opposite of reflection

and yet two paragraphs later:

> thoughtful action is what is required

The opposite of action is inaction, the opposite of reflection is thoughtlessness or even stupidity...

[ Parent ]

yeah but you don't advocate reflection (none / 0) (#309)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 04:14:12 AM EST

you advocate learned helplessness

for you history isn't useful background information, it's walls of stone and bars of steel

for all of your understanding of the complexities of situations, you're so sensitive so as not to disturb the slightest ripple that you've frozen yourself into absolute inability to act

such a person as you is equally as dangerous to the situation we find ourselves in the world as someone who goes off half cocked with his gun shooting the first person he sees

your standards for action raises the bar so high, to never act is your only fate, no matter what menaces you

so you don't matter to the discussion at hand

you're completely unimportant, and you got that way via your own words and machinations and your impossible ivory tower of standards of behavior in this imperfect world populated by imperfect humans

you're a bug, trapped in amber


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Again, you're lacking logic (none / 0) (#310)
by emmanuel.charpentier on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 12:38:20 PM EST

> you advocate learned helplessness

while in fact I just criticize one action, a preemptive invasion made for no rational reason. See, to disagree with one action is different to advocating inaction.

As far as I can see, there is only one "inaction" that can be considered unethical, it is "not helping someone in immediate danger". You are a fool ranting for "shooting the first person he sees", with no logical reason to back up your attitude, how irresponsible can that be??? In my book a person that wants to shoot the first person she encounters should be shot! See, I am advocating action there :-)

Of course I am open to discussion. Can you show me, explain to me, prove to me (I gladly accept links to such arguments) the relation between 9/11 and irak. Why did the USA invade Irak??? What was urgent in that preemptive war?

You don't know history, which shows us that the US have toppled regimes in the past, but not to install democracy, just to control them. In fact not so long ago you toppled a democratically elected government, do you even know which? Do you know the consequences of it?

You seem to act out of fear, fear that if you don't invade irak and impose your own regimes on all of the arabic countries, it might generate, in the future, more bombers. This is pure emotions, not logic. You are acting out of fear of those future bombers!

In fact you do not know how to argue! You can just rant, shout and insult. Sad really. And I see no sign that you will ever reflect about your attitude... :-(

[ Parent ]

the relation between 9/11 and iraq (none / 0) (#311)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 04:21:59 AM EST

the theohistoric, socioeconomic and geopolitical reasons that conspire to turn men who would otherwise be doctors and lawyers into bombers is the problem that caused 9/11

the solution to that problem is the democratization of the entire middle east

iraq is but the first, and obvious beachhead: saddam hussein had no legitimacy in the eyes of his people or his neighbors

syria, iran, and saudi arabia fall to democracy next, whether by peaceful example and influence of iraq, or by the sword, should another 9/11 style event befall the west again

anything else i can help you with?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

CTS, logic is definitely not your strong point (none / 0) (#312)
by emmanuel.charpentier on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 01:16:43 PM EST

> to stop the socioeconomic, theohistoric, and geopolitical phenomena that turn men who would otherwise be doctors and lawyers into bombers
> iran and syria and saudi arabia fall to deomcracy next, whether by peaceful example of iraq, or by the sword should another 9/11 style attack happen again
> no one is immune to the madness that the middle east spawns, not least of which middle easterners and europeans, so the world must work together to solve the situation
> but if they don't agree for their own self-interest, then fine, we'll do it alone
> iraq is but the first, and obvious beachhead

In a later post you turn around and despite what you said above you add:
> equal in every way
> including accountability and responsibility

So, which is it? Is the whole arab world mad??? Do you think it is fair to aggregate all arabs into that one accusation? Do you think all arab countries are islamo fascists? Any exception? Any one country being slightly better than another one?

Funny how you want to invade another country for their own good. How many countries in the last 50 years have had their regime toppled by the USA, to find themselves in a far worse situation? Think pinochet or panama. Iran or noriega. Indonesia or guatemala.

Do you have exemples of succesfull democratisations in the last 50 years? I'm not a know-all (although I'm clearly big mouthed sometimes), what are the exemplary situations? South corea is the only one that currently comes to my mind, and I'm not sure it was any sort of exemple for a long time.

The USA were nation builders in germany and japan, I wonder what other places can be considered such beacon of reussites?

The words I gather from your discourse are:

  • "to stop" the process that create "bombers"
  • "should another 9/11 attack happen again"
  • "madness that the middle east spawns"
  • "the solution the problem that is september 11th is cleaning up the entire middle east"
  • "if not us, then al qaeda would have toppled saddam"
  • "evil does exist in this world"
From which you conclude:
-> "democratization of the entire middle east"
-> "iraq is but the first, and obvious beachhead"
-> "acting and making mistakes is far superior to not acting at all"
-> "if they don't agree for their own self-interest, then fine we'll do it alone"

This is pure fear. And this emotion drives you to rationalise "O.peration I.rak L.iberation".

Do you personally know someone who was in the towers? How many times did you watch the images of the planes and ground zero?

You can't argue because you only use your reptilian and mamalian brains, try your cortex sometimes, it makes wonders for a good conversation and for diplomacy.

And maybe you may, one day, not resort to insults...
> you're a racist
> you are devoid of morality
> you're cold, you're inhumane
> your way is very patronizing, condescending, and very old world, colonial-minded
> you fail to understand how utterly, absolutely pointless and empty you are
> so you keep barking dog
> you're a bug, trapped in amber

[ Parent ]

well (none / 1) (#241)
by The Diary Section on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 01:33:01 PM EST

I don't know, I manage not to hate the US for dragging the UK into their personal war yet to still utterly stab us in the back on anything that matters to us (Kyoto, ICC, US free trade with the 3rd world, nuclear proliferation, etc, etc, etc). All relatively minor compared to signing up for a foreign war surely? In rejecting the ICC you join those luminaries of global cooperation China, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Qatar and Israel.  And it goes without saying that as the world's greatest polluter in human history the US's absence from Kyoto amuses nobody.

I'm afraid in the traitor stakes the US is widely held to have let everyone down repeatedly, and more worringly this isn't the action of a rogue politician, its Joe Sixpack's will because he likes insanely cheap petrol for his SUV, cheap goods in the shops and cos he likes to see "towel heads" get tortured like they deserve.

French people don't like illegal wars that are fought for no real reason. Vive la difference you might say.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]

it was fought for the spread of democracy (none / 0) (#262)
by circletimessquare on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 06:29:00 PM EST

which britain is keenly interested in

your cynicism isn't very interesting or intelligent


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Bad troll! Bad! Back under the bridge! (n/t) (none / 0) (#264)
by stalker on Sat Nov 12, 2005 at 09:54:03 AM EST



[ Parent ]
it's not a troll (none / 0) (#270)
by circletimessquare on Sun Nov 13, 2005 at 03:05:11 AM EST

i, and a couple of million americans, and a couple million iraqis and a couple million other people in the world actually and sincerely believe that


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
false dichotomy (none / 0) (#238)
by JetJaguar on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 10:59:34 AM EST

You know, I consider myself a liberal American. I don't particularly identify with either of the parties in my country because I think that together they are actually making things worse rather than better. I disagree with our administration on too many issues to count, and when our European friends on K5 blasted the US on it's policy in the middle east, I more or less agreed with them.

However, it is also true that our European friends have been heaping scorn on the US for a very long time, which significantly predates the election of the current US administration. Many of these claims were founded on the idea that Europe in general was flat out intellectually and culturally superior to the US in many ways, that the typical american was fat, ugly, intolerant, and stupid, while Europeans were worldly, culturally sensitive, and well informed about the cultures and politics of others.

Well, guess what! It's looking a lot like the typical European suffers the same sort of myopia that you have been claiming the Americans have. I don't relish making this observation, and I don't claim for a second that this makes our behavior ok. I do think it means that we all need to take a good look in the mirror before we start playing this game of who's got the superior culture. The events of the last couple of weeks make this European hypocracy painfully clear.

In other words, the problems in France may not excuse our problems, however, our problems don't excuse the problems and failings of France either.

[ Parent ]

Only one thing to do (3.00 / 6) (#44)
by regeya on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:23:25 PM EST

Whatever the "drastic measures" Chirac is planing to use are, George Dubbya Bush needs to take the stage and denounce the heinous crimes against France's people.

Hell, I hate Bush too, but I just think it'd be funny as hell. In a grim way, of course.

[ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]

Good story, bad style (1.33 / 3) (#47)
by Stylusepix on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:43:53 PM EST

I copy-edited your story for style, humour and clarity. I think my revised edition is better. I'll be posting it in the queue in a few minutes.

I thank you, gustad, for writing this story, and I grant you, gustad, full rights to the revised edition.
Go; you're an it-getter, but No; it's all in good fun (and games). Laugh, in stock?

Wow, that's arrogant (3.00 / 2) (#95)
by Sgt York on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 01:17:50 PM EST

What, are you French or something?

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

Quelle Merde, France is Burning! (1.60 / 5) (#52)
by Stylusepix on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:56:19 PM EST

I have copy-edited this story into something better, which I call: Quelle Merde, France is Burning!

I hereby give full credits and grant thankyougustad full rights to the revised edition.
Go; you're an it-getter, but No; it's all in good fun (and games). Laugh, in stock?

What gives you the right (none / 0) (#57)
by debacle on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:50:13 PM EST

To copy-edit a copyrighted work without permission?

It tastes sweet.
[ Parent ]
What takes away the right? (none / 1) (#58)
by Stylusepix on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:47:39 PM EST

If I hear a man make an argument, can I not repeat it in my own words? If I read something a story here, can I not copy-edit it and feed it to the community by putting it in the democratic queue?

If the community doesn't like it, then surely the story will be dumped. If the original author objects, then he will speak out; then, Rusty and the almighty Sysops will take swift and decisive action.

However, if my version is better, then have I not done something good? I have not cost the original author any money or otherwise hurt him.

So, what takes away my right to do this? I tried it, and it looks like my revision is going to be dumped. But it was an interesting experiment, and I'd do it again.
Go; you're an it-getter, but No; it's all in good fun (and games). Laugh, in stock?
[ Parent ]

You should have asked first (none / 0) (#63)
by bml on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 04:57:34 AM EST

... to the very least.

The Internet is vast, and contains many people. This is the way of things. -- Russell Dovey
[ Parent ]
Nothing takes away the right (none / 0) (#129)
by Sgt York on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 05:19:32 PM EST

It's just rude, that's all.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

No good way to do it ATM (none / 0) (#137)
by Stylusepix on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 06:42:34 PM EST

The edit queue doesn't offer a good mechanism to do what I did.

What about borrowing some concepts from Wikis and applying them to the edit queue? If, instead of writing a comment telling the author what I like and don't like, I could edit the original story and post a diff... The author could choose to integrate or to reject these diffs, at his own discretion.

Most people would use it for fixing typos, but it would allow for major copy-editing. I would let the submitter choose if he wants to allow such diffs.

Now, let's push this concept a little further. While the story is in edit queue, all diffs are visible. Everyone can make their own diff, starting from either the original story or building upon an existing diff.

As for the final decision about what gets submitted to the moderation queue, I can see two possibilities, and the original submitter could choose between the two modes.

First choice, he keep the ultimate authority as to what gets submitted. Second choice, the community votes on what revision to send to the edit queue.

We can improve collaboration in collaborative media.
Go; you're an it-getter, but No; it's all in good fun (and games). Laugh, in stock?
[ Parent ]

"collaboration" (none / 0) (#155)
by Sgt York on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 09:39:16 PM EST

normallyimplies some kind of prior agreement.

It's still rude

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

Yes, it was rude. (none / 0) (#189)
by Stylusepix on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:10:40 AM EST

I agree. What I did was rude. I hereby apologize to thankyougustad.

I wish that there had been a way for me to do what I did without being rude. I think that there should be a mechanism for collaborative editing of submitted stories.

Without such a mechanism, it looks like I can either be rude or shut up. I really wish I could have done what I did without being rude.

Anyway, I once again apologize to thankyougustad.
Go; you're an it-getter, but No; it's all in good fun (and games). Laugh, in stock?
[ Parent ]

Or (none / 0) (#195)
by Sgt York on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 08:48:56 AM EST

You could, you know, make use of some sort of communication medium to maybe, I don't know, perhaps ask first?

But that would requuire some sort of mechanism for people to communicate, a small degree of interaction....

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

RTFM (none / 0) (#59)
by pHatidic on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 12:41:43 AM EST

Unless we have explicitly agreed otherwise, contributing a story here means that you grant kuro5hin.org non-exclusive serial rights to publish it online, at kuro5hin.org, and syndicate the title through our RDF backend (http://www.kuro5hin.org/backend.rdf). You also grant us the right to edit or remove your story as necessary, though we will take great pains to ensure the meaning remains intact.

Stylusepix as a member of Kuro5hin, therefor when thankyougustad submitted his story he granted Stylusepix and everyone else the right to edit it as long as the final version is published on Kuro5hin and nowhere else.

[ Parent ]

I really, really like your interpretation (none / 1) (#60)
by Stylusepix on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 01:15:26 AM EST

Kuro5hin.org and the entirely fictional Mrs. Edna Graustein, of Kansas City, Mo.

I love this interpretation of the legalese. If you intepret "we" and "us" in the legalese to mean "the kuro5hin.org community", it means that anybody can edit any story, comment or diary and repost it as long as they "take great pains to ensure that the meaning remains intact".

This is incredibly vague and permissive. I love it. This grants the kuro5hin.org community a full license to do copy-editing, as long as the revised versions are posted on kuro5hin.org and that the original author keeps the rights to his story.
Go; you're an it-getter, but No; it's all in good fun (and games). Laugh, in stock?
[ Parent ]

Alloors citoyen! (1.20 / 5) (#56)
by Singing Happy Drunk on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:43:07 PM EST

somtehing le batallions!
marchon marchon marchon!

voila citeyens!

vive la france-o-phone!


The Singing, Happy Drunk drools on you. -more-

###........
##5....@...
......p....
...........

Internationale! (none / 0) (#77)
by Russell Dovey on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 09:19:14 AM EST

Viva le hippy!

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

BAISEZ LA POLICE! (1.12 / 8) (#64)
by CAPS LOCK on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 05:45:04 AM EST



baissez (1.00 / 3) (#66)
by tkatchevzombie on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 06:44:39 AM EST

c-à-d, à bas les flics tu veux dire mon ami.

[ Parent ]
PARDON MONSIUER? (1.50 / 4) (#67)
by CAPS LOCK on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 06:51:48 AM EST

GOD DAMN USELESS BABELFISH

[ Parent ]
quoi tu blagues mec (1.80 / 5) (#68)
by tkatchevzombie on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 07:05:34 AM EST

le savoir-faire technologique du peuple americain est infaillible, surtout en tout ce qui concerne des cultures barbares. sale negre.

[ Parent ]
Think NWA. (none / 0) (#248)
by billx78 on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 08:47:20 PM EST

What was their most famous song again? Oh yes, "Fuck tha Police".

Personally, I prefer Eazy-E's "Gimme that Nutt", but to each his own.

