Ongoing Violence & Riots in France

Just in case anyones interested.

I work near the effected areas, tonight upon leaving my office (last one too, everybody else took off early) I smelled smoke in the air.

Where are the troops, Monsieur Chirac??? If the troops arent going to protect me then at least let me carry a gun. Come to think of it, maybe I'll go the the police department and see if I can get a permit. Probably wont work...
 
Well good luck, hope they don't get to you.


---------------------------
This is what you get after decades of left-wing, politically correct policies.

Ted said:
The idea of bringing immigrants to the Netherlands (I'm not in the mood for checking this for the rest of Europe) was an idea made by centre right legislations. It was mainly Christian right-parties combined with "Republican" parties. The socialist legislation started after they were brought here.

They were brought there because there was a labor shortage and they had to bring them there but only as temporary guest workers, I'm correct on this arent I?

But who instigated the socialist policies leading up to this? The Left wing.

But insisted on this "multicultural society" that is turning out to be a disaster? The Left wing.

Who painted anyone oppossing or having caution towards this multicular attitude as racist? The Left wing.

Who opposed people that wanted to do something about this? The Left wing.

Who lives in a fantasyland all these years thinking that somehow this would work, and ignoring everyone giving warning about this? The Left wing.

Who are the ones even now still have the blinders on and refuse to accept what needs to be done? The Left wing.

You know full well whose fault this is. You are trying to dodge the issue again.

YOU yourself probably thought those people years ago who warned about this were all wrong didn't you. Now its time for you to wake up. Unless of course you still want to be in fantasyland.

I wonder what you thought of Pit Fortuyn, remember him?

Thats the problem with this left wing, politically correct thinking, it just makes you feel good at present time, it doesn't take account future consecounces, and blinds itself to the realities of human nature. When you find yourself in a hole after decades of self imposed fantasy you wonder what went wrong.

Not to mention when you run out of logic, you brush aside the issue, and try and evade the real probelm or pretend it doesn't exist.


But that was just peanuts with what Missileer, Phoenix and Italian Guy managed to produce. What are you saying? That this is the vanguard of the Arabian/ muslim combined forces ready to march into Europe?

Maybe not now, but in 15 or 20 years.


I understand that you view on these matters are not as well informed,

The Muslims believe they will take over Europe someday, both Sunni and Shia, they also believe they will be united. So you might be the one who is not well informed in these matters.

Second, watch the news, you'll see poor Arabs, poor Asians and poor Africans, all with defferent religions, rioting side by side. This isn't about religion, this is about poverty and living conditions you and I can't even dream about.

This is because of left wing, politically correct thinking that this multicular idea will work and live in harmony.

As far as the religion goes it is a catalyst for a majority of these people to resist assimilation. Something the left wing politically correct thinkers didn't take into account in forming their mis-guided daydream of a "multi-cultural society".
 
mmarsh I don't want to start a discussion to know if Mitterrand was the best or the worst Pres. that France has ever known (the worst is giscard or Chirac due to internal policies). Concerning hos collaboration with the Nazis you should remember he was POW in Germany and his role during the Vichy period is quite unknown, so that's it.

I am still waiting for those riots, but it concerns the north of Paris at present :rambo:
 
Well I'll try to stick to what I know Gladius and I hope I don't dodge the subject, in your opinion.

First of all. In Holland the policies are mainly made on provincial level or by the bureaucrats. The last one or not linked to politics. Of course when there is a democrat or republican government they will have different guide-lines, but this doesn't influence the factual policiy they write. All new laws have to pass the "second chamber" and then the "first chamber" after which the Queen herself has to agree also. So the actual power of any government is quite limited. We started our polder-model because of this reason. Many policies started by republicans are still carried out, because often the policy is irreversible. To say that the reds, commies or socialist did this is just too simple!

Second, Yes I remember Pim Fortuyn. He was the new hero for the lower class white people. Many times he was used for right radical ideas although he always refused to get in touch with these people. He himself was gay and often told this to everybody. As you know gays and neo-cons don't mix very well... Finally he was assassinated by a white extreme leftist animal activist. The whole thing wasn't the least bit racial or religious. He was killed by some freak (hopes he rots in his cell, which he is to the last day of his life) with a very scary view on how a society should look like.

