Ongoing Violence & Riots in France

Sorry Rabs, but I am with Damien, you must crush this first. Then engage them in dialogue and employ the pogroms you mention. Containment doesn't work, just look at Israel and Palestine. :roll:
 
bulldogg said:
Sorry Rabs, but I am with Damien, you must crush this first. Then engage them in dialogue and employ the pogroms you mention. Containment doesn't work, just look at Israel and Palestine. :roll:

I think the Israel-Palestine comparison is going a little far, the main reason is that the Palestinians were second class citizens living under the rule of a nation they wanted nothing to do with, these immigrants those to go to France from their home country. Also, Israel has to use such harsh tactics to ensure their survival, they are a small nation surrounded by enemies. They are out numbered and in most cases fighting against an enemy with the most advanced Russian equipment to date. If they make a mistake millions could did in a few short hours. France is a nation surrounded by allies (not always "friends," as the little dual between Italian Guy and mmarsh has shown :rambo: ) and this issue is only a threat to the future of the current party in power, not the nation's survival.

It is however obvious that we both agree this shit needs to end before it goes from a problem to a disaster and after this long the government would be justified in using otherwise excessive force.
 
“They really shot at officers. This is real, serious violence. It’s not like the previous nights. I am very concerned because this is mounting,” one police officer said...

“Rioters attacked us with baseball bats,” said Philippe Jofres, a deputy fire chief, told France-2 television. “We were attacked with pick axes. It was war.”...

“What we notice is that the bands of youths are, little by little, getting more organized,” arranging attacks through cell phone text messages and learning how to make gasoline bombs, Hamon said....

Police also found a gasoline bomb-making factory in a derelict building in Evry south of Paris, with more than 100 bottles ready to turned into bombs, another 50 already prepared, as well as fuel stocks and hoods for hiding rioters’ faces, senior Justice Ministry official Jean-Marie Huet told The Associated Press....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9891709/page/2/

These people are not interested in making things better. This is violence and you stop violence through countering it with equal yet oppositely aimed violence. Its physics. After you restore peace you can work to make things better, this is just a group of punks destroying things because they're angry... guess what that ain't the way you make things better in a civilised society no matter how justified you might feel.

Oh well, like IG said elsewhere the French know so much better how to handle these multicultural issues. Lets sit back and watch the bloody experts and play the fiddle while Paris burns.

8)
 
bulldogg said:
These people are not interested in making things better. This is violence and you stop violence through countering it with equal yet oppositely aimed violence. Its physics. After you restore peace you can work to make things better, this is just a group of punks destroying things because they're angry... guess what that ain't the way you make things better in a civilised society no matter how justified you might feel.

The situation is pretty much like a chained up dog fenced in a yard. They don't see much - and when the chance is given they exploit it to the very end.
 
My opinion is that this has nothing to do with poverty. It has to do with being criminal.
Hence they should be addressed with force and repression, not welfare programs.
The poor and honest immigrants who live in those area are actually the first victims of both the violence and the racist attitude that will follow among the French towards any immigrant.
There are immigrants that are much poorer than those thugs but all they ask for is working and living in peace. The gangs and the rioters are not starving, so weren't the revolutionary masses of the 1970's who would set cars afire and shoot at police officers. This is ideology of hate and crime in its purest form.
Any attempt to justify or explain these criminal acts by means of "poverty" or"need for welfare programs" comes from liberals who despise the poor and don't know anything about them.
Of course France has faults: Immigration policy was wrong, their whole integration model is wrong.
But I don't put the blame on poverty, that's all.
 
I'm kind of late on this story, the American media hasn't been really reporting it.

I know there's like 1,500 car burnings a night and aparently the muslims are going nuts destroying stuff. But what happened? Where did all this come from?
 
Whispering Death said:
I'm kind of late on this story, the American media hasn't been really reporting it.

I know there's like 1,500 car burnings a night and aparently the muslims are going nuts destroying stuff. But what happened? Where did all this come from?

well they claim that two arab emigre died when they hid in an electrical warehouse/box in the street while the police forces were chasing them.

Therefore they are out in the streets to voice their so-called anger by putting cars and properties ablaze.

It is stupid! they should go back to their countries, I believe.
 
Any attempt to justify or explain these criminal acts by means of "poverty" or"need for welfare programs" comes from liberals who despise the poor and don't know anything about them.