[ Parent ]
its funny. . . (none / 0) (#249)
by thankyougustad on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 09:39:54 PM EST

there is indeed a 'nique la police' on the la haine soundtrack.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
I'M SURPRISED BY SOME OF THE AMERICAN COMMENTS (1.85 / 7) (#65)
by CAPS LOCK on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 05:48:04 AM EST

WHAT, ARE YOU TELLING US YOU'VE NEVER HAD RACE RIOTS BEFORE?

IF ANYTHING THIS SHOWS JUST HOW SIMILAR WESTERN SOCIETIES ARE. THERE REALLY IS VERY LITTLE BETWEEN US - WE'RE ALL CAPITALIST DEMOCRACIES, AND WE ALL SUFFER SIMILAR PROBLEMS.

Well... (none / 1) (#69)
by khallow on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 07:09:40 AM EST

It looks to me like the US deals better with race riots. The LA riots of 1992 were much worse than the first few days of these, and it stopped after three days. Second, France has had (according to French police) 28,000 cars burned this year before the latest riot broke out. That's simply amazing that they let the situation get so far out of hand.

Maybe we're due for a Sixth Republic.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

LA RIOTS (none / 1) (#70)
by CAPS LOCK on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 07:47:00 AM EST

THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE LASTED AS LONG, BUT THE DAMAGE DONE AND AMOUNT OF PEOPLE KILLED FAR OUTSTRIPPED WHAT'S HAPPENING IN FRANCE. IN FACT I'M NOT EVEN SURE THAT THE EARLY DAYS OF RIOTING IN FRANCE WOULD EVEN HAVE BEEN CLASSED AS RIOTS IF THEY HAPPENED IN THE UK - STONES THROWN AT FIRE ENGINES AND STOLEN CARS SET ON FIRE IS PRETTY NORMAL WEEKEND ACTIVITY ON SOME OF OUR ESTATES.

YOU'RE RIGHT THOUGH, THERE'S NO DENYING THE FRENCH RESPONSE HAS BEEN SLOW. WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE, BUT SO FAR I'VE BEEN IMPRESSED BY THE HONEST, SOUL-SEARCHING APPROACH OF MOST COMMENTATORS, TANTAMOUNT TO ADMITTING "WE WERE WRONG." CAN'T IMAGINE THAT HAPPENING IN THE UK OR THE US.

[ Parent ]

Yes, that's true (3.00 / 2) (#72)
by khallow on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 08:05:41 AM EST

THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE LASTED AS LONG, BUT THE DAMAGE DONE AND AMOUNT OF PEOPLE KILLED FAR OUTSTRIPPED WHAT'S HAPPENING IN FRANCE. IN FACT I'M NOT EVEN SURE THAT THE EARLY DAYS OF RIOTING IN FRANCE WOULD EVEN HAVE BEEN CLASSED AS RIOTS IF THEY HAPPENED IN THE UK - STONES THROWN AT FIRE ENGINES AND STOLEN CARS SET ON FIRE IS PRETTY NORMAL WEEKEND ACTIVITY ON SOME OF OUR ESTATES.

I was just saying that the combination of law enforcement and community effort halted the LA riots, which indeed were far worse, in a relatively short period of time. Meanwhile, France apparently can't handle its more modest problem.

Glancing through the early reporting, it does appeaer that several hundred cars were burned over the first couple of days, so you'd probably have noticed it even in the UK. OTOH, France appears to have a lot of car burnings even before the riots, so I'm not sure how significant it really is.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

According to an (none / 1) (#87)
by The Diary Section on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 12:14:15 PM EST

interview recorded before (BBC Radio 4 "From our own correspondent") the riots kicked off with French teenagers in the nasty parts of Paris, car burning is something of a sport with different gangs competing with each other. The present riots owe at least as much to camera phones as anything else (we have similar problems in the UK with "happy slapping").
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]
Damn (none / 0) (#134)
by JahToasted on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 06:34:58 PM EST

Like ultraviolence from A Clockwork Orange.
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison
[ Parent ]
Wait I'm confused (none / 0) (#154)
by mayo on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 08:44:27 PM EST

Was that L.A. riots or la riots? Because "la riots" would make an excellent name for these ones. You know, because obviously large scale riots need a name like hurricanes and tropical storms.

[ Parent ]
Cars don't mean as much in France... (n/t) (none / 0) (#188)
by transport on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:07:58 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Balanced response (none / 0) (#273)
by bluebird on Sun Nov 13, 2005 at 05:31:47 AM EST

The reason France is reacting slowly are :

1. They are not used to this and hesitate how to handle the situation.

2. They do not want to throw in the army. It would probably calm down everything quickly but the damage to the poeple would be tremendous. It would not solve the problem, only the symptom.

Just like sending the army to Irak seemed like a good solution. At the beginning Irak seemed better without Sassam Hussein. Then it turns into a complete mess and has created a lot more violence than it has prevented.

The same could be happening in suburbs and I certainly do not want it.

So, the government, the mayors and the people of each city are trying to find other peaceful solutions. Not as efficient on the short term, but more efficient on the long term. However, it is very difficult to know if this will be sufficient.

Allow me to doubt that in 1992, the heart of the problem has been solved. The violence has been stopped but have you measured the collateral damage in the people minds ?

[ Parent ]

your comment displays your racism. (none / 1) (#105)
by CAIMLAS on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 03:32:30 PM EST

Your comment displays your racism. By simply making this a "race issue" (as you evidently see it), you blatantly ignore the other "less PC" but much more accurate reasons for this:
  • Islamist extremism
  • Political repression
  • Economic repression
  • Diametrically opposed worldviews
The so-called "LA Race Riots" were, to the most respect, people simply acting out against their city's system and the LAPD's corruption. There were blacks attacking asians, whites attacking blacks, and various premutations of that, including groups of mixed colors attacking other groups. Typical "zombie group mentality". It wasn't about race.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

IT WAS ABOUT RACE (3.00 / 3) (#181)
by CAPS LOCK on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 05:32:05 AM EST

AFRICAN-AMERICANS WERE CONSIGNED TO POVERTY-STRICKEN GHETTOS IN ONE OF THE RICHEST CITIES IN THE WORLD. AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN WAS BEATEN BY WHITE POLICEMEN FOR TRIVIAL REASONS. AN ALL-WHITE JURY LET THE POLICEMEN GET AWAY WITH IT, AND SECTIONS OF THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY EXPRESSED THEIR ANGER BY RIOTING.

FIND ME SOME EVIDENCE OF WHITE RIOTING TO BACK UP YOUR POINT, BECAUSE I'VE LOOKED AND I CAN'T.

PART OF THE PROBLEM IN FRANCE IS THAT IT DOESN'T RECOGNISE ETHNIC MINORITIES AS SEPERATE GROUPS FACING DISTINCT PROBLEMS. SO WHEN PEOPLE EXPERIENCE RACISM, OR WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS HIGHER AMONGST ETHNIC MINORITIES DUE TO COVERT DISCRIMINATION, OR WHEN YOU SEE THAT NOT ONE SINGLE FRENCH NATIONAL POLITICIAN IS BLACK OR ARAB, THERE IS NO MEANS TO ADDRESS IT. FRANCE'S LEGAL SYSTEM JUST REFUSES TO RECOGNISE THAT RACISM EXISTS - BECAUSE ALL ARE MEANT TO BE TREATED EQUALLY IT PRESUMES THIS IS THE CASE.

UNFORTUNATELY, YOU SEEM TO BE DOING THE SAME. IN DENYING THAT RACE PLAYS A PART YOU ARE DENYING THAT RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION ARE A PROBLEM FOR THESE COMMUNITIES.

ANOTHER POINT - ISLAMIC EXTREMISM HAS PLAYED NO PROVEN PART IN THESE RIOTS, ANY EVIDENCE I'VE SEEN IS PURELY ANECDOTAL, AND ALL OF IT HAS BEEN IN THE AMERICAN MEDIA. THERE'S A TENDANCY IN THE US TO SEE EUROPE'S LARGE MUSLIM COMMUNITIES AS SEETHING BEDS OF EXTREMISM. APART FROM A FEW OBVIOUS CASES THIS JUST ISN'T TRUE, THEY SUFFER THE SAME PROBLEMS OTHER POOR IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES SUFFER - CRIME, DISCRIMINATION, OVER-ZEALOUS POLICING - AND THIS IS WHAT THE RIOTS ARE ABOUT.

[ Parent ]

France burning (2.83 / 6) (#73)
by ljj on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 08:13:01 AM EST

Even though the underlying reason for the revolt is probably justified, nobody can ever take the law into their own hands. This will just increase the suspicion and discrimination towards people of colour in France - even Europe. France's government must act forcefully, but at the same time demonstrate real efforts to integrate these people into the fabric of their society. Perhaps a ten year affirmative action programme is in order?

--
ljj

Yikes (none / 0) (#133)
by hershmire on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 06:18:56 PM EST

Even though the underlying reason for the revolt is probably justified, nobody can ever take the law into their own hands.

The number of French revolutions is outnumbered only by the number of revolutions Locke is making in his grave at the time of your posting.
FIXME: Insert quote about procrastination
[ Parent ]
That doesn't justify revolution (none / 0) (#177)
by ljj on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 04:49:33 AM EST

You make a factual point about the French and their revolutions. True, agreed. That doesn't justify the actions of these youths. Democractic processes are in place and those should be followed to ensure they have a better chance.

I know the system is flawed, but its better than what is happening at the moment.

Brain is always better than brawn. That is why we are not animals.

--
ljj
[ Parent ]

I'm sorry but that is stupid (none / 0) (#210)
by Lemon Juice on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 02:55:57 PM EST

elections by a tiny minority can change nothing. You are a moron.

[ Parent ]
So what do you propse, Lemon Juice? (none / 0) (#232)
by ljj on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 02:00:16 AM EST

What do you think they are achieving?

Hey about this for an idea. The affected, sidelined minorities should stand together and support each other economically using their brainpower.

I think minorities can learn a lot from the Jews, who've been minorities in every society in the world for almost 2000 years - and flourished.

What have these youths achieved? You, Sir, are a moron.

--
ljj
[ Parent ]

"probably justified"? (none / 0) (#259)
by xmnemonic on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 04:38:13 PM EST

How does 2 teenagers tripping over some electrical wires justify mass riots?   Does anyone realize that the cops did not kill them?  If anything, the engineers who designed the electrical power station should be questioned for neglecting public safety in their design, if that was the case (I don't know the details of the station layout so I can't say for sure).  But the cops did nothing wrong.

Yes, I realize why this has happened.  The death sparked a powder keg, like Sharon's visit to Palestine in 2000.  A causal relationship though does not necessarily justify any action.

[ Parent ]

are you refering to Sharon's visit to Jerusalem? (none / 0) (#282)
by issachar on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 01:04:15 AM EST

You mean when Sharon visited Jerusalem?

That had to be among the stupidest things the Palestinians ever did. Starting the second intifada because a Jewish leader visits Jerusalem? That's a great way to show the world that you want peace.
---
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Humanitarians scare me.
Diary? I do a blog.
[ Parent ]

Scum (2.80 / 5) (#74)
by Razitshakra on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 08:17:00 AM EST

The rioters got so angry about Sarkozy calling them scum, they decided that we will sure show him. By acting like scum. Nice logic.

Not only that, now they want an apology. WTF?

--
Lets ride / You and I / In the midnight ambulance
- The Northern Territories
I wouldn't have agreed with you until... (2.00 / 6) (#79)
by Russell Dovey on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 09:24:57 AM EST

...the old lady got set on fire and the old man died after being hit on the head.

That stopped this being a legitimate expression of frustration with government repression, and turned it into a meaningless, murderous rampage.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

It doesn't matter what it is (none / 1) (#103)
by thankyougustad on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 02:57:04 PM EST

it matter's THAT it is.
That stopped this being a legitimate expression of frustration with government repression, and turned it into a meaningless, murderous rampage.
It doesn't matter that you find their way of expressing their anger morally reprehinsable, what matters is that you realize they are ANGRY. Then, the next step for the French government will be to try and figure out why, and how they prevent future outbursts.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
but that's easy (none / 0) (#144)
by mpalczew on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 07:09:15 PM EST

> how they prevent future outbursts.

shoot all the outbursters.
-- Death to all Fanatics!
[ Parent ]

right (none / 0) (#148)
by thankyougustad on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 07:30:01 PM EST

shooting them will make it so that there aren't more. like the head of the hydra.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Hey, it works in Iraq. (none / 0) (#278)
by Russell Dovey on Sun Nov 13, 2005 at 04:52:33 PM EST

Why not in France?

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Your Delusional... (2.00 / 12) (#75)
by dxh on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 09:00:55 AM EST

>Despite the claims of right wingers in both France and America, Islam seems to play only a minor role in the current unrest.
  1. Those doing the rioting are running around chanting "ALLAH AKBAR!". (FUNNY how the media seems to not show any video of the rioters...hmmmm...wonder why???)
  2. They are torching Synagogues.
  3. `Each night we turn this place into Baghdad', says one masked youth in Sevran near Paris.
  4. If its only a problem with the french liberal welfare state why is the riots spreading to many other european cities?
  5. The french police found a bomb factory...aka "Insurgent/Terrorist" style.
  6. They are now calling for their own "TERRITORY".

Some are even calling for the areas where Muslims form a majority of the population to be reorganized on the basis of the "millet" system of the Ottoman Empire: Each religious community (millet) would enjoy the right to organize its social, cultural and educational life in accordance with its religious beliefs.

"All we demand is to be left alone," said Mouloud Dahmani, one of the local "emirs" engaged in negotiations to persuade the French to withdraw the police and allow a committee of sheiks, mostly from the Muslim Brotherhood, to negotiate an end to the hostilities.

It's quite simple, we have the beginnings of Palestine in France.  If you let the muslems get to many in one place, they will try to revolt.  A good lesson for other countries here.

lol white people (2.60 / 5) (#81)
by fenix down on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 10:35:13 AM EST

The french police found a bomb factory...aka "Insurgent/Terrorist" style.

Abandoned building, 6 kids under 18, 150 beer bottles, and gasoline.  I don't want to get technical here, but I got some friends in the Mossad and shit, and that sounds like a factory for making Improvised Explosive Devices, like in Iraq.

See, you "fill" a bottle with gasoline, and then "stop it up" with a "rag" and then you "prime" the explosive with a cigarette lighter and "chuck" it at whatever you want to "burn".

The Red Army was rendered helpless by these devestating anti-tank weapons when they faced them, unless Chirac resorts to nuclear strikes within the next few days, these "black kids" will roll into Paris and depose his government with their awesome firepower and their state-of-the art "cellular telephone" communications.

[ Parent ]

Since this is a troll (1.80 / 5) (#102)
by thankyougustad on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 02:52:40 PM EST

I feel dumb saying this, but I went over all your points in my article.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
how is it a troll? (2.00 / 2) (#104)
by crazy canuck on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 03:28:53 PM EST

did you WATCH the video of arabs breaking things while screaming about allah?

