'Youths' in Paris continue to riot. by AURaptor

I happen to agree with you again here. Osama Bin Laden and company is undoubtedly behind this little uproar. I think that the french have handled it quite stupidly, fueling the fire rather than dousing it, but that's to be expected, they're french.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 4, 2005 6:22 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I happen to agree with you again here. Osama Bin Laden and company is undoubtedly behind this little uproar. I think that the french have handled it quite stupidly, fueling the fire rather than dousing it, but that's to be expected, they're french.

I agree only with different analysis.

The French acted stupidly by failing to stand in solidarity with the United States and Britain. France is behind much of the drawn out turmoil facing the world.

Had France locked arms with the United States at the head of a true Western Bloc of old and new Europe, America, and Middle Eastern moderates then there would be far less support for Bin Laddin's efforts. 5,000 French soldiers landing in Afganistan alongside American and British forces could have made the difference in crushing Bin Laddin in 2002. The arrival of a French contingent in the deserts of Kuwait or perhaps as part of a larger NATO buildup in Turkey would have successfully cowed Saddam Hussein.

France instead, acting under leaders drowning in illegal oil money, has actively undermined the international efforts to oppose terrorists and the states that support it. Now they are paying the price for their arrogence and laissez faire approach to the issue of Muslim extremist violence.

I suspect part of the shock the French people are feeling is that fear, deep down inside, that Bush is not the problem after all. It comes from the sudden realization that when you step on a subway in London or Paris or perhaps a bus in Jeusalem a train in Madrid a plane in Boston or go anywhere by any means at any time in Europe, Australia, the Middle East, or North America, the threat you may face is not American imperialism, its militant Jihadism. Thats when they pray to God that the man sitting across from them has an American military passport and not a vest lined with C-4 and ball bearings.
H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 4, 2005 7:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
here are of North African decent, aka - MUSLIMS.( That's right, the religion of PEACE ) That little fact tends to not make it into the news articles. Wonder why.

Quote:
home to North African and black African minorities frustrated at their failure to get jobs or recognition in French society.

Wonder why?
Umm, I don't know, maybe because religion has nothing to do with this, as it states in the friggin' article? Sounds to me like poor people being discriminated against because of racial issues. Let's just blame Islam for everything now, is that it? It'll be a good change; maybe instead of hearing "but Clinton," we can start hearing "but Islam."

I can see it now. "'Hey Joe, the Canadians support gay marriage.' 'Gay marriage you say? That's just wrong.' 'I bet a Muslim lives in Canada.' Well, that must be it then, it's Osama's fault!'

Just becuase they are Islamics doesn't mean the flareups have anything to do with Osama. Not all Moslems are the same - don't the Christians in America say the same thing whenever one of that breed is doing something stupid?

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 4, 2005 8:00 AM

CITIZEN

Hero:
I never supported the war in Iraq, but I do find it interesting that the nations that had just signed big oil deals with Iraq in 2003 were France, Germany and Russia...
And the countries that opposed the war in any form in the UN were France, Germany and Russia...
Just goes to prove everyones got hidden agendas...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 4, 2005 8:31 AM

Quote:
France instead, acting under leaders drowning in illegal oil money, has actively undermined the international efforts to oppose terrorists and the states that support it.

This is definitely part of the problem. As a friend of mine put it "The only reason Jacques Chirac isn't in jail is that he's president of France." Which apparently is litterally true. His position as president makes him immune to the indictments against him. Temporarily.

But I think there's more to France's coyness. I think they have a large unruly muslim population, and that a French entrance would have made France a target. What they didn't realize was that France would become a target anyway.

Osama Bin Laden hates white people. He's said so many times. In his world view, they're not as evil as jews, but they're complicit accomplices of jews, and so by extension they are evil. They are are also cultural imperialist capitalists, and so that makes them evil to.

So to Bin Laden jews=really evil, white people=evil, nazis are okay even though they're white because they're nationalist (culturally separatist,) socialist (anti=capitalist,) and they also hate jews, so it's a common enemy thing. If you ever check out what the nazis are up to, these day's they're always in league with muslims, and often speak very highly of bin laden, who is currently paying their bill. They seem to miss the inconsistancy, arabs being more semitic than jews.

But I digress, in France, he has Muslims to work with, which is much better for him. France's real big mistake here was probably, in all honesty, granting citizenship to muslims in their domain.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 4, 2005 8:54 AM

Citizen,

I agree completely.