You keep saying I dodge the issue, but explain to me how I do this? In my opinion I'm not doing this. I just don't link religion and socialism. (note: I'm not saying left extremism) to the answer to this complicated equation, that's all. You can't solve a quatum-physical problem by saying 1 + 1=2.
So if dodge-ing means not agreeing with you, yes then I most certainly dodge the issue. In my opinion you stare at a problem ready to blaim one side and one side only, you are unwilling or incapable of looking at the problem in more then one ways, you are unwiling to compromise, incapable of self relfection and when it doesn't fit your equation the answer is the use of sheer force. The dead can't complain

As a final note on the Dutch constitutional monarchy.
VVD (former KVP) is quite right
CDA is centre right, and ruled most of the decades after WO II
PVDA is centre left, ruled from '94-'02

Many cabinets, as we call them, had a mix of the first two. When the PVDA was involved it wasn't a majority. So most of the issues you bring on aren't produced by the people you blaim.
 
Ted said:
Well I'll try to stick to what I know Gladius and I hope I don't dodge the subject, in your opinion.

First of all. In Holland the policies are mainly made on provincial level or by the bureaucrats. The last one or not linked to politics. Of course when there is a democrat or republican government they will have different guide-lines, but this doesn't influence the factual policiy they write. All new laws have to pass the "second chamber" and then the "first chamber" after which the Queen herself has to agree also. So the actual power of any government is quite limited. We started our polder-model because of this reason. Many policies started by republicans are still carried out, because often the policy is irreversible. To say that the reds, commies or socialist did this is just too simple!

Whatever the case is,---the important part is when the issue came up a few years ago to reform this imigration and "multicultural society" the left wing is the ones who opposed this.

The left wing wanted to stay in their fantasyland and pretend everything was okay. They painted anyone who opposed their daydreams as Nazis or racist, when those people had good practical ideas that where based on reality unlike those on the left wing.


Second, Yes I remember Pim Fortuyn. He was the new hero for the lower class white people. Many times he was used for right radical ideas although he always refused to get in touch with these people. He himself was gay and often told this to everybody. As you know gays and neo-cons don't mix very well... Finally he was assassinated by a white extreme leftist animal activist. The whole thing wasn't the least bit racial or religious. He was killed by some freak (hopes he rots in his cell, which he is to the last day of his life) with a very scary view on how a society should look like.

So he was gay, he still had good ideas.

You keep saying I dodge the issue, but explain to me how I do this? In my opinion I'm not doing this. I just don't link religion and socialism. (note: I'm not saying left extremism) to the answer to this complicated equation, that's all. You can't solve a quatum-physical problem by saying 1 + 1=2.

It doesn't take quantum physics to understand basic human nature, all it takes is common sense.

Politicians & people who had sense were warning about this years if not decades ago.

What,... you cant make any decision without taking a poll, or make sure no ones feelings get hurt, or maybe we could just tipee-toe around the sensitive subject as to not offend anyone. Baloney!


So if dodge-ing means not agreeing with you, yes then I most certainly dodge the issue. In my opinion you stare at a problem ready to blaim one side and one side only, you are unwilling or incapable of looking at the problem in more then one ways, you are unwiling to compromise, incapable of self relfection and when it doesn't fit your equation the answer is the use of sheer force. The dead can't complain

You dodge the issue because you keep bringing up topics that side-step the main issue, because you have no true rebuttel.

The main issue is about the left wing politically correct policies that for decades caused to bring about what you have now.

It is these policies that is the main cause right now of the steady decline of Europe, and putting the whole of Western Civilization in danger. Because among other things, they insisted on coddling and showing tolerance to a culture and religion that was inherently intolerant.

You dodge the issue because you bring up stuff like "not agreeing with you means dodging" who cares! Stick with the issue!

You are putting stuff in that strays from the main issue to make it look like you have something to say, when in reality it is miles away from the topic. Maybe this is the problem with left wing thinking, when it comes when it comes to solving problems with answers you don't like instead of facing it an dealing with it, you dodge the issue with something else and pretend it doesn't exist.

I think the problem here, is maybe you realizing that those left wing policies you believed in all those years are inherently flawed, but you refuse to accept it and you continue daydreaming.
 
I did a google search with Chirac and Emperor Nero... funny stuff was found yet not the cartoon I was sure someone would have already drawn...

http://pd.cpim.org/2005/0918/09182005_sukomal.htm

http://www.ncpa.org/sid/2005/20050707.htm

Most of it seems to centre around them both being the anti-christ. While that would explain all the burning (fire and brimstone) I tend to think they're wrong.

Didn't France learn from the various wars on its own soil and great loss of life that the policies of appeasement do NOT work?

As for the numbers of dead Ted, they have fluctuated as news becomes rumour but there are at least two so far.

Marsh you can make yerself a zip gun if you can't get a permit.
 