[ Parent ]
yes, I did (2.00 / 2) (#106)
by thankyougustad on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 03:35:29 PM EST

I say its a troll because its spelled so poorly. Since you seem to want an explanation, I'll give you one, though I wish you would just read the article. The people who are rioting are predominatly drug-dealing, jobless, educationless thugs. They idolize American rappers and aspire to wear bling. They come from a background where, once, Islam was important. Nowadays, they have abandoned most of the laws that their Grandparents kept. They are chanting about Allah because it is a MOB that lacks ANY MORAL or PHILOSOPHICAL background. The fact of the matter is, the rioting flys directly in the face of orders from Islam's highest representatives in France.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Almost like (2.00 / 2) (#142)
by LilDebbie on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 07:07:01 PM EST

Islamic Jihad or Hamas blowing up Israeli busses flies in the face of Islamic teaching?

Guess what, dumbass, the Islamofascists may not be good Muslims, but they're still Muslims.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

is that really germaine to the problem? (2.25 / 4) (#147)
by thankyougustad on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 07:27:48 PM EST

You are quick to call me a dumbass, but where does that get you? It doesn't change the fact that most rioters don't care about Islam one way or the other. I have linked to dozens of primary sources where the people in those nieghborhoods voice their calamities. Islam is almost never mentioned, except for when people claim about the media protraying them as Muslim fundies. You can call me a dumbass until you are blue in the face, the fact is the riots are not about Islam.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Hmmm... (none / 0) (#203)
by Stylusepix on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 01:19:26 PM EST

Maybe so, but one thing's for sure: according to my hand-picked progressive government-sponsored Imams, the rioters are not True Muslims! Indeed, True Muslims would never dare to defy the mighty Anti-Violence Fatwa of the Union des Organisations Islamiques de France!
Go; you're an it-getter, but No; it's all in good fun (and games). Laugh, in stock?
[ Parent ]
t'es vraiement con, toi (none / 1) (#206)
by thankyougustad on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 01:40:10 PM EST

est-ce que c'est que tu meprises trop la france pour faire confiance a ce que disent ses citoyens ? t'es vraiement incapable d'aller chercher ce qu'ils disent les emeuteurs ? ou est-ce que c'est que toi aussi, tu cherches meme pas a comprendre, tu te bornes a reclaimer avec le reste des balots que c'est la faute de quelques barbus au fond du desert algerian que la france flamme actuellement ? je trouve que ton sens de 'l'ironie' et du sarcasme sont moins que coupants. au contraire, ca demonte a quel point t'es ignorant de ce dont tu cesses pas de broncher.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Je crois à ce que j'ai dit. (none / 0) (#207)
by Stylusepix on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 02:09:58 PM EST

Ma présentation était peut-être un peu sarcastique, mais je suis vraiment convaincu que les émeutes n'ont presque rien à voir avec l'Islam.

Oui, j'ai écouté leurs cris - et je n'ai pas compris leur message. J'en ai conclu qu'ils n'ont aucun but; qu'ils ne sont motivés que par la rage, que par l'écoeurite aiguë d'avoir à vivre dans des cités de merde, dans des ghettos qui n'ont ni avenir ni métier ni plaisir à leur offrir, à eux, à ceux de la sous-classe des enfants d'immigrants.

Tu l'as dit le premier, l'Islam n'est qu'un facteur très mineur dans toute cette affaire. Je l'ai même répété quand j'ai ré-écrit ton texte - et en toute honêtetée, je n'ai pas fait ca pour te faire chier - mais parce que je t'ai lu, j'y ai cru, et j'ai voulu porter hommage à ton travail.

Okay, j'ai été vraiment arrogant et impoli. Sorry, man; je m'excuse. J'ai mon style, il est parfois difficile à apprécier - je ne le sais que trop - et je n'en suis pas toujours fièr.

I like you, man, and I like what you write. Keep up the good work!
Go; you're an it-getter, but No; it's all in good fun (and games). Laugh, in stock?
[ Parent ]

a mon tour je me dis desole (none / 0) (#209)
by thankyougustad on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 02:34:28 PM EST

puisque on a quasiment le meme avis sur le sujet je te demande pardon pour t'avoir traite de con. mais voila. . . alors que le media Americain essait sans relache de trouver un faux lien entre le chimere du terrorism et ce que se passe actuellement en France, en obscurcisant le vrai probleme, j'ai pas compris pourquoi t'aurais insinue que parce que les imams denoncent les violences, c'est pas pour autant que les jeunes sont pas des musilmans.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Make no mistake: I am not kidding. (none / 1) (#208)
by Stylusepix on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 02:28:20 PM EST

When I say that the rioters aren't True Muslims, I mean it. In France, there are very few extremist fundie muslims - and most of these are middle-class "intellectuals" who are all talk, no action.

99% of the rioters don't speak arabic. They don't attend religious services. They don't know anything about the Qu'ran or about the religion of their ancestors.

Sure, many of them they have olive skin, arabic names and compared to your average parisian, a slightly different accent. That doesn't make them True Muslims. Hell, that doesn't even make them Normal Muslims.

The rioters are poor and neglected by society. They have many reasons to riot, and religion isn't one of them. Of course, the corporate newsmedia will always mention the few incidents that brush religion; 5000 cars burn, that's a footnote - a tear gas grenade somehow ends up in an empty mosque? Headlines! It's the new crusades!

Come on. Take a critical look at the news. Every single french muslim organisation is strongly condemning the riots - and yet, what story gets published? Random youths that make silly comments about the "vicious attacks" on their mosque, when they probably haven't attended in 10 years themselves.

I repeat: True Muslims are calling for peace. Unemployed bottom-feeding youths are rioting.
Go; you're an it-getter, but No; it's all in good fun (and games). Laugh, in stock?
[ Parent ]

So, (none / 0) (#212)
by tetsuwan on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 03:08:37 PM EST

If left bloc rioters in Sweden happen to be members of the Swedish church (which many nonbelievers still are) it is appropriate to call it a christian riot?

This has everything to do with alienation and very little with Islam.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

Fair, yes (none / 0) (#239)
by louferd on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 12:35:11 PM EST

If they're shouting "Praise Jesus!" while doing it, I think that's a fair characterization. :)

[ Parent ]
Ok, another example (none / 0) (#254)
by tetsuwan on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 11:57:10 AM EST

People in Jordan demonstrating against the terror of the recent bombings were heard shouting 'Allah akbar!'. In your simplistic frame of interpretation, what does that mean?

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

what's your point? (none / 0) (#258)
by issachar on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 03:23:07 PM EST

I'm not sure I get what you're saying. Why would you compare Muslims in Jordan demonstrating against the bombings yelling 'Allah Akbar' with Muslims in Paris rioting while yelling 'Allah Akbar'?

It seems quite reasonable to suspect that perhaps they are both Muslims who happen to disagree on some issues.

Your comment seems to suggest that Muslims are always uniform in thought and people who deviate from that thought are not Muslim.

louferd is right. If Christian Swedes are rioting yelling "Praise Jesus" then it's fair to say that Christianity has something to do with the riots. Why would the same not apply to French Muslims?


---
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Humanitarians scare me.
Diary? I do a blog.
[ Parent ]

I'll field this one (none / 0) (#260)
by thankyougustad on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 06:08:20 PM EST

Why would the same not apply to French Muslims?
Because it contradicts everything the rioters and people from the affected communities. In addition, all French people know it has nothing to do with Islam. The government also knows this, and has so far reacted in a fashion that shows in knows this. Let me repeat : THE RIOTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
well this question... (none / 0) (#281)
by issachar on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 12:58:20 AM EST

Well this question actually started with a contrast between Arabs yelling 'Allah Akbar' while rioting and Swedes yelling 'Praise Jesus' while rioting. My comment wasn't directly on your article or the riots.

If in fact the rioters are yelling 'Allah Akbar' while rioting, (and I haven't seen anything outside of K5 suggesting they are), wouldn't it be a logical conclusion that Islam has something to do with the riots. Conversely, if they're not yelling that or other religious slogans while rioting, the opposite would seem to be implied. That was the extent of my point.

Because it contradicts everything the rioters and people from the affected communities.
I'm not sure what you mean. I guess that was a previewing mistake.


---
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Humanitarians scare me.
Diary? I do a blog.
[ Parent ]

The only thing the riots (none / 0) (#263)
by tetsuwan on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 06:46:31 PM EST

have to do with islam is that in respect to the authorities, islam is considered 'in' and christianity 'out'. The youngsters just want to rule their neighborhood, and if outsiders are afraid of islam they'll use that to their advantage. They're not deeply religious, they're angry about not being to do whatever they want in their hood.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

hot damn (none / 0) (#217)
by speek on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 05:50:09 PM EST

Is there nothing you can't blame on America?

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

you are the one blaming America (none / 0) (#268)
by thankyougustad on Sat Nov 12, 2005 at 05:07:58 PM EST

you invent things, they make you look crazy.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
No, Your Delusional... (none / 0) (#190)
by chbm on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:10:47 AM EST

>  They are torching Synagogues.

No, they're torching everything.

>  If its only a problem with the french liberal welfare state why is the riots spreading to many other european cities?

By many you mean 2, on the French border ? :)

"Blah blah blah look at me the arabs are killing jews blah blah blah blah"
See, that's why noone actually takes you guys seriously nomore.

-- if you don't agree reply don't moderate --
[ Parent ]

The French are revolting! (2.77 / 9) (#76)
by OzJuggler on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 09:03:27 AM EST

Hey there's no need for name-calling.

:-)

Thank you, fans, I'll be here all week.
"And I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together
at Osama's homo abortion pot and commie jizzporium." - Jon Stewart's gift to Bill O'Reilly, 7 Dec 2005.

In South Asia (2.50 / 6) (#78)
by Cruel Elevator on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 09:22:26 AM EST

...we have a standard procedure to handle this.

Step 1. Standard beating the shite out of people, making random arrests, and going after known trouble makers / opinion leaders.

Step 2. Make it illegal for more than 3 people to get together in a group in certain places.

Step 3. Curfew

Step 4. Shoot at sight order

Seems to work pretty well. Is there something different about the geo-political envrionment in France which prevents this from hapenning?

Oh wait. Looks like they finally got a clue.

Here's how it works: a constant, contained level of rampage is ok. Decreasing is even better. If it increases to a national level to the point it threatens national security, the government simply falls. Another asshat climbs to power, claims that he would solve all the problems, and the public backs off for the time being. Of course, nothing ever changes, and the cycle repeats.

That's the way it works here.

In south asia (1.33 / 3) (#194)
by Pig Hogger on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 08:41:24 AM EST

...we have a standard procedure to handle this.
And they do not give a flying fuck about human rights and dignity.

I have lived with filipinos (the only oriental people who have not only let themselves be colonized - by the spanish - but asked for more of it - to become the 51st US state but they were turned-down by the racist yankees), and despite their general niceness, deep down, they are profoundly fucked-up in their brains.
--

Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing it's idiot
[ Parent ]

in Soviet America, (3.00 / 3) (#201)
by Cruel Elevator on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 11:02:22 AM EST

South Asia != South East Asia.

Feel free to lookup a map in your spare time. Also feel free to lookup the history of riots in India and how the cops deal with them.

Happy researching,

C.E.

[ Parent ]

you don't know much about filipino history (none / 1) (#220)
by circletimessquare on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 08:25:33 PM EST

you racist deluded fuck


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Where are the parents? (2.50 / 4) (#80)
by sbash on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 10:27:07 AM EST

And why do they not have a tighter leash on their kids?

|_
"Eating curry with the boys? You must be British or boring" - Stinky Bottoms
France has a chance to clean up a mess (1.30 / 10) (#82)
by zorba77 on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 11:08:46 AM EST

Simple solution: Mass deportation of all Algerian troublemakers. that simple.
Return the West Coast to the Tribes of sasquatch!
One question... (none / 0) (#136)
by nsayer on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 06:41:43 PM EST

...deport them to exactly where?



[ Parent ]

The United States (none / 1) (#139)
by thankyougustad on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 07:00:07 PM EST



No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Deport naturaly born citisens (1.33 / 3) (#158)
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 10:02:37 PM EST

to locations that their ancestors came from?

are you an idiot or do you really thing a country is only responsible for its racially native population and every other naturally born citizen can go back to the brown lands?

[ Parent ]

nice summary (2.25 / 4) (#85)
by loudici on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 11:46:18 AM EST

thank you for taking the time to write this.
gnothi seauton
Re: Sarkozy and "Racaille" (3.00 / 2) (#86)
by dumky on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 12:12:30 PM EST

I watched the latest Arret sur Image TV show online and they found some additional information regarding that quote from Sarkozy. It turns out he was replying to someone living there, who introduced that term in the discussion. He was merely re-using it, which is different than if he had brought it up.

That show was discussing the role of the media in polarizing the issue by their choice of footage.
They show cars on fire, but not the calm street a block away, so it looks like the whole city is upside down.

One thing that I think is positive is that the people are trying to find answers for themselves, instead of relying on the government for everything. They are organizing wakes in some public buildings, not to guard it per-se, but to not leave them empty and show they're meaningful and useful to them.

in additon (none / 1) (#101)
by thankyougustad on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 02:48:31 PM EST

people from the cités refer to themselves as racaille, not unlike urban people in America calling themselves thugs. Never the less, the pressure washer comment was a good indication of Sarkozy's attitude. He is definatly racist and I think there is a good chance that he is crazy. I think that the French media has been very well behaved, all things considered. I'm not sure the problem can be blown out of proportion; it's very serious.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Great show (arrêt sur image) (none / 0) (#132)
by emmanuel.charpentier on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 06:04:49 PM EST

I've been in the northern suburb last saturday, and there was no news whatsoever, nobody in the streets, no burning all around, but the firemen did seem more active.

Yes sarkozy is most probably one cause (among many) in the starting of this affair. He may be the one to gain (or lose) the most from all of this, and I wonder if his police is not instrumental. You know, removing local police, asking the police to play "only" a repressive role and nothing else. And yet, his words are realist. At least he is one politician speaking his mind, that's a nice change.

We'll see how this play out. I'm wondering

[ Parent ]

as an arrogant american (1.13 / 23) (#88)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 12:25:37 PM EST

i couldn't tell you how much joy this brings me

fuck france

i hope the whole goddamn place burns to the ground

i really mean that

banning headscarves while they talk about us cultural imperialism

sending troops to the ivory coast while they talk about real us imperialism in iraq

selling arms and technology to asshole regimes around the world while they talk about us military aggression around the world

fuck hypocritical, egomaniacal france

fuck that country, i hate the french, they are no friends of the us, they are as good as an enemy

i would be less happy if tehran or pyongyang burned to the ground than if paris did

BURN, BURN TO THE GROUND YOU FUCKS

FUCK

FRANCE


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

i almost forgot (1.40 / 5) (#89)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 12:37:04 PM EST

nuking tahiti, setting off nuclear bombs on south pacific atolls! (what's that about neocolonialism?)

and saying "non!" to the eu in may, torpedoing eu integration... therefore, say it with me now british, dutch, germans, swiss, italians, spanish:

FUCK

FRANCE!

when they redo the un soon and add some security council seats for india, etc., i can think of one third world country that should have its seat removed

FUCK

FRANCE!

