Jihadis start civil war in France

[RonOnGuitar]

France is starting to reap the price of supporting terrorists. Will the French stand up for themselves or wait for somebody else to save them from assimilation into the EU Caliphate?

===================================



French jihadi riots



France defends policies after riot



Monday, October 31, 2005 Posted: 1942 GMT (0342 HKT)



A police union spokesman says a Paris suburb is seeing "civil war.

France



Nicolas Sarkozy



BOBIGNY, France (Reuters) -- French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy defended his tough crime policies on Monday after a fourth night of riots in a Paris suburb in which tear gas was fired into a mosque.



Sarkozy, addressing police officers, vowed to find how tear gas had been fired into the Muslim place of worship, an incident which had helped fuel the disturbances.



Youths hurled rocks and set fire to cars in the northeastern Clichy-sous-Bois suburb of the French capital, where many immigrants and poor families live in high-rise housing estates notorious for youth violence.



"I want these people to be able to live in peace," Sarkozy told reporters as he mingled with local residents outside the Seine-Saint-Denis prefecture in Bobigny, which oversees Clichy-sous-Bois.



French television said six police officers were hurt and 11 people arrested in violence partly fueled by the incident at the mosque. Sarkozy promised an inquiry.



"I am, of course, available to the imam of the Clichy mosque to let him have all the details in order to understand how and why a tear gas bomb was sent into this mosque," he told about 170 police officers at the prefecture.



Sarkozy made his name by cutting crime figures during his first stint as interior minister from 2002 to 2004, and is trying to retain his popularity with voters ahead of an expected bid for the presidency in 2007.



He deflected criticism of his crime policies from the opposition Socialists, saying trouble had been brewing in Paris suburbs for years.



"For 30 years the situation has been getting worse in a number of neighborhoods," he said.



"I am perfectly aware that it is not in three days or in three months that we will make up for 30 years," he added, vowing to crack down on gangs and drug dealers in the suburbs.



Electrocution

The violence began four days ago after the deaths of two teenagers, believed to be of African origin, who were electrocuted after clambering into a power sub-station while apparently fleeing police.



Sixteen people were injured in violence on Friday and hundreds of residents marched on Saturday to appeal for calm and as a mark of respect for the dead teenagers.



Sarkozy offered to meet the youths' parents but it was unclear if the meeting would take place, aides said.



The Clichy riots were the latest in a series of incidents in the northeastern suburbs that have attracted the attention of Sarkozy and become the target of his vow to get tough on crime.



In June, an 11-year-old boy was killed by a stray bullet in the northern area of La Courneuve. The eastern suburb of Vitry-sur-Seine made headlines in 2002 when a 17-year-old girl was set alight by an 18-year-old boy.



Sarkozy, who returned as the interior minister in late May, began a new crime offensive this month, ordering specially trained police to tackle 25 problem neighborhoods in cities throughout France.



Opposition politicians say he has made things worse.



Laurent Fabius, a former Socialist prime minister and also a potential presidential candidate in 2007, mocked Sarkozy's frequent visits to areas such as Clichy.



"When he announces that he's going to visit such and such a commune or suburb every week, that's not how we resolve those problems," Fabius told Europe 1 radio.



"We need to act at the same time on prevention, repression, education, housing, jobs ... and not play the cowboy."



(edited to add link to news story)

Edited by: RonOnGuitar at: 10/31/05 22:28

[DreamTone7]

First Spain, and now France...one by one they are falling as a set of dominos to their own short-sightedness. Trading away their governmental control to buy a day of peace and popular votes, while ignoring the repricutions of such decisions and how they will, in the end, bring about more distruction than if they would have put their collective foot down in the beginning. But most of the folks who make such decisions will most likely no longer be in politics by the time the fruits of their decisions fully ripen. If I lived in Europe, I'd certainly want to remember who they were...and vote them out now!

Melody and Instruments for the soul...

[NRKofOver]

How is this any different than our own urban crime problems?



Granted, our police aren't tear gassing mosques, but we do tear gas inner city neighborhoods quite often, we do have riots in various cities every couple of years, we do have gang and drug problems in the impoverished parts of our big cities. We do have tense race relations between the police and minorities.



I really don't see this as a 'muslim' issue as much as a poverty/crime issue. In fact, there's very little mention of Islam in the story at all. Two teenagers of African descent died, it doesn't say they were Muslim. There doesn't seem to be any 'Jihadist' call for death to Parisians and if there was then there'd be a lot more car bombs blowing up cafes but there's not.



Please, in what way does this article show that Paris or France have given terrorists anything of value? And where in this article does it say that terrorists are now targeting Paris or France because of France's generosity to Islamic or Arabic or terrorist people?



Talk about a slant from you guys.