Why is it that the world constantly confirms my views on why law abiding citizens should be allowed to own arms? This is what happens when give up everything in hopes the government will do it all for you.

bulldogg said:
Didn't France learn from the various wars on its own soil and great loss of life that the policies of appeasement do NOT work?

Nope, the history of France has always been appeasement. In 845 the city of paris gave the vikings a huge gift of gold and riches to not sack their city. The vikings thought to themselves "if this is how much they have to give, imagine how much wealth they have to be taken" and proceeded to sack the city twice.
 
Italian Guy said:
Ted said:
As you know gays and neo-cons don't mix very well... .

Why not? There is a number of homosexual neoconservatives in the United States.

Yes, they are called log-cabin Republicans and most of them voted for Kerry in 2004 because of the Republican party's stance against gay marriage. And yes you are correct, there are a number of gay conservatives in the US but the number is rather small.
 
Log cabin ?? I don't get the relationship, call me dense but the only thing I can think of is there are no closets in a log cabin.
:?
 
bulldogg said:
Log cabin ?? I don't get the relationship, call me dense but the only thing I can think of is there are no closets in a log cabin.
:?

I don't know either but that is what they are called I guess. I think they are called that because they mostly live in midwestern and southern states west of the appalachans, where log cabins used to be the norm or something. I truly don't know where the name came from, it's just what they use.
 
Whispering Death

Drawing a conclusion between 845 AD and today without looking at the history in between is pretty silly. You only left out 1160 years of history in between. Charles Martel, Charlemagne, Joanne of Arc, Duke of Normandy, Louis I-XVI, Napoleon I, Foch, Petain, Clemanceau, etc. Thats just a start. You also forgot to mention that at about the time of the Renaissance France was the most dominate military power in Europe and stayed so for about 200 years. From about late 16th century to the early 18th.

Would you call these guy appeasers??? I wouldn't.

Damien

The term 'Log Cabin' has to do with the groups political roots to Abraham Lincoln who supposed lived in a log Cabin before becoming president. There is also a rumor that Lincoln was gay. It is true Mary Todd was abit of a prud, but to conclude Lincoln as gay I think is a bit of a strech.

And the latest News

Cerfews are going into effect tommorow night, but Chirac still wont send in the troops. Its David Dinkins all over again...
 
Okay Gladius, I'll go about it the following way.


The main issue is about the left wing politically correct policies that for decades caused to bring about what you have now.

Now we see the main issue. All that I'm trying to make clear is that (in Holland) the left wing didn't make any policy because they weren't in power. The only time that we had a left majority rule was between 1994 - 2002. So you figure who made the policy for the existing problems.

I know that it is a problems that needs addressing and can't wait. I also agree that a large group of "troubles" adhere to the islamic faith. I just don't go so far as to call them all radicals that need to be contained, preferably in some dessert far away.

p.s. I hope I didn't sound to blunt in my last post. If I did, I'm sorry for that...
 
Intifada in France

New York Sun Editorial
November 4, 2005

If President Chirac thought he was going to gain peace with the Muslim community in France by taking an appeasement line in the Iraq war, it certainly looks like he miscalculated. Today the streets of the French capital are looking more like Ramallah and less like the advanced, sophisticated, gay Paree image Monsieur Chirac likes to portray to the world, and the story, which is just starting to grip the world's attention, is full of ironies. One is tempted to suggest that Prime Minister Sharon send a note cautioning Monsieur Chirac about cycles of violence.

Back in the 1990s, the French sneered at America for the Los Angeles riots. As the Chicago Sun-Times reported in 1992: "the consensus of French pundits is that something on the scale of the Los Angeles riots could not happen here, mainly because France is a more humane, less racist place with a much stronger commitment to social welfare programs." President Mitterrand, the Washington Post reported in 1992, blamed the riots on the "conservative society" that Presidents Reagan and Bush had created and said France is different because it "is the country where the level of social protection is the highest in the world."

How the times have changed. Muslims in Paris's suburbs are out shooting at police and firefighters, burning cars and buildings, and throwing rocks at commuter trains. Even children are out on the streets - it was reported that a 10-year-old was arrested. The trigger for the riots was the electrocution of two teenagers last Thursday, which the rioters say came following a police chase, a charge the police deny. But even if the charge by the rioters is true, that the police are culpable in the deaths of the two youths, the fact that such an incident would spark a riot is a sign of something deeper at work - no doubt France's failure to integrate its immigrant Muslim community.

It turns out that France's Muslim community lives in areas rampant with crime, poverty, and unemployment, much the fault of France's prized welfare system. There are those of us who spent part of the 1980s in Europe, supporting the idea, among others from the Reagan era, that immigration was a virtue for a country and that the racial or religious background of the immigrants did not matter. We maintain that view. But immigration into a country with a dirigiste economy is a recipe for trouble, which is why supporters of immigration into France have long warned of the need for liberalization.