BURN baby BURN!

welcome to the third world french, it's called paris (snicker)

i hate the french with a burning passion

arrogant hypocrites

to think we once considered them a friend, and for them to abandon us in such a time of need

FUCK

FRANCE!

burn to the FUCKING ground you FUCKING assholes


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

thus spoke a true humanist (none / 1) (#109)
by a paranoic guy from a shitty country on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 03:49:12 PM EST

dickhead.

--
Welcome to k5, sorry you're here - some nerd
[ Parent ]
the french aren't human (1.42 / 7) (#114)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 04:09:59 PM EST

iraqis are humans, thais are humans, indians are humans, tanzanians are humans, brazilians are humans... every nation in this world is composed of human beings

except france


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Do yo see the evil in your reasoning? (none / 1) (#117)
by a paranoic guy from a shitty country on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 04:14:08 PM EST

You are no better than the true terrorists. You are worse than them, indeed. You mask your nature by pretending to be liberal and tolerant and caring for human rights, but this single comment is the true you, everything else is just bullshit. I fear of people like you.

--
Welcome to k5, sorry you're here - some nerd
[ Parent ]
my comments are good and clean and wholesome (1.20 / 5) (#120)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 04:16:53 PM EST

the french simply aren't human beings (nsicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
People like you are the reason (none / 1) (#124)
by a paranoic guy from a shitty country on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 04:22:16 PM EST

why otherwise normal, decent people around the world are despising the USians.

--
Welcome to k5, sorry you're here - some nerd
[ Parent ]
are you french? (1.50 / 2) (#127)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 04:57:42 PM EST

you have nothing no to worry about if you aren't french


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I love the US. (none / 0) (#130)
by a paranoic guy from a shitty country on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 05:38:41 PM EST

I hate when the good guys like you are acting like their far-right counterparts.

--
Welcome to k5, sorry you're here - some nerd
[ Parent ]
hating the french (1.50 / 2) (#145)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 07:09:50 PM EST

is just about the only thing the far-right, the far-left, the left, the right, the moderates, and most anyone of any cultural or political background can agree on


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
read this: (none / 0) (#149)
by a paranoic guy from a shitty country on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 07:33:40 PM EST

clicky Funny, isn't it?

--
Welcome to k5, sorry you're here - some nerd
[ Parent ]
I think you are not trolling here. (none / 0) (#125)
by a paranoic guy from a shitty country on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 04:24:33 PM EST

I believe you are honest. I'm sorry for you, man.

--
Welcome to k5, sorry you're here - some nerd
[ Parent ]
I believe... (none / 1) (#128)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 04:59:16 PM EST

the children are our future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier
Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be

Everybody searching for a hero
People need someone to look up to
I never found anyone to fulfill my needs
A lonely place to be
So I learned to depend on me

I decided long ago
Never to walk in anyone's shadows
If I fail, if I succeed
At least I will live as I believe
No matter what they take from me
They can't take away my dignity

Because the greatest love of all
Is happening to me
I found the greatest love of all
Inside of me
The greatest love of all
Is easy to achieve
Learning to love yourself
It is the greatest love of all

I believe the children are our future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier
Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be

And I decided long ago
Never to walk in anyone's shadows
If I fail, if I succeed
At least I will live as I believe
No matter what they take from me
They can't take away my dignity

Because the greatest love of all
Is happening to me
I found the greatest love of all
Inside of me
The greatest love of all
Is easy to achieve
Learning to love yourself
It is the greatest love of all

And if by chance, that special place
That you've been dreaming of
Leads you to a lonely place
Find your strength in love

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Maybe all of the smoke (2.40 / 5) (#90)
by NaCh0 on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 12:37:53 PM EST

will mask the body odor.

--
K5: Your daily dose of socialism.
[ Parent ]
wishful thinking (nt) (none / 1) (#97)
by vivelame on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 02:23:08 PM EST



--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
i thought you were a frog (2.00 / 2) (#116)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 04:11:53 PM EST

mr. vive la merde... you're not a frog?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I believe he is Quebecoise $ (none / 1) (#141)
by LilDebbie on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 07:01:58 PM EST



My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
the french treat the quebecoise like shit (none / 1) (#143)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 07:07:01 PM EST

the french hear the quebecoise speak french and they make fun of them for their silly country bumpkin accents

that's the thanks you get for fighting desperately for the retention of the last toe hold of french culture in north america


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

quebecois (none / 0) (#223)
by Battle Troll on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 09:15:56 PM EST

'Quebecoise' is the feminine singular.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
Besides. . . (none / 0) (#227)
by thankyougustad on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 10:38:07 PM EST

He's French. What is your take on the situation?

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
what, the situation in France or between (none / 1) (#237)
by Battle Troll on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 09:15:58 AM EST

The French and the Quebecois?

I'm an Anglo, and I've never spent more than a couple in months at a time in Quebec, so take my comments with a rather large grain of salt. In my experience, French Canadians (whether Quebecois or otherwise) consider themselves 'French' (occupying the French side of a French-English dichotomy) and feel upset that people from France do not see them as 'French.' The problem is that France's history did not stop in 1759, so much of what goes into the modern French identity is absent or attenuated among the Quebecois.

So it is that people from France see Quebecois as ethnically French but not culturally French, sort of the same way that they see Walloons or Swiss Romandes. (And people from France also tend to treat Quebecois as uncultured hick buffoons, like for instance one of my friends came home livid that people had constantly corrected her pronunciation while in Paris. That kind of thing certainly doesn't help.)

As far as the French riots go, I have a hard time sympathizing with the rioters, because in material terms they live better than educated people with jobs in Eastern Europe; I realize that they don't feel fully 'French' and that they can't get jobs and stuff, and that's bad, but rioting won't help; self-help is much more honorable and, in the end, works much better than demanding handouts from the state. I also blame the French government for pandering to the (upper) middle class; job security for the old is a big factor in the high unemployment rates among youths of all races.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

you are so clueless that (2.00 / 2) (#98)
by thankyougustad on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 02:44:29 PM EST

it leaves me quite speachless.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
exactly what am i clueless about? (2.50 / 4) (#112)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 04:07:52 PM EST

please, educate me, what have i misinterpretted?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
humanism, eh? (1.50 / 2) (#108)
by a paranoic guy from a shitty country on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 03:48:01 PM EST

compassion and all bravo, asshole

--
Welcome to k5, sorry you're here - some nerd
[ Parent ]
the french aren't humans, iraqis are (nt) (1.75 / 4) (#111)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 04:06:13 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Your comment is so evil (none / 0) (#113)
by a paranoic guy from a shitty country on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 04:09:55 PM EST

I don't know how to respond.

--
Welcome to k5, sorry you're here - some nerd
[ Parent ]
iraqis, panamanians, mongolians... (1.75 / 4) (#115)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 04:11:03 PM EST

these and every nation of the world are composed of human beings, due every right of equality and respect

except france


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I hope you're simply trolling here. [nt] (none / 0) (#119)
by a paranoic guy from a shitty country on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 04:16:06 PM EST



--
Welcome to k5, sorry you're here - some nerd
[ Parent ]
man you're so fucking slow (nt) (none / 1) (#121)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 04:17:30 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I'm on dial-up. [nt] (3.00 / 3) (#122)
by a paranoic guy from a shitty country on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 04:19:15 PM EST



--
Welcome to k5, sorry you're here - some nerd
[ Parent ]
woaw (3.00 / 3) (#138)
by emmanuel.charpentier on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 06:52:59 PM EST

how nice of you, thank you.

I guess we will never see you around here as a tourist. Shame. We won't see a penny of you, what a disgrace.

By the way, did you ever think about laicity and france? I see you, all the time raving against religious nutcases, and yet france is no inspiration to you? We did separate the church and the state quite a long time ago. Not one leader (that I know of) will utter words like "god bless us" in a speech. Religion is a personal matter, and has long been. In fact france is probably one of the most atheist country in the world.

I think banning scarfs is crap, it's a republican (in the french meaning of the word, a revolutinary way) thing, coming after a long reflexion. And don't forget, it only happens in public schools, supposedly to make sure that it remains a laic place, that it is no ground for religious preaching. I still think it is wrong, one's dress should only be a matter of personal choice, but I understand the process which ended up with that silly law.

And as for nukes in the pacific, yeap, quite a stupid move, particularly for the 50th hiroshima anniversary. Well, chirac is expert at that game, I wonder who is the best? Bush or chirac?

Can you remind me? Who went in afganistan alongside the us? Wo went in the first irak war? How come Georges Bush senior didn't remove saddam from power? Why did the us started the second irak war? WMD? Nuclear nukes? Terrorists? No one has any proof of any link between saddam and ben laden, in fact they HATE one another. Saddam was a socialist allied to the cccp (the very much atheist country isn't it), not an islamist.

Yeap, france did have strong commercial ties with irak, and what is so wrong about that? Yeap, selling weapons is ugly and sometimes ignoble, particularly when you sell stuff like anti personal mines... or when you sell weapons to irak AND iran while they are at war against one another.

Why were the us so sure that irak possessed weapons of mass destruction? => Because they sold them!!! And yet saddam most certainly destroyed them at one time or another (or used them all against the kurds and the iranians). Finally, we can now say that the weapon inspectors did their job just as they were supposed to. What an irony isn't it.

Why oh why is iran a theocraty? Any link with the US being an imperialist country?

What do you prefer, an occupation force? or an interposition force? Guess what is the difference between irak and the ivory coast?

I believe the old dislike between the US and France is probably due to competition, not to hate. We compete to be the leaders of the world. Yeap, I know, egomaniacal, arrogant, silly, and yet historically we did lead the world for centuries. And in many ways we are still at the forefront today. We are proud of our beautifull country, our culture, our history, our science. Today we are humbled by the world, but still are heard, look at villepin at the security council. Why do you think the US are so angry? Most probably because the world aligned itself with a prominent and good speaker: france prime minister.

Hope to see you around here sometimes. Cruising on "la seine" on a summer night is quite an experience. Walking through the "quartier latin" from the luxembourg garden to bastille is a pleasure. Le louvres is still one of the splendid museums of this world, "le musée d'orsay" being its impressionist sister. You can go from one to the other through on a wooden bridge where walkers take a nap or have a picnic. Oh, and I almost forgot, beautifull babes here, we don't mind nudity in public, if it's a gorgeous womand posing for a picture :)

[ Parent ]

you reap what you sow (1.66 / 3) (#173)
by circletimessquare on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 02:38:09 AM EST

you won't support the usa across the atlantic on iraq

you won't support the eu with your resounding "non!" vote in may

you won't trust your own citizens to express their religious identity (i am against fundamentalists, i'm not against regular religious folk... to me it's the same as being against heroin, but not against alcohol: even though i don't do any drugs, just like i don't do any religion, i can't hold it against someone to take soft drugs... or soft religion)

my message for france is very simple: your way has failed, your country is burning, and you've abandoned all of your friends: the us, britain, the dutch, the germans, the italians, the spanish

as an american i can only say that there is no criticism of the usa that you cannot consider france to be guilty of as well: neocolonialism, imperialism, arrogance, etc. (tahiti nukes, ivory coast in 2003, arms to saddam, etc.)

and so why do abandon the usa on iraq france? principle? HARDLY... more like "competition" as you say, from your point of view

I believe the old dislike between the US and France is probably due to competition, not to hate.

except for one problem there froggie: you can't compete with a little man. from my point of view it isn't competition, it's obstruction, it's interference

the usa is an important large country in the world

france is not

france is a dying small second world country whose loud ego doesn't match it's actual size or import in the world

you're living in your colonial history france

to me thailand or the philippines are more important countries in this world

when they redo the security council on the un soon, and give india and japan a seat befitting important countries in the world, they should remove france's: more historical anachronism, 2 security council seats in europe? how very 1800s of the un. colonialism is long dead and gone. as is france. europe is still important, so britain should lend it's seat to the eu... but then again, your beloved france is working so very hard to torpedo the eu isn't it?

you care about the third world? want to talk your agricultural protectionism?

say it with me loud, say it with me proud world:

FUCK

FRANCE

in the beloved words of chirac to smaller eastern european countries: "you missed an opportunity to shut up"

listen to the larger more important country than you france: YOU MISSED AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHUT UP WHEN YOU ABANDONED YOUR FRIENDS IN THEIR TIME OF NEED

france can do anything it wants in the world, anything at all

BUT WHEN YOU ABANDON YOUR FIRENDS, YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW

now me and many other americans only feel hatred for you, you abandoned your friend, and you have no ideological basis for defying us on iraq, everything you can critize the us about iraq you shar ein your history as well

YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW

it is HATRED you fucking frog, it is NOT competition

I HATE FRANCE

say it with me germans, british, italians, dutch, and spaniards: remember the NON! france said to you in may as well

FUCK

FRANCE

BURN TO THE GROUND


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

tss tss (none / 0) (#180)
by emmanuel.charpentier on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 05:26:08 AM EST

Negative feelings are bad for you. Life is beautiful, you should not waste your energy on hate. And no, france is not burning and there is near to zero chance it will.

Say it with me: "Catharsis" is my goal. Our feets are in the mud, but our thoughts should rise and reach the sky.

America has no monopoly on stupidity you know, nuclear bombs, agricultural protectionism, forbiding scarfs in public schools... preemptive invasion (that last one is funny isn't it).

Do you know what is the worst scandal france was part of? The rwanda genocide. Which explains in part why we are today trying to intervene in ivory coast, we feel guilt (and rightly so). What is the worst US scandal? Iran? Nicaragua? WMD? Anti personal mines? kyoto? Monica?

[ Parent ]

Myth (none / 1) (#205)
by coward anonymous on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 01:27:49 PM EST

I'm not commenting on the ranting. I just want to dispel the myth of France in the Ivory Coast. The _only_ reason France is there is to ensure that the government doesn't default on its $4B debt to France (roughly 20% of the Ivorian Coast GDP).
There is no guilt, or goodwill, or anything else alturistic about the French presence in the Ivory Coast. It is plain and simple debt collection.

[ Parent ]
There is another just as valid explanation (none / 0) (#211)
by emmanuel.charpentier on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 03:07:00 PM EST

let's not forget all the french entreprises and residents in the ivory coast.

[ Parent ]
I'm sorry (none / 1) (#244)
by coward anonymous on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 05:28:25 PM EST

Sorry for omitting another French reason for being in the Ivory Coast that has everything to do with French self interest and nothing to do with Ivorian welfare.

[ Parent ]
If I may ask (none / 0) (#279)
by emmanuel.charpentier on Sun Nov 13, 2005 at 06:28:03 PM EST

Do you think we should have intervened in rwanda or not?

[ Parent ]
Don't know (none / 0) (#285)
by coward anonymous on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 06:45:20 PM EST

I'm not informed enough about Rwanda to form an opinion.
How does this apply to the Ivory Coast?