I lost you on this one IG, since when started the liberals despising the poor? I thought they were all socialist..... I guess it must be my selective reading that gets me in this fix.... I'm not sure what you would call the opposite of liberals, but how come they know the poor so well?
 
Italian Guy

I don't know how it is in Italy, but in the US, its the liberals who favors aiding the poor and disenfranchized. The core of liberalism is defending the weak, the poor, the minorities from all types of ills. The greatest social reformers in the USA have been done by the liberals of BOTH parties, Republicans and Democrats. Liberalism has other faults, but you are totally wrong to say they dont care about the poor in the USA, its one of their greatest strengths.
 
Marsh, the liberal political candidates use the poor for political capital and come up with tons of programmes that look to help but in point of fact do absolutely :cen: all. I know I grew up quite poor and myself as well as other friends I knew pulled ourselves out in spite of not because of the programmes of the liberal politicians. There are more Democrats in the US Senate who are millionaires than Republicans. Check out their tax returns, its a matter of public record.

This crap in Paris is violence and has nothing to do with poor immigrants. It has everything to do with pissed off hooligans looking for an excuse to maim, kill and destroy that which they envy. Any gutless moron can destroy it takes a person with intelligence and courage to build.
 
Phoenix

Not to get too far :eek:fftopic:

Top poorest States

With the exception of W.Virginia, Louisiana and New Mexico its all Republican.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_the_United_States_by_income

Bulldogg

I know that, but just because one is born rich doesnt mean one doesnt care. Not all of them are greedy SOBs. And not all millionaire politicians were born with money. LBJ and Clinton, both came from poverty. John Kerry last year responded responded to that charge by a Bush-supporter. Kerry admited that he was not 'ordinary' but 'privilaged', but that giving tax cuts to people that dont need them was wrong. His running mate John Edwards also came from reletive poverty. Similarily the greatest social reformers Teddy, FDR and JFK were sons of millionaires. The liberal programs you discribe are broken because for the last 50 some years the conservatives have been chipping away at them. From social Security, to Medicare. There are Conservative Think tanks (such as Heritage) who sole purpose is to undo the New Deal. It even says so on their company brochures.

Back to subject. Most crime comes from poverty, but not all. If you talk to most guys in jail most of them say they did what they did (like sell drugs) because they had nowhere else to go. They didnt have the skills and therefore there were no jobs. Where I disagree with liberals is that Liberals use this to justify criminal actions such as whats happening in France. Poverty does not justify crime. Most people who are poor do not turn to crime to get out of desperation. I agree the government should do an immediate crackdown, lawlessness should not be tolerated.
 
We're still stuck in the terminology confusion.

Ok I meant leftists.

Leftists= in Europe are generally called Socialist or Social-Democrats. In the UK they're called Labor, in Canada Liberals, in the US Democrats and within them Liberals are more to the left.
I mean leftists anyways. I'll be using this term from now on.

I wasn't referring to the US though (where I DO NOT think the Liberals despise the poor, although most of them are wealthy and the whole rich New England establishment and 90 % of Hollywood multibillionaire tycoons are liberal- I mean I don't know if people like Ted Kennedy or Ted Turner or Michael Moore or John Kerry have ever been poor in their lives, doubt it), I was specifically talking about Europe. European leftist thinking generally despises the poor. I know that's a paradox, but that's my well-rooted point of view. Period.
 
marsh

I need to think more about this and get more insight into this.

Btw, wikipedia as a source is a bit questionable!
 
bulldogg said:
Ted said:
As far as I know (tomorrow things might be different) nobody has been killed yet. So your eye for an eye tactic is still premature.

Is it selective reading or a comprehension problem Ted? I posted this two pages ago and now if you do a google search on Paris riot deaths you can find many more. This is NOT a protest to be tolerated. It is murder being committed en masse.

I did what you told me to do Bulldogg to enlargen my comprehension, but I came up with only one name:
61 year old Jean-Jacques Le Chenadec died saturday due to the wounds inflicted by rioters. Maybe we are checking different stories, but it is interesting to look at the difference in death toll. How much does your body count deviate from mine?
 
WHY PARIS IS BURNING?

by Amir Taheri
New York Post
November 4, 2005

'The Chirac administration...appears to be clueless about how to cope with... a "ticking time bomb."

November 4, 2005 -- AS THE night falls, the "troubles" start ? and the pattern is always the same.