Part of France's problem is that it has defaulted on those measures. The lack of labor market flexibility and other socialist policies have created unemployment at nearly 10%, most of which falls among immigrants. And part stems from the fact that France's estimated 5 million Muslims, out of a population of 60 million, are led by mostly foreign radical imams. Only belatedly has the French state started taking action, pressing for clerics to be taught in France. All this is compounded by the image France projects of itself to its Muslims, which one can surmise is the reason why Muslims see rioting as the solution to any grievance.

It's a barely kept secret that Mr. Chirac led the opposition to the Iraq war out of fear of how his Muslim population would react. This fear is a big part of why France portrays itself as America's counterweight and why it criticizes Israel at every turn and coddled the terrorist Yasser Arafat right up to his death. This doesn't elicit thanks from Muslim radicals in France. It turns out to project an image of weakness. Unsurprisingly when faced with some unhappiness they believe they can pressure the French state into submission.

A number of observers of the French scene have looked at population trends and suggested that France is on its way to becoming a Muslim country (one that would, let it be noted, be armed with hydrogen bombs). Some react to this by suggesting a halt to immigration and even expulsion. The better approach is to impose law and order, more speedily to reform the burdensome welfare state, and start integrating the Muslim community. France could also help itself by dispatching troops to help battle the radical Islamists in Iraq, thereby sending a message to Muslims at home and abroad that France is on the side of those Muslims, the majority no doubt, who want to live in peace.

http://www.nysun.com/article/22526
 
Ted said:
Now we see the main issue. All that I'm trying to make clear is that (in Holland) the left wing didn't make any policy because they weren't in power. The only time that we had a left majority rule was between 1994 - 2002. So you figure who made the policy for the existing problems.

The left may not have been in power the whole time (in the Netherlands), but still policies like this "multi-culturalism" stem from politically correctness and the left wing (its good to an extent but it had simply gone too far). You have to admit even thought the left didn't have majority the whole socio-political climate in Holland not to mention most of Europe is left-leaning, especailly within the last decade when the problem of this was starting to show, it was being ignored because of the politically correct climate. What I'm hoping, is people, even those on the left, begin see this, and reverse some of their stances, or take the necesary steps, while there is still time.

If nothing is done now, then in a few decades or less, the Muslim population will be so large and so intrenced that there will be nothing anyone can do politically or otherwise.

I know that it is a problems that needs addressing and can't wait. I also agree that a large group of "troubles" adhere to the islamic faith. I just don't go so far as to call them all radicals that need to be contained, preferably in some dessert far away.

I least we agree here.

I too agree with you that they are NOT all radicals.

I do hope they find a solution to this.

However I need to say they need to get tough, and enact some hard policies. Not everyone is going to like it, but nothing is going to change if they don't do it.

I doubt if integration will work, since they are highly resistant to doing so. Although forced integration may work to a deegree. Tough immigration deportation policies unfortunately might be the only way.


p.s. I hope I didn't sound to blunt in my last post. If I did, I'm sorry for that...

Don't worry it's cool ;)


BTW, is it true you cannot wear the Netherland flag in a Netherland school anymore or you will get suspended?
 
In Holland some politicians opted to send these troublemakers to their country of origin. But then you have the following problems:

1)Most of the radicals are born and bred in Holland. They went to school here, speak the language fluently, have a Dutch nationality. For example, the assassin of Theo van Gogh was a kid who started college. (Ironically he studied chemistry :D )

2)They aren't integrated at all in the "new" homeland and don't know the culture and values.

3) Dutch constitution forbids the deportation of it's nationals. Let alone to countries with a dubious image on human rights.

What is your suggestion? You can alter the constitution but that way you open up the way to deport any person with a foreign background. DO nothing and you stick your head in the sand, do to much an you open Pandora's box... It is a catch 22 and in every situation somebody loses. We are toughing up currently, but it is being done haphazardly and very black-and-white. So anybody with a good solution to this problem, feel free to post them....
 
I think that if we spent more time making love instead of war this would have never happened in the first place.

Just go to the rioters and give them some flowers instead of rubber bullets!

Obviously those are the solutions to life's problems.
 
Whispering Death said:
I think that if we spent more time making love instead of war this would have never happened in the first place.

Just go to the rioters and give them some flowers instead of rubber bullets!

Obviously those are the solutions to life's problems.

Yes, and Arafat was not a liar :lol: .
 
Back
Top