[ Parent ]
Rwanda is one big scandal (none / 0) (#287)
by emmanuel.charpentier on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 08:03:56 PM EST

of which france is partially responsible for not acting. Do you understand how big a scandal this is? One million big... Killed not with bullets or chemicals, but with swords and hate.

This is one other reason for our ivory coast intervention. We, the colonialists, have messed up africa so much, nowadays we feel guilty, and rightly so. This interposition is to be framed in that history.

As I understand this conflict, it is no invasion, it is an interposition to stop a civil war, with the UN approval. Many citizens were stripped away of their nationality and their property, they rebelled. This country was the one country that had been stable and rather prosperous. Yes, we most certainly intervened with the objective to keep that status quo and to take advantage of it in a very civil manner: commerce. Is that comparable to a "preemptive invasion"? I don't think so.

So, the reasons france intervened were (this is straight from the french wikipedia article):

  • to respect a defense agreement with ivory coast (because the rebels are not considered ivorians)
  • to protect french and westerners
  • to protect properties, half of the companies are owned by french people
  • to make sure this does not degenerate into another rwanda tragedy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide

As far as I'm concerned, in that instance, we tried to do good.

[ Parent ]

"messed up" (none / 0) (#292)
by tkatchevzombie on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 06:08:01 AM EST

read : "mess up"

[ Parent ]
Very pretty theory (none / 1) (#293)
by coward anonymous on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 12:53:31 PM EST

Commerce? It's debt, lots and lots of debt, not commerce.
Ask yourself why there was no intervention in Rwanda or in the Balkans and why the Sudanese are less worthy than the Ivorians?
Also, ask yourself why primarily France and Russia were against the invasion of Iraq?

In the first case, France either had no monetary interest in the region or it's monetary interests were safe with the people doing the butchering.
In the second case France and Russia had monetary interests in the continuation of the existing dictatorship. They were making lots money.

You can prettify French motives and feel self righteous if it pleases you. Personally, I find these economic "coincidences" revealing.

[ Parent ]

Was there not (none / 0) (#295)
by emmanuel.charpentier on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 07:11:54 PM EST

an intervention in the balkans and rwanda? Into which france took a large part?

In rwanda at first we were simply stupid. The US are also guilty of their non intervention you know, it IS an international and historic scandal.

I don't want to be angelic. France is alike many other countries, it acts in self interest. Have no illusions about it, we will act if our interests are at stake. A debt 4 billions high does not seem like that big an incentive yet. One weapon deal with taiwan (another great french scandal) and we get just as much, with no international scandal (except for bitter fights in the medias to decide where are going the back bribes).

What were the interests into irak invasion??? Oil? Internationally it is difficult to rationalise don't you think? That probably lead to the WMD creations, what a great great great invention. Anyway that's the one rationale that does seem rational.

We were making lots of money? Holy cow, roby, bring the batmobile! we must stop those vilains that are commercing and exchanging. Guess who started a war to get that money? Well, that's one motive isn't it?

In my book violence is much less acceptable than commerce, does it seem so weird? So inhuman?

[ Parent ]

My point (none / 0) (#296)
by coward anonymous on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 07:51:30 PM EST

My point is not to justify American actions vs. French actions. My point is French hypocrisy as evinced by your original post regarding the Ivory Coast. France, despite its incessant grandstanding and ludicrous self righteousness is just as self serving as the U.S. Everybody is. Stop pretending otherwise.

[ Parent ]
I MOSTLY AGREE WITH YOU!!! (none / 0) (#299)
by emmanuel.charpentier on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 01:16:17 PM EST

Can't you read what I am saying, france does serve itself. Altruism does not exist except in the mind of the sheep.

What I am arguing is that france actions are more intelligent that US actions as far as arab and african countries are concerned. It is a novel matter, 40 years ago we were a fierce and strong colonialist, taking advantage of people we mostly treated as sub citizens. Nowadays we have learnt some humility, and we try to resist the would be imperialist.

In the process of that resistance, we are described as the culprit, the hypocryte, the stupid. We are not, we have another analysis than the US, an analysis that does not lead to "preemptive invasion", an analysis that does include the continuation of commerce and other mutual advantages.

And as far as hypocrisy is concerned, yes we are hypocrites in many ways, look at the rainbow warrior or the taiwan fregates scandal for an example. Our leaders are just as self serving as any other. But in ivory coast as well as in irak, I don't think we are hypocrites, we are rational!

Plus we gained an incredible exposure, being the representant of the world population against the strongest EVER country. See, you gave us, self agrandizing toads, a resonance which fit perfectly well with our own longings... namely arrogance and to hear our own voice.

You made us the beacon of the free world! (yes I'm joking in that last sentence)

[ Parent ]

funny (none / 1) (#225)
by sebnukem on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 10:27:28 PM EST

no really, you are retarded. Funny but retarted.

[ Parent ]
Very good article. +1 (1.40 / 5) (#96)
by weedaddict on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 02:22:07 PM EST



Reality has a certain cynical bias - Cattle Rustler
French Foreign Legion? (none / 0) (#107)
by CAIMLAS on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 03:41:20 PM EST

Hey, I'm just a common American, but if they send in the Legionaires (France's only battle-worthy fighting force) to fix the situation (a good idea), I hope they also open it up for some non-battle-hardened foreigners for REMF duty. I'd be up for that.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.

The current admins (none / 0) (#110)
by thankyougustad on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 03:57:33 PM EST

have pretty much ruled out martial intervention.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
the poor. (1.16 / 6) (#135)
by /dev/trash on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 06:38:32 PM EST

Staying poor for a year or two I can see.  Staying poor for 30 years.  no SYMPATHY.

---
Updated 02/20/2004
New Site
Bourgeois Bastard (none / 1) (#157)
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 09:58:50 PM EST

They are poor because of RACISM!!!

your criticism of these people being poor for so long is about as smart as criticizing a southern black in the US during the time of Jim Crow for being poor.

[ Parent ]

funny that (none / 1) (#162)
by /dev/trash on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 11:34:24 PM EST

Then all black people would be poor, eh?  best tell Colin and Condi they need to be gettin poor.

---
Updated 02/20/2004
New Site
[ Parent ]
so sad... (none / 0) (#169)
by memetomancer on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 01:36:09 AM EST

these kids can't even get hired at McDonalds. Universities won't accept them, for lack of money and for the shameless bigotry of their society. Ghetto'd in the military, as well as by the welfare system... looked down upon by the middle class french that think things along the lines of "poor for a year or two I could understand. poor for 30 years? fuck 'em"

You'd maybe even have realized all this had you read up on the situation before you spat your bile all over the site. the point is, they are cornered by bigots like you denying them a little compassion and absolutley nowhere to go, or any way to get there.

fact is, if you meant what you've said in this thread, you are a weak minded, heartless asshole. if you are just trying to get a rise out of people, draw responses or stir up trouble, you are a weak minded, thoughtless asshole. either way everyone loses for the experience. thanks a lot.

[ Parent ]

can't get hired? hire someone else instead. (none / 1) (#172)
by Entendre Entendre on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 02:27:47 AM EST

Pluck all the rioters out of Europe, drop them on an uninhabited island with fields that take teamwork to cultivate. Do they all stand around complaining that there are no jobs, or do they look for ways to trade with one another? Do they complain about the housing, or do they fix it up? Or do they self-organize, divide the tasks, and profit from their labors? - or do they die of starvation becuase nobody came a long oo hire them. Basically, show them opitions that they didn't know they had. Show them an inevirinment in which their porsoprity iwill be proportional to theih investment in the community. If they fail, the story ends there. But I don't think it would. They would succeed and poposser. The next step wouldbe to drop these same self-organized people back into France. Do they revert tp complaining about unemplyemnt, or do they look for broblems to be solved, and organize to solve them, so everyone can benefit from their labors. Good things will follow, maybe great things. It sounds like what we have now in France is a history of learned helplessness. People who have learned that no matter what hthey do, they cannot improve their situations. They're angry, they're fed up, and they've just exploded, lashing out incorherently. The electrocution was the spark that ingited the inferno.Lashing out is an inevitable consequene of such things. It need not last this long. Innocents are dying.

--
Reduce firearm violence: aim carefully.
[ Parent ]

One problem (none / 0) (#253)
by godix on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 04:09:51 AM EST

Pluck all the rioters out of Europe, drop them on an uninhabited island with fields that take teamwork to cultivate.

Unfortunately I think Australia has tightened it's immigration policies in recent times. Otherwise this was a nice idea.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]
funny. (none / 0) (#213)
by /dev/trash on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 04:36:49 PM EST

I couldn't find a decent job for three years.  It was hard but I didn't go on rioting because some up to no good teens ran into some power substation.

---
Updated 02/20/2004
New Site
[ Parent ]
Fuck you. (none / 0) (#313)
by bighappyface on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 09:41:12 PM EST



[ Parent ]
ignorant post (none / 0) (#228)
by sebnukem on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 10:52:12 PM EST

"these kids can't even get hired at McDonalds. Universities won't accept them, for lack of money and for the shameless bigotry of their society" I disagree. These "kids" do not want to work. Why work to make slightly more money than the government allowances? If you don't need to work, then why even go to school? "Universities won't accept them"? Public universities must by law accept all students.

[ Parent ]
Its not that universities won't accept them. . . (none / 0) (#246)
by thankyougustad on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 06:20:34 PM EST

its that they can't get work when they get out of universities. Studies have been done which show it to be up to up to fifty times less likely that a student named Solomon from the suburbs with a bac+5 will be hired than a student named François from Paris 16eme. In fact, François is up to twice as likely to be hired than Henri from the same neighborhood as Solomon. It's not just a race thing, but a deeply entrenched class problem. To say they don't work is FUCKING STUPID. How many kids from Aulnay do you know? From Clichy? What is it about what they say that makes you disregard them like that? They don't want to work. . . give me a break.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
this article (none / 0) (#247)
by thankyougustad on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 06:58:16 PM EST

is from La libération newspaper, a paper with immecable journalistic credability. Here is an interview with a young man from one of the neighborhoods in question. 604 of the people from his neighborhood are unemployed, 40% for 'longterm.' He mentions that a local post office, which employs 200 people, employs exactly 0 people from the 'hood. Zero people, yes. Won't work . . . que c'est con.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Wow, you're a dumbass. (none / 0) (#314)
by bighappyface on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 09:42:10 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Are you retarded? (none / 1) (#175)
by mcrbids on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 03:39:30 AM EST

Staying poor for a year or two I can see. Staying poor for 30 years. no SYMPATHY.

How many years did you spend in public school to get such a smug attitude? Obviously not enough!

I agree with you so long as education has been freely administered to them, and in this case, it doesn't appear that it has. Education is the great equalizer of modern civilization; it lets the poor and wealthy alike identify and exploit needs and trends in society that allow them to generate wealth and power.

Your average "rags to riches" story doesn't happen without education of reasonable quality. While there are many ways to achieve this, don't consider that people never given the option of becoming educated (and thus powerful) are at fault for not being educated!

France needs to immediately provide world-class, quality education to these people. They aren't spending the money on their military, so why not? The schools need to be decent, high standards, and tough, and freely available.

RTFA, and you'll see that France has been blowing it for a while - this is something that's been coming for many years.
I kept looking around for somebody to solve the problem. Then I realized... I am somebody! -Anonymouse
[ Parent ]

Right on (none / 0) (#269)
by Roman on Sun Nov 13, 2005 at 12:18:06 AM EST

n/t

[ Parent ]
BTW, harki means "treator" (none / 0) (#140)
by emmanuel.charpentier on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 07:00:44 PM EST

I don't believe this is a nice term for anybody.

They fought alongside continental france, they lost, they were thrown out. No need to add humiliation on top of that, particularly two generations later...

wrong (none / 0) (#146)
by thankyougustad on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 07:24:16 PM EST

Harki - from the Arabic "Harka" = troop or band of warriors. Also I don't even know what a treator is so the point seems moot.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Ah oui (none / 1) (#151)
by emmanuel.charpentier on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 07:46:18 PM EST

Pourtant j'aurai juré.

wikipedia to the rescue, it does seem I was totally wrong. And for once I am pleased about it.

About the word treator, it is the word the winner use over what is now his victim. Nothing more nothing less. What else could it be. But still, the word exist and carries with it the weight of a lost war.

Judas is the archetypal figure of the treator, and yet he was also the closest friend of the one he made into a god. It's one of our foungind myths anyway.

[ Parent ]

'traitor'. le mot, c'est 'traitor.' (none / 0) (#153)
by thankyougustad on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 07:59:57 PM EST



No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
What must be done (2.22 / 9) (#150)
by slashcart on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 07:45:16 PM EST

The following actions would promptly resolve this problem:

1) Lower the minimum wage, and reduce restrictions on hiring and firing, until it becomes profitable to employ unskilled young people.

2) Severely curtail unemployment benefits and other entitlements, thereby discouraging the sense of entitlement that ensues when these people live comfortably at others' expense and then complain about it.

3) Sternly remind these spoiled, coddled fuckheads how easy they have it. Deport any non-citizens back to where they came from, allowing them to experience real poverty.

4) Deploy the army to affected areas, with orders to shoot violent attackers on sight. Also issue orders to use tear gas against looters and rioters that resist arrest. Rescind that command promptly when order is restored.

5) Pass legislation in an emergency session that will subject all looters and rioters who destroy property to prison sentences not less than 7 years.

5) Most importantly, when you encounter a person participating in unlawful, violent, unprovoked attacks against innocent people, do not ask what kind of disaffection prompted them to do it. That is not a legitimate question. The moment they engage in that behavior, their complaints must be totally ignored. Conditions must become worse for them, not better. Imprison them all, and if they start babbling during their trials about disaffection, then hold them in contempt of court and fine them, garnisheing future wages if necessary.

...I can't believe that there would be some justification for the rioters' behavior. Their behavior is simply criminal, and should be treated as such. I can detect no legitimate complaints of theirs, whatsoever. Quite the opposite. France has taken them in, offered them full citizenship, paid them wages unimaginable in their former countries, paid them not to work, given them free housing, and then blamed itself for their misfortunes, including blaming itself (apparently) for their drug use. The problem clearly is that they've been coddled too much. They've come to expect their government to provide them with everything, on an investment of nothing from themselves. If the situation is to be improved, then their absurd sense of entitlement must be corrected.

A few thoughts (3.00 / 3) (#152)
by thankyougustad on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 07:58:24 PM EST

3) Sternly remind these spoiled, coddled fuckheads how easy they have it. Deport any non-citizens back to where they came from, allowing them to experience real poverty.
The rioters are mostly French. Not immigrants. Also the idea of deporting someone back to where they came from so that they experience real poverty stricks me as funny. Wouldn't they already be familiar with it?
4) Deploy the army to affected areas, with orders to shoot violent attackers on sight. Also issue orders to use tear gas against looters and rioters that resist arrest. Rescind that command promptly when order is restored.
No offence, but you must be American. They French government is reluctant to use force on its own people. Read about the Declaration des droits de l'homme et du cityoen do understand better how the French constitution works. It is meant to be toppled if unrest shakes it.
...I can't believe that there would be some justification for the rioters' behavior. Their behavior is simply criminal, and should be treated as such. I can detect no legitimate complaints of theirs, whatsoever. Quite the opposite. France has taken them in, offered them full citizenship, paid them wages unimaginable in their former countries, paid them not to work, given them free housing, and then blamed itself for their misfortunes, including blaming itself (apparently) for their drug use. The problem clearly is that they've been coddled too much. They've come to expect their government to provide them with everything, on an investment of nothing from themselves. If the situation is to be improved, then their absurd sense of entitlement must be corrected.