7%,

I don't agree. This is not just loose threads. Osama would never support gay marriage, btw. They don't really have very many muslims in Canada. Religion has everything to do with it. The french govt. has been at odds with it's mulsim population every since it let them in. It's not like these people needed to be in France, they had half a continent to themselves. They want french jobs because they pay better, and more importantly french welfare benefits. This is one of the problems with the social welfare state. You reward nonworking poverty and punish working self sufficiency, and eventually you just state attracting a ne'erdowell population and pushing away productivity. As this states to happen, the welfare burden grows, and the problem just snowballs.

But links to the uprisings lead directly back to Bin Laden. He's been active in France for several years now. Don't you remember even when we invaded Iraq, half the public statements Bin Laden was making were about headscarves in classrooms and that sort of stuff in France?

I have nothing against the French people at all, but they do have a serious case of bad govt. Anyway, I am pretty confident that Bin Laden is directly funding the malcontents in France against the French govt. I suspect the end result of this will be that France will come over to our side.

I'm not sure that this is how I want it to break down though. If it becomes all white industrial nations against poor Muslims, it will fuel the fire. I did think one of the advantages of Clinton's war in Kosovo, which I thought was botched almost as badly as this Iraq war, but it did have the advantage that the US intervened to protect poor muslims against white europeans, which took a lot of wind out of Bin Laden's sails. Unfortunately, the Iraq war has given him his second wind.

I refer back to the Hannity stuff I posted earlier, after 9-11, the overwhelming majority, some 98% of muslims, wanted Osama's head on a platter. I would add, that is probably partly due to the fact that his anti=american attacks had directly followed our kosovo intervention.

Here's what would have been much better. Saddam Hussein was also very unpopular with muslims, because he was highly secular, and not really much of a practicing muslim himself. If we had supported muslim insurgents, many of whom we are now fighting, against saddam hussein, the muslim world would have seem us as standing up for their rights instead of squashing them like bugs.

Unfortunately our PNAC doctrine unilateralist approach gave that squash 'em like bugs look to it, and the torture really threw the monkey wrench in the works.

Remember the order of this decay.

1. We go in unilaterally more or less, and people become suspicious of us, but not truly hostile.
2. We shut down Al Sadr's newspaper which had been harshly questioning our motives, and he raises an army of 10,000 to oppose us.
3. We broker a deal with Al Sadr, and for a while he is not against us, but working with us to form a new govt.
4. Abu Ghraib and related torture stories broke, and suddenly we have at least three jihads against us.

So there's no question about it, this was botched. It wasn't a forgone conclusion that they would hate us and love Bin Laden. Bin Laden will always hate us, that IS a forgone conclusion. The French should have seen this and tried to reach some compromise with us over tactics. If we could have approached this in a way that wouldn't have ended in jihad, I think they might've joined us, In spite of corrupt oil deals (as long as we had assured them that they get to keep the corrupt oil deals:) )

If you have a problem with that, here's one. Assure Chiraq he can keep his corrupt oil deals, and the attack his corrupt oil deals once the war or revolution or whatever is over. France isn't going to go to war against the US.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 4, 2005 9:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I don't agree. This is not just loose threads. Osama would never support gay marriage, btw. They don't really have very many muslims in Canada.

No, of course he wouldn't, and I know they don't. My point was that everything that happens in the world today? Not Osama's doing. Otherwise, Bush really needs to be doing a lot better job finding him, don't you think?

Quote:
Religion has everything to do with it.

You say this, then you say this,

Quote:
They want french jobs because they pay better, and more importantly french welfare benefits.

in which you trash your own argument and make mine for me. Just because they are Islamic doesn't mean this chaos is directly connected with a religious issue. It's an economic issue, possibly heightened by religious tension. It is not a "religious" dispute.

Quote:
But links to the uprisings lead directly back to Bin Laden. He's been active in France for several years now. Don't you remember even when we invaded Iraq, half the public statements Bin Laden was making were about headscarves in classrooms and that sort of stuff in France?