Bands of youths in balaclavas start by setting fire to parked cars, break shop windows with baseball bats, wreck public telephones and ransack cinemas, libraries and schools. When the police arrive on the scene, the rioters attack them with stones, knives and baseball bats.

The police respond by firing tear-gas grenades and, on occasions, blank shots in the air. Sometimes the youths fire back ? with real bullets.

These scenes are not from the West Bank but from 20 French cities, mostly close to Paris, that have been plunged into a European version of the intifada that at the time of writing appears beyond control.

The troubles first began in Clichy-sous-Bois, an underprivileged suburb east of Paris, a week ago. France's bombastic interior minister, Nicholas Sarkozy, responded by sending over 400 heavily armed policemen to "impose the laws of the republic," and promised to crush "the louts and hooligans" within the day. Within a few days, however, it had dawned on anyone who wanted to know that this was no "outburst by criminal elements" that could be handled with a mixture of braggadocio and batons.

By Monday, everyone in Paris was speaking of "an unprecedented crisis." Both Sarkozy and his boss, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, had to cancel foreign trips to deal with the riots.

How did it all start? The accepted account is that sometime last week, a group of young boys in Clichy engaged in one of their favorite sports: stealing parts of parked cars.

Normally, nothing dramatic would have happened, as the police have not been present in that suburb for years.

The problem came when one of the inhabitants, a female busybody, telephoned the police and reported the thieving spree taking place just opposite her building. The police were thus obliged to do something ? which meant entering a city that, as noted, had been a no-go area for them.

Once the police arrived on the scene, the youths ? who had been reigning over Clichy pretty unmolested for years ? got really angry. A brief chase took place in the street, and two of the youths, who were not actually chased by the police, sought refuge in a cordoned-off area housing a power pylon. Both were electrocuted.

Once news of their deaths was out, Clichy was all up in arms.

With cries of "God is great," bands of youths armed with whatever they could get hold of went on a rampage and forced the police to flee.

The French authorities could not allow a band of youths to expel the police from French territory. So they hit back ? sending in Special Forces, known as the CRS, with armored cars and tough rules of engagement.

Within hours, the original cause of the incidents was forgotten and the issue jelled around a demand by the representatives of the rioters that the French police leave the "occupied territories." By midweek, the riots had spread to three of the provinces neighboring Paris, with a population of 5.5 million.

But who lives in the affected areas? In Clichy itself, more than 80 percent of the inhabitants are Muslim immigrants or their children, mostly from Arab and black Africa. In other affected towns, the Muslim immigrant community accounts for 30 percent to 60 percent of the population. But these are not the only figures that matter. Average unemployment in the affected areas is estimated at around 30 percent and, when it comes to young would-be workers, reaches 60 percent.

In these suburban towns, built in the 1950s in imitation of the Soviet social housing of the Stalinist era, people live in crammed conditions, sometimes several generations in a tiny apartment, and see "real French life" only on television.

The French used to flatter themselves for the success of their policy of assimilation, which was supposed to turn immigrants from any background into "proper Frenchmen" within a generation at most.

That policy worked as long as immigrants came to France in drips and drops and thus could merge into a much larger mainstream. Assimilation, however, cannot work when in most schools in the affected areas, fewer than 20 percent of the pupils are native French speakers.

France has also lost another powerful mechanism for assimilation: the obligatory military service abolished in the 1990s.

As the number of immigrants and their descendants increases in a particular locality, more and more of its native French inhabitants leave for "calmer places," thus making assimilation still more difficult.

In some areas, it is possible for an immigrant or his descendants to spend a whole life without ever encountering the need to speak French, let alone familiarize himself with any aspect of the famous French culture.

The result is often alienation. And that, in turn, gives radical Islamists an opportunity to propagate their message of religious and cultural apartheid.

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.

In parts of France, a de facto millet system is already in place. In these areas, all women are obliged to wear the standardized Islamist "hijab" while most men grow their beards to the length prescribed by the sheiks.

The radicals have managed to chase away French shopkeepers selling alcohol and pork products, forced "places of sin," such as dancing halls, cinemas and theaters, to close down, and seized control of much of the local administration.

A reporter who spent last weekend in Clichy and its neighboring towns of Bondy, Aulnay-sous-Bois and Bobigny heard a single overarching message: The French authorities should keep out.

"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.