This paragraph especially shows your ignorance on the subject. It is unimportant whether or not their complaints are LEGITIMATE. The fact is, they are COMPLAINING and rather loudly. What they are complaining about in the short term is police brutality. To use police to brutality bring the riots under control is like hitting a hornet's nest to make them stop stinging you.

Next, you seem to think France has done right by these people. You claim that France has educated them and provided them with employment. This is untrue. The fact of the matter is that schools in the Cités are some of the worst in the world. That's right, the whole rotten world. Sarkozy and his cronies have continually over the last three years cut funding for education, resulting in a nationwide decreas in the number of educators against an increase in population. Government funded sports centers, arts centers, and public places have been undermaintained and shut down in these areas. It's not just, in fact, the kids from the cités that are mad about, a lot of French people are mad, too. There are no jobs for people of North African extraction. The government admits this. The same administration has promoted the use of aggressive policing, and cases of abuse are rampant in the cités.

My personal feeling is that you have never been to France. At the very least, you suggest solving France's problems using America's solutions. I hope I have explained why that would not work.



No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Re: A Few Thoughts (2.00 / 3) (#161)
by slashcart on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 11:31:58 PM EST

The rioters are mostly French. Not immigrants. Also the idea of deporting someone back to where they came from so that they experience real poverty stricks me as funny. Wouldn't they already be familiar with it?
I didn't say "make them familiar with poverty," but rather "make them experience poverty," which doesn't imply that they hadn't experienced it before.

Obviously that's a harsh measure that should be used only as a last resort. But if a recent immigrant repeatedly attacks the country which has accepted him, deportation becomes a legitimate option.

Also, I'm aware that most of the rioters are French citizens.

No offence, but you must be American. They French government is reluctant to use force on its own people.
Already, force is being used on "its own people"--their property is ablaze, they are beaten and murdered. The question is whether the government will do anything to stop this use of force on its own people.

In fact, this concept of "its own people" is too broad, and is capable of further division. Specifically, "its own people" can be divided into two groups: innocent people (the vast majority) and criminals who attack the innocent (rioters). I am not suggesting the French government attack "its own people" as a whole, but rather, that they attack the criminals alone. Doing so is the purpose of the police, in France and elsewhere: to serve as a threat against predators in society.

Indeed, a person could argue that the French government has a responsibility to protect "its own people" from a small criminal element that would do them harm.

It is unimportant whether or not their complaints are LEGITIMATE. The fact is, they are COMPLAINING and rather loudly.
It's extremely important whether the complaint is legitimate. That's precisely the issue. The mere act of complaining, without reason or legitimacy, does not entitle rioters to destroy property or attack people.

Let me give an analogy. Suppose I've just shot someone, and the police find me with the gun. Suppose I shot that person because he was crazy and was attacking me with a knife. Then my action was legitimate--it was self-defense. But now suppose instead that I shot the person because I felt the government had not spent enough money on my art supplies ("Government funded...arts centers...have been undermaintained"). That would not be legitimate. And it's important that the reason was not legitimate. The first case was self-defense, the second murder.

To use police brutality to bring the riots under control is like hitting a hornet's nest to make them stop stinging you.
Perhaps you would recommend that I take my clothes off, and allow the hornets to sting me, on the assumption that they must have a legitimate grievance and I must suffer violently for it. That is precisely the mentality I am arguing against. That is the mentality which provokes predators to attack people in the first place.
Next, you seem to think France has done right by these people... This is untrue. The fact...is that schools in the Cités are some of the worst in the world... Government funded sports centers, arts centers, and public places have been undermaintained... There are no jobs for people of North African extraction. The government admits this... cases of abuse are rampant in the cités.
I sincerely regret that the rioters feel mistreated, but they've attacked people who aren't conceivably at fault. Therefore, their complaints should be ignored. When they attack an old woman who is not a member of the government, their complaints against the government are simply irrelevant. Their complaints are a separate issue from their crimes. After the rioters are finished with their prison sentences, their greivances should be addressed.

Bear in mind, that if the rioters had a legitimate greivance, against the people whom they attacked, then I would be on their side. But that's not the case.

My personal feeling is that you have never been to France. At the very least, you suggest solving France's problems using America's solutions. I hope I have explained why that would not work.
I have been to France twice. I enjoyed it both times. You have explained your position well, but I still believe that action by the government is required.

[ Parent ]
It is a difficult situation (none / 0) (#198)
by thankyougustad on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 09:41:27 AM EST

You and I both agree on one thing: the French government's reaction to the crisis was decidedly limpwristed. I am disgusted, though unsurprised, but the cavalier attitude that the elite French government has taken to the whole situation. Msr Chirac will speak, "if and when he deems it necessary."etc etc.

That being said, more force is not an option. The coals are read hot in France. What happens when the army comes in and shoots the first rioter? There are 10 million North African immigrants in a country of 60 million. Most of them are in the same situation. The thornyness of the problem can be seen in the fact that at the high point of rioting, 274 communities had been affected. If the Army were to intervene, and someone died, there would be a full scale rebellion. I feel that many more French people would then be sympathetic and the government would not have enough public support to continue to exist. There would have to be many resignations and perhaps a Sixth Republic. This is something powermongers like Sarkozy will not risk. In the meantime, they let the poor people burn down their own communities and attack handicapped women.

As for legitimacy: do you believe that rioting under any circumstances is legitimate? The government certainly does not; it is illegal. To simply write them off as hoodlums, however, does not assess the roots of the problem, ie fifty years of mismanaged slums. That is what needs to be addressed, that is what will help to prevent another riot in 10, 15, or 30 years. Because rest assured, if the police go into the cités cracking heads, and the boys in those communities are sent to jail, the riots will stop. Sarkozy will claim it as a victory and the flames will go out. The embers will smolder until the next drop of gas is added and the situation will repeat. France needs real solutions, not iron fisted knee jerk reactions. There is a deep rooted problem there, and the police don't have the means of fixing it.



No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Re; It is a difficult situation (none / 1) (#215)
by slashcart on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 05:01:24 PM EST

As for legitimacy: do you believe that rioting under any circumstances is legitimate?
Absolutely I do. Rioting is legitimate in a great many circumstances. But it's important (during the riot) not to destroy the lives or property of people not responsible for the grievances.
The embers will smolder until the next drop of gas is added and the situation will repeat. France needs real solutions, not iron fisted knee jerk reactions. There is a deep rooted problem there, and the police don't have the means of fixing it.
I agree wholeheartedly with that. I'm not suggesting that the police response (which is required) should be the only response. Neither am I suggesting that the police could resolve the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is that the government has tried to fix the price of labor, through wage legislation, and that has had the unintended effect of locking some people out of the labor market. That side-effect is unsurprising, since all price-fixing subtly discriminates in favor of one group and against another; but people don't realize it. What's required is to end the government intervention in the labor market, because that intervention subtly locks immigrants out of jobs.

I've just recently written a lengthy reply on this thread, entitled "Long reply", about the disastrous consequences of government price-fixing. I'd like to direct your attention to that message, because it would be tedious of me to repeat what I said here.

[ Parent ]

Perhaps not the analogy you intended (none / 0) (#165)
by xC0000005 on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 12:01:39 AM EST

"To use police to brutality bring the riots under control is like hitting a hornet's nest to make them stop stinging you." Having killed a number of hornets (I should say wasps, I've killed the large, round nests, the short horizontal celled paper nests, and a ground based yellow jacket nest), I've got to say that sometimes, you need to stand your ground against the pests. If they are far away, and can be ignored, I say run, don't provoke them further. If they are near my doorway, if they are stinging my children, if they are causing "unrest", then there's no question how I'll deal with them - the nest dies first, along with any wasp foolish enough to defend it. Of course, I have the good sense to put on my bee suit first. In this case, the "hornets" are already out and attacking. Killing the nest would be the best course of action unless you want to surrender your home to them.

Voice of the Hive - Beekeeping and Bees for those who don't
[ Parent ]
Rights (none / 0) (#191)
by Grognard on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 08:16:20 AM EST

They French government is reluctant to use force on its own people. Read about the Declaration des droits de l'homme et du cityoen do understand better how the French constitution works.

What about the rights of those trying to live peaceably in those areas?  I can understand a reluctance to use force, but refraining from its use to the point of endangering the law abiding is an abdication of the government's responsibilities to its own people.

It is unimportant whether or not their complaints are LEGITIMATE.

Indeed it is - until order is restored, there can be no consideration of anything they have to say.

What they are complaining about in the short term is police brutality. To use police to brutality bring the riots under control is like hitting a hornet's nest to make them stop stinging you.

I'm curious as to which parts of slashcart's post you consider to be acts of police brutality?  Firing on violent attackers?  Using non-lethal munitions against rioters and looters?

At the very least, you suggest solving France's problems using America's solutions. I hope I have explained why that would not work.

Not really...you've explained why you find it distasteful, but not why it would fail to yield results.

[ Parent ]

on thin ice (none / 0) (#199)
by thankyougustad on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 09:53:48 AM EST

What about the rights of those trying to live peaceably in those areas? I can understand a reluctance to use force, but refraining from its use to the point of endangering the law abiding is an abdication of the government's responsibilities to its own people.

I agree with you entirely. In fact, I think France as pretty much shown that it cannot fulfill its obligations to its own people. The reluctance to use force is a calculated risk. The Government cannot risk killing a young man from the cité. The outrage that would follow would, I believe, be enough to bring down the current government. I know Americans have a hard time believing a Government could fall that way, but in France it is tradition and in the Constitution.

I'm curious as to which parts of slashcart's post you consider to be acts of police brutality? Firing on violent attackers? Using non-lethal munitions against rioters and looters?

This is almost certainly not the way it would go down. The voices in the communities affected even now say that many people arrested are innocent. According to them, when the police go into areas they arrest everyone they see: bystanders as well as troublemakers. Look what is happening now, a law from 1956 used in Algeria in war times. I mean, is the government INSANE? Do they not realize what they are doing? I guess not. . . or they wouldn't have let the problem get as bad as it has.

The police in France have been called repressive by international human rights groups. This isn't something I or the people who live in Clichy-sous-bois are making up. The French are in a very precarious position. Almost any police action will be percieved as brutality and that will be enough to set off a whole new wave of riots. They are obligated to walk on eggshells.



No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
God help France, then (nt) (none / 0) (#202)
by Grognard on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 11:17:20 AM EST




[ Parent ]
Congrats (none / 1) (#178)
by ishark on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 05:11:50 AM EST

1) Lower the minimum wage, and reduce restrictions on hiring and firing, until it becomes profitable to employ unskilled young people. 2) Severely curtail unemployment benefits and other entitlements, thereby discouraging the sense of entitlement that ensues when these people live comfortably at others' expense and then complain about it. This is probably the most idiotic thing I have read on kuro5hin in the latest year.

[ Parent ]
Stupid right-wing policies (none / 1) (#193)
by Pig Hogger on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 08:35:44 AM EST

1) Lower the minimum wage, and reduce restrictions on hiring and firing, until it becomes profitable to employ unskilled young people.
Do you realize that this is precisely what the current right-wing government is aiming at? And it is sparking many riots from the "mainstream" french population?
2) Severely curtail unemployment benefits and other entitlements, thereby discouraging the sense of entitlement that ensues when these people live comfortably at others' expense and then complain about it.
This is a perfect recipe for increasing the crime rate!
3) Sternly remind these spoiled, coddled fuckheads how easy they have it. Deport any non-citizens back to where they came from, allowing them to experience real poverty.
And how will this affect third-generation french citizens?
4) Deploy the army to affected areas, with orders to shoot violent attackers on sight. Also issue orders to use tear gas against looters and rioters that resist arrest. Rescind that command promptly when order is restored.
The army is not a police force; as it is, the army will likely refuse to do so.
5) Pass legislation in an emergency session that will subject all looters and rioters who destroy property to prison sentences not less than 7 years.
So they can learn, for 7 years with hardened criminals how to become organized criminals???
5) Most importantly, when you encounter a person participating in unlawful, violent, unprovoked attacks against innocent people, do not ask what kind of disaffection prompted them to do it. That is not a legitimate question. The moment they engage in that behavior, their complaints must be totally ignored. Conditions must become worse for them, not better. Imprison them all, and if they start babbling during their trials about disaffection, then hold them in contempt of court and fine them, garnisheing future wages if necessary.
Typical yankee anal hardass. Ever wondered why the whole planet hate your guts?
--

Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing it's idiot
[ Parent ]

Long reply (3.00 / 7) (#214)
by slashcart on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 04:47:26 PM EST

Do you realize that this is precisely what the current right-wing government is aiming at? And it is sparking many riots from the "mainstream" french population? ...This is a perfect recipe for increasing the crime rate!
If so, then the French have gotten themselves into an insoluble situation. The minimum wage and the unemployment rate in the private sector are positively related, by a law of economics as inflexible as any in physics. If the minimum wage is to be raised significantly above its natural or market level, then the only way of preventing unemployment is for the government to provide jobs in order to fill in the resultant gap.

The difficulty is that Europeans demand impossible things from their governments. They want to have their cake and eat it too. One group will riot because unemployment is too high, another because the minimum wage is too low--but those are two sides of the same coin. One group will protest because art centers are underfunded in the cites, another because taxes cannot be raised still further. One person will demand that his job be protected for life, and another person, this one an unemployed immigrant, will complain that that very job is permanently closed to him. Production must be both decreased (by trade barriers) and increased (for welfare).

The difficulty is that people in industrialized countries have come to view the government as a magic force. Pass a law, and it will happen. But the government is subject to constraints as much as an company or individual.

Typical yankee anal hardass. Ever wondered why the whole planet hate your guts?
Much of the planet hates the U.S. because of its extremely unfortunate foreign policy. But in an abstract way, that problem has the same causes as the problems in Europe. Americans will not tolerate even a momentary rise in the price of oil. In the 1970s, during the first oil shocks, they demanded action from their government. The government responded by massively subsidizing the price of oil. That subsidy took the form of externalizing to the military the price of securing the supply of oil. Recession was averted, and revolution in Arabia was deferred. But look at the consequences. Military interventions have been increasingly frequent and expensive. Nascent revolution is everywhere in Arabia, with its side-effects of fundamentalism and terrorism. The American economy has reamde the transportation infrastructure of the entire country around the assumption of cheap petrol--now, cheap petrol is truly required, which requires the continuance and expansion of government involvement. The towers came down, costing $1 trillion, and militaries cost money--but taxes must not be raised. And politicans are scum for running up these deficits.