My music for the disenchanted masses

[DreamTone7]

Oh, they are targeting Europe all right...just not directly subjecting them to all-out terrorism. More like using the threat of it to bring about political and legal changes. (Remember the bombings in Spain?) Why else would there be a need to tear-gas a mosque? Do you think perhaps there were of bunch of Christians holed up in there or something? No...the trouble-makers were from a specific group of people who have specific motives. This does have in common some things with our gang/drug-related problems in America, though. Violence is the method of extortion, and territory is the expected gain (physical as well as social)...in the short term. In the long term...see Ron's other post on "Concessions".

[NRKofOver]

Well, just a question here, kind of related to Ron's post about concessions.



If the political and legal changes (even if they come from terrorism) prevent violence in the future or even have the intention of preventing violence in the future, is that such a bad thing?



Maybe it's misguided, kind of like the US financially supporting Saddam Hussein thinking it would bring about fundamental change in a horrible region but actually creating a tyrannical homocidal dicatator. Were the people who did that acting in a way that is contrary to the ideals of self-preservation? Were they doing something they knew would cause more problems than it solved?



Second guessing the past is easy, I think it was shortsighted and wrong to support a homocidal maniac, but that's an easy call for me to make sitting here, now, looking at the results. The Chamberlain quote at the beginning of the other post is an example of someone trying to avoid a world war, someone trying to avoid death and destruction, even if it didn't work out. Was it misguided, yeah, it looks like it was. But what's the alternative? Pre-emptive strikes? In that respect, I truly believe that the extreme right wing Christian element in America is trying to wipe out my world and my beliefs and should I aggressively pursue annihilating them first? Would that be the appropriate action rather than placating them with concessions like my particular belief that having intelligent design theory taught in schools is fine as long as it's expressed as a philosophy and not a hard science? That's a concession, that's compromise, that seems like the right thing to do. But maybe if we give the extreme Christian right a bit of concession they'll want more and more until we're a theocracy. And I don't want that. If that's a potential fear then maybe I should work against all things Christian rather than allowing them to push for anything at all.



Am I wrong in switching the bogeyman to Christians and away from Muslims? You know there are Christians in this country who fully intend to make this nation a theocracy. They aren't the majority of Christians, which is just like the Islamic world, the vast majority of the billion plus Muslims have no desire for violence or control or the destruction of non-Muslims. It's a small group of people.



But if the Islamic world is truly hell-bent on destroying all non-Muslims, what is the solution? If integration of diverse populations won't solve anything, then what's the alternative? @#%$ believed that it was an impossibility to live side by side with the Jews and he came up with a solution. Is the solution to the Muslim problem similar? If that's not the solution, then what is it? You can't be nice to them, apparently you can't allow them freedom of worship or they'll conspire against the status quo, so what's to be done?

My music for the disenchanted masses

[DreamTone7]

NRK - "If the political and legal changes (even if they come from terrorism) prevent violence in the future or even have the intention of preventing violence in the future, is that such a bad thing?"



History has shown that it's not very likely to happen the way you suggest. Once it has been shown that violence is a successful method for getting what they want, they will continue to use it until they are running the country...even escalating it if necessary. This is exactly why you can never, ever give into terrorist demands. If you do, it will only ever get worse. It is exactly your kind of thinking, NRK, that lead to WWII in Europe.



NRK - "The Chamberlain quote at the beginning of the other post is an example of someone trying to avoid a world war, someone trying to avoid death and destruction, even if it didn't work out."



Exactly...and through that kind of complacency, the war, which might have been avoided through a stronger and less tolerant posture towards Germany's ambitions, began. It's always easier to sit on our butts and hope things turn out nice rather than pick up our guns and enforce the peace when it is called for. An old saying: Evil flourishes where good men stand by and do nothing. Nothing was done, and WWII began.





I realize that most Muslims are not out to exterminate the worlds non-Muslim population. Once again, it is using religion as an excuse to further selfish agendas on the part of a minority. But I think the solution should start with a better screening of Muslims coming into the country. Any identified as disturbers of the peace while in the country should be quickly deported and barred from ever entering the country again. Of course, this is exactly what the governments of an increasing number of european countries are afraid to do. Those found guilty of some of the more severe crimes (like bombings, etc) should be sent to prison for life, without possibility of parole. Better yet, my "deserted island" penal colony solution would be even better!

Melody and Instruments for the soul...

[NRKofOver]

The Chamberlain quote was before @#%$ engaged in any confrontation with another nation. Was the entire world supposed to clearly see the future regarding @#%$? Should the world act prior to acts of aggression because someone is capable of aggression? Should we remove any dictator that we don't agree with? Should Europe have the right to militarily move against the US because they believe our government is imperialistically minded?



It sounds simple but it's not.



Who would you pick next, I mean right at this very moment in history? Would it be the leader of Iran? North Korea? Or how about the Chinese? They have mad resources to establish massive control in that region. Should we move on them now or wait until they try and take another country? And what if China decided to take North Korea? How many American lives do you think are worth stopping China from invading and annexing North Korea?