President Jacques Chirac and Premier de Villepin are especially sore because they had believed that their opposition to the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003 would give France a heroic image in the Muslim community.

That illusion has now been shattered ? and the Chirac administration, already passing through a deepening political crisis, appears to be clueless about how to cope with what the Parisian daily France Soir has called a "ticking time bomb."

It is now clear that a good portion of France's Muslims not only refuse to assimilate into "the superior French culture," but firmly believe that Islam offers the highest forms of life to which all mankind should aspire.

So what is the solution? One solution, offered by Gilles Kepel, an adviser to Chirac on Islamic affairs, is the creation of "a new Andalusia" in which Christians and Muslims would live side by side and cooperate to create a new cultural synthesis.

The problem with Kepel's vision, however, is that it does not address the important issue of political power. Who will rule this new Andalusia: Muslims or the largely secularist Frenchmen?

Suddenly, French politics has become worth watching again, even though for the wrong reasons.

Amir Taheri, editor of the French quarterly "Politique internationale," is a member of Benador Associates.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/18822
 
Article quoted by phoenix80 said:
But who lives in the affected areas? In Clichy itself, more than 80 percent of the inhabitants are Muslim immigrants or their children, mostly from Arab and black Africa. In other affected towns, the Muslim immigrant community accounts for 30 percent to 60 percent of the population. But these are not the only figures that matter. Average unemployment in the affected areas is estimated at around 30 percent and, when it comes to young would-be workers, reaches 60 percent.

What then? Where I live unemployment peaks higher than 30 % and still people don't go around setting cars afire. Southern Italy has some regions where 40 % of the people are unemployed. Still we don't attack firefighters.
The problem is cultural, and one of assimilation, or integration, not of poverty, as this good article points out:

Article quoted by phoenix80 said:
The French used to flatter themselves for the success of their policy of assimilation, which was supposed to turn immigrants from any background into "proper Frenchmen" within a generation at most.
That policy worked as long as immigrants came to France in drips and drops and thus could merge into a much larger mainstream. Assimilation, however, cannot work when in most schools in the affected areas, fewer than 20 percent of the pupils are native French speakers.

France has also lost another powerful mechanism for assimilation: the obligatory military service abolished in the 1990s.

As the number of immigrants and their descendants increases in a particular locality, more and more of its native French inhabitants leave for "calmer places," thus making assimilation still more difficult.
In some areas, it is possible for an immigrant or his descendants to spend a whole life without ever encountering the need to speak French, let alone familiarize himself with any aspect of the famous French culture.
The result is often alienation. And that, in turn, gives radical Islamists an opportunity to propagate their message of religious and cultural apartheid.

This article confirmed my views.
 
Yes you are right Italian Guy but the author wants to point at the mixed problem of poverty and culture in a so-called free society...

It seems french have not been really succesful in integration of their newcomers.

I wonder when the same thing happens in Canada too!?
 
mmarsh said:
I don't know how it is in Italy, but in the US, its the liberals who favors aiding the poor and disenfranchized. The core of liberalism is defending the weak, the poor, the minorities from all types of ills. The greatest social reformers in the USA have been done by the liberals of BOTH parties, Republicans and Democrats. Liberalism has other faults, but you are totally wrong to say they dont care about the poor in the USA, its one of their greatest strengths.

There are two different ways of helping the poor. One is through Welfare programs which is what the liberals favor (Democrats) the other is by giving them jobs which is what the conservatives favor (Republicans). Most people would rather work than take a hand out. And the richest states vote liberal while 9 of the 10 poortest states this year voted Red. (republican, not commie) Supposedly Liberals get the minority and immigrant vote but the entire confederacy voted red this year and those states would have the largest minority population while states like Vermont voted blue. I am an independent, I hate the party system, no party is right all the time but its members are basically obliged to support their party, right or wrong.

phoenix80 said:
I wonder when the same thing happens in Canada too!?

lol, I think the major difference here is that Canada is not burdened by needing to maintain a large military and a small nuclear stockpile, their money goes to free health care, well, sort of. (Once again, the whole socialism thing) That and Canada gets quite a bit of money from Americans because I am the only person in the tri-state region (South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota) who has not gone on at least one week long hunting and or fishing trip to Canada. That and Canada screws the fishers from Minnesota by making them pay for bait that was harvested in Minnesota, then flown to Canada and sold with a 500% mark-up!
 
Back
Top