The solution is the same in America as in Europe. The government must be honest with its people, and must admit that it's incapable of fixing prices for very long. It must not fix the price of labor (in Europe) or oil (in America). But price-fixing immediately creates powerful forces which will require its continuance, even though it is unsustainable. Those forces have already been created in both Europe and America. Thus, the solution will be painful in the short term. Some Americans will learn that buying a house ~60 miles from where they work, and buying a <10mpg car, was not the best economic decision when petrol comes from a volatile region. Some Europeans will learn that they cannot make the median wage for unskilled labor. But in the long run, the advantages will be enormous. Cars (and towers) will not be burned, and the amount of money saved will be far higher than the amount lost (temporarily) through changed prices.

[ Parent ]

Minimum wage is not a left versus right issue (3.00 / 2) (#240)
by Alan Crowe on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 01:07:11 PM EST

The Manifesto of the Nasty Fascist Party might alert you to some of the problems of the minimum wage.

The economics of the issue are that the minimum wage works to boost the wages of the working poor in much the same way that the "closed shop" does. Great if you have a Union Card, sucks if you don't. It is a matter of sacrificing the bottom 10% to give a small sop to the more politically active 10% above that. It leads naturally to the social exclusion, and underclass, riots,...

It is not a left versus right issue. It is a sense versus sensibility issue. We have a minimum wage because it is both the case that the electorate are kind hearted and want to help the poor, and the electorate are not kind hearted enough to feel obliged to study micro-economics and reckon up the winners, the losers, the economic efficiency, and the social consequences.



[ Parent ]
Active against Passive (none / 0) (#229)
by reflectif on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 11:05:21 PM EST

I completely agree with you. Note on point number 5) : The same happens when there is the tendency to think more about the reasons why an offender behaved in a particular way. Instead, there should be more attention on the victims (questions: what they have lost? what they have suffered?) Active (offender) against Passive (victim). Passive requires more attention when there is an offence. reflectif

[ Parent ]
let me guess (none / 1) (#252)
by godix on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 04:03:50 AM EST

you're an American who lives in an area with many illegal mexian immigrants aren't you? Your ideas, at their core, are decent but taken to extreme. A criminal shouldn't be coddled and should certainly be punished BUT there is a reason he became a criminal in the first place. It'd be wise to figure out what that reason is and correct it so others don't also become criminals. Your first two points are partially a solution but until the active racism in French education and the racism in French hiring practices is dealt with all your points will do is make sure the poor become even poorer and more pissed off.

As for using the army, if a government has reached the point where it must use full military force against it's own population deserves to be overthrown. I would have thought that Soviet Russia, China, and all the other tin pot dictatorships who called out the troops on their citizens would have taught that lesson.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]

let me guess too (3.00 / 2) (#256)
by slashcart on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 02:45:04 PM EST

you're an American who lives in an area with many illegal mexian immigrants aren't you?
That's a difficult question to answer. I have several addresses, and I move often. Even when I have lived in Southern California, I'm about as far away from the immigrant areas as I could be (not on purpose, just because that's where my job took me). But I have spent extensive time in Southern California.

Now let me make a guess. You've never had significant contact with illegal mexican immigrants in the US. Because there's nothing even remotely similar between them and the current rioters. Overwhelmingly, the mexican immigrants are employed, hardworking, law-abiding, and silent. During the Los Angeles riots, 10+ years ago, the immigrants did not participate. Much of the time, they don't even wish to be integrated into American society--they're near enough to their own country (200 miles away), and they see their visit as a temporary work assignment. Furthermore, most Americans in those areas do not see immigrants as taking their jobs away, but rather, the Americans are thankful that the mexican immigrants will perform jobs that they themselves would never perform. Far from being unemployed, the illegals in Southern California perform virtually all of certain kinds of work. Just ignore the talk about "kicking out illegals"--it's just banter from a few right-wingers. Most people there recognize that removing mexican illegal labor from Southern California would promptly cause the economy there to collapse. That's why the laws against "illegal" labor are not seriously enforced. So you can see how completely different the situation there is from the rioters in France.

As for using the army, if a government has reached the point where it must use full military force against it's own population deserves to be overthrown. I would have thought that Soviet Russia, China, and all the other tin pot dictatorships who called out the troops on their citizens would have taught that lesson.
I'm not suggesting the France use the army against "its own population." The vast majority of its own population consists of hard-working, innocent people who are currently under attack. I'm suggesting France use the army to protect "its own population", against criminals alone. Bear in mind that the rioters aren't protesters in Tianemen Square. They aren't distributing leaflets. They're attacking innocent people and destroying their property. Indeed, the very function of the army (and the police) is to protect the population from internal and external threats. Arresting a criminal currently engaged in destruction hardly counts as supressing the domestic population.
It'd be wise to figure out what that reason is and correct it so others don't also become criminals. Your first two points are partially a solution but until the active racism in French education and the racism in French hiring practices is dealt with all your points will do is make sure the poor become even poorer and more pissed off.
I'm not suggesting we ignore the root causes of poverty. In fact, in another reply on this thread, I suggested that after the rioters have finished their prison sentences, their grievances should be addressed. Right now, however, their grievances are simply irrelevant, insofar as the people whom they attack are not the cause. To address their grievances now, would indicate that violently attacking people who are not at fault is a legitimate form of protest over personal grievances. It is not.

[ Parent ]
cut off their fingers (none / 0) (#277)
by ruderod on Sun Nov 13, 2005 at 01:43:28 PM EST

"shooting the rioters" doesn't really work, because death is too easy. I like the middle eastern way of dealing with theft. You cut a couple fingers off. . .with no antesptic, no anesthesia and a rusty knife. Yeap. . fuck em. For then on, anyone will think they are a theif, for the rest of their miserable lives. It is too easy to die. You must make life horrible, that is the only deterrent to criminal activity. And if they still riot, at least they can't aim that rock they throw, as they are missing some fingers.

I liked being in bahrain and not having to worry about my bike being stolen. No theives there. . .but they did try to stone me as I wasn't wearing proper "attire". culture for ya.

[ Parent ]
To: This den of racists (2.00 / 8) (#159)
by KGZotU on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 10:51:58 PM EST

I think we all recognize that there are some serious problems with race relations in France. I've come up with a few simple, essential steps to restoring social justice.

First, and most importantly, France must establish a public education system that is open to these immigrants. This is the only real opportunity for those that seek self improvement to rise from their ghettos. This is the most fundamental step to restoring social equality in France.

Second, France must recognize free or protected speech among the immigrants. If they are not currently allowed to distribute pamphlets, discuss their situation on the internet, or freely distribute videos regarding their plight, how can we blame them for the chaos they currently resort to?

Thirdly, enough of this republic bullshit, France must establish a democratic government and grant sufferage to all of its citizens. Without this basic right, these immigrants are powerless to vote for leaders and laws that represent their needs.

The final measure would require the support of the entire European Union. Once France has granted education to these immigrants, if they are unable to find employment in a biased France, then as a citizen of the EU, they must be allowed to live and work anywhere within the EU.

As opposed to the system I propose, France currently denies immigrants all avenues of opportunity to improve their situation. Until this is rectified, I whole heartedly support their attempts to better their situation by burning their fellow immigrant's cars, stoning old men to death, and setting old women on fire with gasoline. What other choice do they have?

----------
PVnRT
PS: Email address contains spam bafflement.

Sorry (none / 1) (#160)
by KGZotU on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 10:56:39 PM EST

Sorry for the formatting, lost the internet and I had to copy and paste, and I guess that screwed it up.

----------
PVnRT
PS: Email address contains spam bafflement.
[ Parent ]

lol what (none / 0) (#171)
by tkatchevzombie on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 02:26:29 AM EST

stop trolling

[ Parent ]
Hum... (none / 0) (#187)
by lezard on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:03:48 AM EST

Do you realize that all you're talking about is the actual reality ?

[ Parent ]
Thanks for playing (none / 1) (#192)
by Pig Hogger on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 08:31:14 AM EST

Here is a (un)carefully thought-out brochette of anti-french trolls, obviously the work of a clueless yankee:
First, and most importantly, France must establish a public education system that is open to these immigrants. This is the only real opportunity for those that seek self improvement to rise from their ghettos. This is the most fundamental step to restoring social equality in France.
Bzzzt! Wrong! The french public school system is ALREADY open to immigrants (it is so open that it is COMPULSORY). The school system is totally free from kindergarden to university.

However, the absolute intransigeant insistence of employers for high academic standards turns-off a lot of people from gainful employment.

Second, France must recognize free or protected speech among the immigrants. If they are not currently allowed to distribute pamphlets, discuss their situation on the internet, or freely distribute videos regarding their plight, how can we blame them for the chaos they currently resort to?
Bzzzt! Wrong! Free speech is absolutely regognized for absolutely all people in France.
Thirdly, enough of this republic bullshit, France must establish a democratic government and grant sufferage to all of its citizens. Without this basic right, these immigrants are powerless to vote for leaders and laws that represent their needs.
Bzzzt! Wrong! France IS a democracy, and ALL it's citizens have the right to vote.
The final measure would require the support of the entire European Union. Once France has granted education to these immigrants, if they are unable to find employment in a biased France, then as a citizen of the EU, they must be allowed to live and work anywhere within the EU.
Bzzzzt! Wrong! Every french citizen is ALREADY a EU citizen, and thus has the right to work everywhere in the EU.
As opposed to the system I propose, France currently denies immigrants all avenues of opportunity to improve their situation.
How is that?
--

Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing it's idiot
[ Parent ]

OMG, XBox Huge Satire (none / 0) (#216)
by KGZotU on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 05:41:31 PM EST

My comment was an XBox huge satire.

----------
PVnRT
PS: Email address contains spam bafflement.
[ Parent ]

You should talk (none / 0) (#224)
by slashcart on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 09:37:34 PM EST

Here is a (un)carefully thought-out brochette of anti-french trolls, obviously the work of a clueless yankee...Bzzzt! Wrong! France IS a democracy
Speaking of clueless... How could satire have been more obvious...
However, the absolute intransigeant [sic] insistence of employers for high academic standards turns-off [sic] a lot of people from gainful employment.
Well Mr. Economist, why do you suppose French employers can demand high academic achievement for positions which don't require it? Perhaps because there are so many chronically unemployed people who are highly educated, and jobs are so scarce, that French employers can demand unnecessary academic achievement and still fill their positions. But that means that the employers' standards are a consequence (not a cause) of unemployment. So, what do you suppose is the ultimate cause of French unemployment? Go ahead, answer. I'm genuinely curious about your opinion.

[ Parent ]
lol (none / 1) (#226)
by sebnukem on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 10:35:08 PM EST

You must be from a foreign country (likely USA) and you never been in France. Thank you for all your suggestions... but you're late. France already moved on from the dark ages. Thank you.

[ Parent ]
And people say the French don't get sarcasm! (none / 0) (#233)
by epepke on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 02:01:39 AM EST

Heaven forfend.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
at least they're fighting for something (2.50 / 4) (#163)
by the77x42 on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 11:35:16 PM EST

two people die and everyone goes up in arms

in the u.s. bush is reelected and everyone complains in their blog

the french aren't the pussies they're made out to be and the u.s. is full of passifists


"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

french whine (2.00 / 2) (#174)
by horny smurf on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 03:27:44 AM EST

the french aren't the pussies they're made out to be and the u.s. is full of passifists

The rioters aren't French. The feeble police/political response is.

[ Parent ]

Fact Check (none / 0) (#197)
by thankyougustad on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 09:04:00 AM EST

The rioters aren't French.
In fact, they ARE French.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
They ARE French. [n/t] (none / 0) (#265)
by ventonegro on Sat Nov 12, 2005 at 03:32:30 PM EST


--
VentoNegro
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, so why should we let them have ideas?" -- Josef Stalin
[ Parent ]
Is anyone else reminded (none / 0) (#166)
by Kasreyn on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 12:27:41 AM EST

of the Laguna Park riot in LA in 1970? There as in Paris, police tear gas were "mysteriously" launched into a peaceful building well removed from the actual riot (killing a respectec Hispanic journalist who had been an outspoken critic of the LAPD in the process). A better parallel would be the Watts riots, also of LA fame.

Hmm... Can France continue to look down its nose at us as "barbarians" now that they've sunk to our level?


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
Thanks - thankyougustad (none / 0) (#167)
by TimoTaye on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 01:18:14 AM EST

Assuming the facts presented here are acurate, this article has provided me with more insight into the riots than I have gotten from several others. Additionally, I appreciated (though didn't unconditionally agree with) the additional comments (follow-ups) provided by thankyougustad. Its unusal for me to bother reading the comments (generally a waste of time) but in this case I'm kinda glad I did.

Condemnations? (none / 0) (#168)
by grendelkhan on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 01:23:18 AM EST

I appreciate the footnotes and the links, but you didn't have any in the part where the community leaders (religious ones) called for an end to the rioting. Could you provide those?
-- Laws do not persuade just because they threaten --Seneca
Religious Leaders' Call (none / 0) (#170)
by TimoTaye on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 02:00:32 AM EST

France's biggest Muslim fundamentalist organization, the Union for Islamic Organizations of France, issued a fatwa, or religious decree, that forbade all those ``who seek divine grace from taking part in any action that blindly strikes private or public property or can harm others.'' Guardian Unlimited

[ Parent ]
Another point of view (3.00 / 2) (#179)
by mirko on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 05:21:32 AM EST

From a Russian philosopher.
Worth the read:
http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/365/16429_France.html
--
Finally I managed to make the decision that I would work on it. - MDC
we had to huddle together - trane
Apocalypsis: France: The Movie: The First part (2.12 / 8) (#185)
by cacho on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 06:59:09 AM EST

 Tom Clancy, eat your heart out- anyone know Jerry Brukenheimer's phone number?

---
2005; 17:32pm
A large French city, possibly Rejkavik.
French police, led by charles Bronson, kill all of the rioting masses in the suburbs in a surprise attack.

17:35pm
Public outcry is far greater than anticipated. The harried government (played by Jean Reno) is forced to guillotine all the policemen in the country.

17:49pm
French society falls into chaos. The army is finally called in to restore the peace, and promptly surrenders.
Sheer bedlam ensues. Mimes run the streets unchecked, free from their invisible boxes; red wine runs on the streets. The world watches horrified as mobs of accordionists torture innocent bystanders with soulful renditions of la vie en rose.

18 Brumaire CCXIV - teatime
After carefully deliberating with God, The Holy Spirit, and Steve Jobs, President Bush (played by Ben Affleck) invades France. Despite international allegations that the US is only after France';s subterranean pate de foie reserves, they quickly win over the French people's hearts. Cue a slow motion scene with all of the United States' army,the President and the Holy Ghost walking side by side on the French streets while heroic music swells in the background. Just like in Armageddon, or Boa vs. Python.

OhEightHunnerd Hours pm
Tragedy! The young son of President Bush and Jesus, who is widely thought to be a sure thing for the second coming, is treacherously stoned to death with old chees by a dastardly mob. He dies in both of his father's arms.