Like I said, it's easy to sit on the side and make judgments about things that happened in the past because we've seen the outcome. But present life is never so easy.

My music for the disenchanted masses

[DreamTone7]

It's not easy, no...and for many more reasons than you mention. But history can teach us lessons if we pay it the proper attention. If forces had been brought into position, ready to engage, the odds would have been better that Germany would never have started the war...and even if they had, they wouldn't have gotten as far and less lives would have been lost in the process of stopping them. It was the weak military posture presented to Germany that gave its dictator the go-ahead to invade. Europe, by presenting the same weak posture towards terrorists, does the same thing.

Melody and Instruments for the soul...

[RonOnGuitar]

Hiya NRK - thanks for your input.



I'll have to pass by this way later on to tackle some of the things you've addressed. (I'm a bit pressed for time now)



For now I'll say I believe you've done some grasping for a relativism that just isn't there and that led you to a few non sequitur apples/oranges logic issues.



BTW, if you write out the term "National Socialist", I think it passes the word filter so it doesn't look like you're cussin' up a storm!

[NRKofOver]

I haven't read enough about Europe's 'weak' approach to terrorists.



I know they survived a lot more terrorism than the US can even imagine but we've never really had a solid approach to terrorists prior to 9/11. Why not? We saw what terrorists have done throughout the 20th century, with planes being hijacked and blown out of the sky, cafes demolished with explosives. We've known about the extremist groups as long as anyone has and yet they've grown not diminished.



Wow, just thinking about that, basically we deserved 9/11 because we didn't take a proactive approach to deterring terrorism until it hit home, utilizing your thinking anyways.



And based on most reports, terrorist groups are growing in membership and support since we've started our 'war on terror' so maybe that's not such a good approach either.



We won't know how effective the war on terror is for decades and what if it turns out to be the wrong approach, just like the Saddam example? We can make the historical correlation between empowerment through weakness but it's not necessarily going to hold up in this case and we just won't know for some time.



And I wonder, how many conflicts were avoided through concessions? In the history of man I bet it's a lot. I bet a lot of lives were saved through compromise and conversation rather than aggression. That would be an interesting contrast to what we know of @#%$ and Stalin and Pol Pot.

My music for the disenchanted masses

[DreamTone7]

NRK - "Wow, just thinking about that, basically we deserved 9/11 because we didn't take a proactive approach to deterring terrorism until it hit home, utilizing your thinking anyways."



I wouldn't say "deserved", but I agree that we should have expected it. We got a kick in our complacency on 9/11.



NRK - "And based on most reports, terrorist groups are growing in membership and support since we've started our 'war on terror' so maybe that's not such a good approach either."



Inconclusive...they've been growing for a long time. Long before "war on terror" was declared.



NRK - "And I wonder, how many conflicts were avoided through concessions? In the history of man I bet it's a lot. I bet a lot of lives were saved through compromise and conversation rather than aggression."



I would agree. It all depends on who is standing on each side of the negotiating table, and what their agendas are. If you were dealing with somebody like Germany's dictator during WWII, it's a sure bet you were wasting your time. It all depends on the agendas of the people involved...are they interested in peace and what is fair, or not. Terrorists bent on ridding the world of all non-Muslims aren't going to be the kind that settle for only killing some of them...in addition, they have nothing to negotiate with. They seek to take away and have nothing in return to offer...except the cesation of hostilities...something that, based on their agenda, they are not going to bargain away in good faith anyway. When people on one side of the table are bent on having all, they will settle for nothing less than all. Negotiations just give them a little more than they began with, at the expense of nothing...just like it was with Germany in WWII. They agreed with the Russians to split up part of europe and had an easy time taking the part they agreed to. They didn't stop there, though, did they. It just gave them a foothold on Russia's doorstep...much like what the terrorists are looking for in europe.

Melody and Instruments for the soul...

[NRKofOver]

Again, I'm not familiar with Europeans negotiations with terrorists, maybe you could give me a concrete example so I can better understand.



I absolutely agree that there is no compromise possible with a group like Al-Queda, they are rogue mercenaries without nation. Their goal is simple, they want all Westerners to die. I don't think you can compromise when you know that's the goal.



But is every situation that cut and dried? Is it always that black and white or is there sometimes gray areas when it comes to what is perceived as 'terrorist'?

My music for the disenchanted masses

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

France is starting to reap the price of supporting terrorists.

---

I am sorry, Ron, but this is deranged lunacy.

Not that I'm overly surprised.

France have never, ever, supported what we today label terrorism.

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

First Spain, and now France...one by one they are falling as a set of dominos to their own short-sightedness.

---

W T F ?

[Rev9Volts]

yup all are bending over to the moslems. they have more babies than europeans and in about 20 years enough votes to takie you over. you will be sorry... it is a shame you do not realize it now and put jean marie la penn as head of the european union....