OhNineHunnerd Hours pm
The army retreats from france. I forgive them, says Jesus. I don't, says bush. And nukes France into the stratosphere.

18:32am
The Canadian are enraged. Sacre Bleu! They scream. They mobilize their secret unstoppable nuclear weapons program- multiple nuclear warheads on the backs of the royal Canadian mounted police. With their high mobility and nigh-undetectable red camouflage, they can avoid detection and launch nuclear attacks on all major centers of civilization.
18:33am
Humanity dies horribly after a lot of suffering while Rush plays in the background (Tom Sawyer). What can I say, I'm a sucker for happy endings.


Bonus points for Rush reference (none / 0) (#257)
by SnowDogAPB on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 02:50:04 PM EST

Plus I'm glad we get to win over the french people.  It's about time ;).

[ Parent ]
Nice gun fallacy (none / 1) (#186)
by chbm on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:00:34 AM EST

The shots fired were fired with an hunting shotgun and the ammo used was hunting ammo not secret illegal guns. The shooter probably didn't have a license and the shotgun was most likely purchased in the gray market but the original sentence was shortened into a half true fallacy.

-- if you don't agree reply don't moderate --
that was one case (none / 0) (#196)
by thankyougustad on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 08:58:22 AM EST

You are speaking it seems of one incident. Not all the shots were from so called 'fusils de chasse.' I myself have seen illegal handguns in France. Guess who has them? Also the thing that interested me most is that the cops are being shot at.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Re: that was one case (none / 0) (#219)
by chbm on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:03:03 PM EST

Of course there are illegal handguns in France as there are in any country (except USA aparently :)), my point was not all guns are illegal.

Anyway, I admit I only know of one case of shots. What were the other ones ?

-- if you don't agree reply don't moderate --
[ Parent ]

I don't know (none / 0) (#218)
by speek on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 05:52:12 PM EST

I give the French many kudos for their police forces not firing into the crowds that are firing at them, but I really question why curfews were not being considered until so late - like 11 days late. That seems absurd to me and more than a little stupid. Like their in denial and hoping the problem will just go away.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees

I just returned from 2 weeks in Lyon, (2.00 / 2) (#235)
by Nyarlathotep on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 04:40:10 AM EST

Can't say that I saw anything out of the ordinary.  My hostel is on a hill with a beautiful view of Lyon, so I'd have seen anything interesting.

It is my understanding that Europeans gentrified their cities so long ago, that you don't really see this sort of thing inside a city anyplace.. but the subberbs can be slums.  No doubt, the U.S.'s gentrification projects will eventually cause the same effect of slums in the suburbs, which is progress.

As to Islam, clearly Islam has a great deal to do with the rioters.  Clearly France has not been welcoming, but the true reason the immigrants have not integrated is religion.

If your an immigran, your host country is obligated to provide services which help you integrat into the culture, like language classes, integrated school, etc., as well as fair housing and employment oppertunities away from immigrant gettos, implimented through anti-discrimination laws.  France didn't fine on the programs, but I'm not sure its anti-discrimination laws were effective.  OTOH, you as an immigrant are obligated to learn the langauge and adjust to the culture.

As a drastic solution, I would suggest that France should enact stronger anti-discrimination alws, start desegrative school bussing, find way to break religion & race based school clicks, and find otherr ways to agressively push French culture on Muslim gettos.  They should probably also implement a high "church income tax" to help limit the segrative influences of the Catholic church & Islamic clerics.

Campus Crusade for Cthulhu -- it found me!

No no, Islam doesn't have much to do with it. (none / 1) (#245)
by thankyougustad on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 06:14:01 PM EST

As to Islam, clearly Islam has a great deal to do with the rioters.
I know it is tempting to think this, but it is untrue. The problem is a problem of imigration, it is merely coincidence that 40 years ago most of them are Muslim. The boys responsable for the rioting are not Muslim any more than the French are Catholic.
OTOH, you as an immigrant are obligated to learn the langauge and adjust to the culture.
The people from les cités do speak French. They speak what is in my opinion a French with a distinct and nice accent. Arabic is decidedly on its way out. Keep in mind that many of these boys are black from Africa and the Carribean, and there are plenty of whites in the suburbs as well. All speak French and all identify with French culture. They problem is the same in any other poor community in the whole world: there is no education, work, or attention given by the rest of society. The police are abusive and intolerent. They feel marginalized, and are unhappy about it.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
The only thing Islam has to do with this (3.00 / 2) (#251)
by godix on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 03:37:00 AM EST

is that France has tried to destroy it. France has made sure the immigrants religion isn't influencial enough to teach morals, they've even went so far as to make it law that muslims couldn't practice their faith and attend school. They've made sure the immigrants family isn't strong enough to teach morals through their social programs which make sure the family doesn't have a job, doesn't have expendable wealth, doesn't have a hope for the future, and does have entirely too much time on their hands. They've made sure the immigrants can't join French society and learn morals, a good frenchman doesn't have weird names or strange skin colors after all. Well gee, the end result of destroying all the things designed to pass on morality in a group is a bunch of kids without many morals. I'm suprised the death count hasn't skyrocketed, perhaps Islam is more resiliant to attack than I thought.

Anyway, Islam has nothing to do with what's going on, other than the fact it's been intentionally crippled enough that it can't stop it.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]

Rubbish. (none / 1) (#276)
by Craevenwulfe on Sun Nov 13, 2005 at 10:34:26 AM EST

Rubbish. France has not tried to destroy it. France has made it realise that is doesn't get special dispensation when it comes to religion and the state.

[ Parent ]
Hispanics in US (none / 0) (#250)
by mcelrath on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 01:19:25 AM EST

Americans should not be so smug.

The way we treat hispanic immigrants is exactly the same way these north african immigrants were treated.

The world has developed a violent case of xenophobia, such that it's okay to keep immigrants at arm's length, because you know, they might be terrorists.  It's okay to fingerprint them and denigrate them.  And when they make their living here, and live here, they still aren't citizens, but "illegals", and somehow that's okay.

Previous generations of immigrants have been successfully integrated in our society.  These days no one knows or cares who is irish/italian/german/etc.  The reason is that when they arrived they worked, went to school, voted, and climbed the socioeconomic ladder.

The ladder is just not available to latin immigrants in the US, or north african immigrants in France.  It's not a matter of payments under a socialist dole.  Payment will only placate an immigrant population for so long.  Everyone must have access to the ladder.

20-50 years from now the police in the USA will be combating violence in our latin slums.

-- Bob
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 2=0; 1=0.

Untrue (none / 1) (#255)
by KGZotU on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 01:01:50 PM EST

You say that "The way we treat Hispanic immigrants is exactly the same way these north African immigrants were treated," and "The ladder is just not available to Latin immigrants in the US." It seems that you have exchanged hyperbole for substance, and now argue upon it as if it were the truth.

That ladder is certainly available to Latin American immigrants. How can you possibly claim otherwise? One of my superiors at work is Mexican. There are tons of Mexicans at my wife's university, SDSU. Many of my superiors in the military were Mexican. Illegal aliens in California are eligible for resident tuition, for goodness sakes.

I don't understand your reference to finger printing. Are you referring to the fingerprinting campaign against citizens of terror funding nations? I know of no such campaign against Latin Americans. You also resent the title 'illegals'. Personally, when an alien is here illegally, I find the name 'illegal alien' to be fitting, and I don't see the problem with saying 'illegals' colloquially. Is this where you objection lies? Do you think that it shouldn't be illegal for a foreign citizen to live and work in the US as he pleases, or do you just think they shouldn't be referred to as criminals when they break our immigration laws.

I'd like to think I have my finger on the feelings of the anti-illegal immigration crowd, I'm a part of it myself. Really, the resentment is generally focused upon those who are here illegally and the Mexican government for encouraging them. So long as they themselves don't support illegal immigration, there is a generally a respect for Americans of Mexican descent and Mexicans who have immigrated legally.

Once you set aside those who are here illegally, the matter really becomes a class issue. There white people, families, generations, and communities in the same situation. We don't call them oppressed, though, we just call them poor. I won't deny that there is some discrimination at work as well, but as far as I can tell Mexicans suffer less from it than, say, blacks.

Your prognostication ignores the most crucial factor in the French riots. There is a focused and racist campaign there against the African descent community. I wont use words as general as oppression, but there is violence, injustice, and discrimination. The simple fact is, you are incorrect, we do not treat Hispanic immigrants in exactly the same way as the French treat their immigrants.

On a little side note, does anybody else find the term `Latin American' sort of kooky? By the strictest interpretation, my best friend is Latin American because he hails from a nation in the Americas where a Romance language is prevalent. He's from Canada.

----------
PVnRT
PS: Email address contains spam bafflement.
[ Parent ]

Cincinnati (none / 0) (#267)
by JohnLamar on Sat Nov 12, 2005 at 04:51:21 PM EST

Look at riots we have in America.
I live in Cincinnati where the police generally mistreat anyone under 30 and dark. When a police officer murdered a black father, a veteran of the first Gulf war and an innocent man a firestorm was started. The next man killed at the hands of the police started riots that were a long time coming.
Was rioting the only or correct course of action? Well when there are no other ways to be heard, I can't fault someone for taking their problems to the streets. (In our town people couldn't imagine a police officer killing someone so anyone who actually looked at the evidence and saw what happened was laughed at as being some sort or race-traitor. The cops walked, and when that happened every citizen should have taken to the streets, not just the blacks - IMHO)
What would you do when the authorities that are charged with protecting you start to kill your fellow citizens? When you face systematic oppression you must act.
The worst thing you've ever seen
[ Parent ]
Completely untrue (3.00 / 2) (#272)
by lucas on Sun Nov 13, 2005 at 04:22:57 AM EST

Maybe in Hicksville where you live -- Wisconsin... but outside of your isolated white-bread world, hispanics are very much integrated into American society.

Go live in Texas, New Mexico, or California to see prominent hispanics.  Living in San Antonio, for example, I was a minority as a white person.  It didn't mean that the city was run any differently because its entire leadership is hispanic.

Sure, we've got an immigration problem that marginalizes some Mexicans.  However, if it's based on race, hispanics are absolutely not marginalized.

[ Parent ]

Xenophobia? (none / 1) (#275)
by Craevenwulfe on Sun Nov 13, 2005 at 10:32:20 AM EST

Part of the issue is that the French refuse to treat people as special. Immigrants are part of the republic, it's up to themselves to make their own way in the world - no one is going to do it for them. It's rough and that's what annoys some people.

[ Parent ]
Bullshit. (3.00 / 2) (#291)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 10:00:26 PM EST

Maybe things are different where you're from, but hispanics do not face the kind of problems you describe in my area.

Hell, my replacement as president of the clown team is a first generation hispanic immigrant who's on the Philadelphia police force and in the National Guard. Do you think that he going to suddenly throw away his pension and his family's future so he can burn down nursery schools?!?

I'm sorry but no one I know has a problem with hispanics; illegal or not. The only people I have a problem with are people who sit and whine instead of getting off their butt and creating a better future for themselves and their families - which, frankly, is the attitude that brings illegals to America in the first place. Let them come, let them do for themselves what the poles, irish, germans, chinese and every other ethnic group have done in America.


People who think "clown" is an insult have never met any.
[ Parent ]

The Electric Police? (none / 0) (#280)
by A synx on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 12:36:17 AM EST

French teenagers from the outskirts of Paris, were electrocuted while hiding from the Police in an electric substation.
Is it just me or does this scream dumb accident?  What's the allegation, that the police applied electric clamps and executed the children?  Because that's what it seems like you're saying.  Nice use of the passive voice btw.  Could it be that they tried to hide behind some live electric coils while the police were chasing them, and got cooked in milliseconds while the officers frantically tried to cut the power?

The point is, that could have happened.  An execution could have happened.  We don't know, and neither do any rioters or arsonists.  State your position, do not use the passive voice to the teen's killer (whether self, coincidence, or police).  Do not let our imaginations fill in what happened there, because it makes it seem like you expect us to get swept up in the moment and declare the police to be electrocuting Nazi bastards.  If you don't know what happened, say that you don't know.  It's terrible enough without suggesting an execution happened.

hey (none / 0) (#284)
by thankyougustad on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 05:24:31 PM EST

the truth is I don't think it really matters how they died.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
accident? (none / 1) (#286)
by noproblema on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 07:13:19 PM EST

They were hidding from the Police. The point is, why?
However, Maître Jean-Pierre Mignard, the lawyer representing the teenagers' families, said: "Why did these youths, who were law-abiding, feel so threatened that they entered a dangerous place and not only climbed over a 2.5m (8ft) wall with barbed wire on the top, but hid inside a turbine? And why was their presence not signalled earlier?"


[ Parent ]
No Justice, No Peace (none / 0) (#301)
by danharan on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 12:46:20 AM EST

Rien ne justifie la violence des jeunes, et rien ne justifie la violence systematique envers les jeunes des cites.

A member of my family tried to justify the police's shooting of a kid that had taken a vehicle for a joyride. The claim of self-defense was accepted even though the youth had bullets that entered from the back of the neck.

I tried to argue that the Foulard fiasco was a sign of a state that was militantly atheistic, rather than simply agnostic.

Decades- nay, generations of systemic abuse, welfare state and corrupt politics while the burbs disintegrate. No one should be surprised.

So long as the political class continues to show no great signs of humanity, creativity or genuine engagement at the burb level, this thing will go on. Martial action can put the fire down but it's not going away any time soon.

Oh, and thank you for the great summary.

glorious racist fucking france (none / 0) (#307)
by circletimessquare on Fri Nov 18, 2005 at 04:45:27 AM EST

can you believe these people?:

read, and slap your forehead at the ignorance that is unapologetically racist france:

In the search for explanations for the riots that have rocked France, some politicians and intellectuals are pointing to a novel one: polygamy.

In an interview with RTL radio on Wednesday, Bernard Accoyer, the parliamentary leader of President Jacques Chirac's Gaullist party, the Union for a Popular Movement, called polygamy "certainly one of the causes, though not the only one" for France's worst unrest in four decades. He blamed the former Socialist government of Prime Minister Lionel Jospin for being "strangely lax" in enforcing the ban on polygamy. Pierre Cardo, a deputy in Parliament from Mr. Chirac's party, said that the most difficult juvenile delinquents were "often products of polygamous families."

Hélène Carrère d'Encausse, one of the country's most eminent historians and the permanent secretary of the Académie Française, was even more pointed. "Everyone is astonished; why are African children in the streets and not at school?" she said on Russian television in Moscow on Sunday. "Why can't their parents buy an apartment? It's clear why. Many of these Africans, I tell you, are polygamous. In an apartment, there are three or four wives and 25 children." Even the interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, has suggested that polygamy makes it harder for North African Arabs and sub-Saharan Africans to integrate into French life.

...

classic arrogance and stupididty, to say and think such things

fucking unbelievable, if anyone of such note in the usa said such a thing, they would be pilloried, but in france they'll probably be in le pen's cabinet, when he is elected president of the grand racist republic that is france


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

Merde en France | 314 comments (281 topical, 33 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!