Because it was a hotbutton issue, which was settled rather peacably, as I recall. France has a secular state and put their foot down. End of story. On the other hand, you - like AURaptor and Hero- seem to want to belive that all Muslims everywhere are the same and have the same goals. Chechnyan rebels, Iranians, and North African Muslims are all not the same. You aren't taking regional and ethnic differences into account when you make broad statements like this. The NA (Tunesian, Algerian, etc) Moslems are upset because they are treated as third class citizens. They are having the same border troubles in Europe that we have with the Mexican border here; which is an influx of a different culture that nobody wants due to a prevalence of good jobs and services (and in the case of France, the culture is starting to get mad about it). The French, the Germans, and the Scandinavian countries have managed to generally get along with this issue for years, but now it's coming to a head (as I suspect it will eventually in ours with Latin Americans).

Remember kids,

Moslem does not equal terrorist,
Riot does not equal BinLadin,
and
North African Moslem does not equal Saudi Moslem.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 4, 2005 10:44 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This is not just loose threads. Osama would never support gay marriage, btw.

I wouldn't be so sure. We don't know what he's got on under those robes, but lets look at the facts. He prefers the company of men, he and his Taliban "friends can't even stand the sight of a woman. He's shown no interest in aquiring his own 72 virgins, prefering, again, his cave and "bodyguards".

Have you ever seen Bin Laddin with a woman? I know I haven't. I think he's all about playing for the other team and the Jihad business is deeply rooted in his desire to express love for his fellow terrorists in inappropriate ways. Then he arranges for their death via US missile strike...classic self loathing homosexual tendencies.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 4, 2005 11:02 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Wonder why?
Umm, I don't know, maybe because religion has nothing to do with this, as it states in the friggin' article? Sounds to me like poor people being discriminated against because of racial issues. Let's just blame Islam for everything now, is that it? It'll be a good change; maybe instead of hearing "but Clinton," we can start hearing "but Islam."

I can see it now. "'Hey Joe, the Canadians support gay marriage.' 'Gay marriage you say? That's just wrong.' 'I bet a Muslim lives in Canada.' Well, that must be it then, it's Osama's fault!'

Just becuase they are Islamics doesn't mean the flareups have anything to do with Osama. Not all Moslems are the same - don't the Christians in America say the same thing whenever one of that breed is doing something stupid?

No, it's not so much a racial issue, but more cultural, and yes, religious. See, the immigrants didn't feel the need to assimilate w/ the glorious French socialist society. Instead, they basically kept to themselves and ran things as they wanted. When a citizen got tired of theft going on in that part of the town, the police were called. This offended the 'youth'. They were minding their own business ( doing what ever the hell they wanted to ) and didn't feel the law enforcement had any right to tell them what to do.
There is a growing conflict coming, and this is just another front. The Eurabian clash will only increase over the next decade, and beyond.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 4, 2005 11:10 AM

I haven't, but then there are precious few recent photos of him, but I read somewhere that he had twelve wives.

Auraptor. I agree. While I support the rights of any separatist society to do whatever it wants as long as it isn't harming anyone else, they should also do it on their own turf. If they emmigrate to France to reap the welfare benefits of the social safety net in France, which they did, then they should learn to live by the rules of France, which they won't.

I think the european immigration policy is a recipe for unmitigated disaster. They should either adopt the American standard of "prove that you will be a benefit to the country" or an even stricter policy. After all, we have a lot of space, but they don't. The more people who hate each other get crammed in close to one another, the worse things will get.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 4, 2005 11:30 AM

7%

1. Osama Bin Laden seems awfully concerned about what goes on in the day to day lives of the French if he's not involved.

2. Religion has everything to do with the hate. People don't hate them so much because of the bumming. Bumming off the system is in in europe these days. They hate them because of the Jihad.

Quote:

On the other hand, you - like AURaptor and Hero- seem to want to belive that all Muslims everywhere are the same and have the same goals. Chechnyan rebels, Iranians, and North African Muslims are all not the same.

Because we're right. The Chechen Rebels ARE in league with Osama Bin Laden. Very very directly. Iran is not. I never said Iran was mixed in with this. The new Iranian president wants to be mixed in with it, but the Iranians largely don't, so they should fire him, and go back to being separatists. The north africans in france, and the Sudan have Al Qaeda connections, we're not making this up.

You don't want to become a fellow traveller of these people. Trust me, you really don't. There will come a day when they get their hands on an atomic weapon or two or twelve, and things will get very ugly. These people, Al Qaeda, really believe that the west in all its forms must be destroyed, wiped off the face of the Earth because it is the will of God. Not a lot is going to stop them if we don't.

For the record, the Chechen rebels are an Al Qaeda cell. If you don't believe me, go as them.

The French terrorists are an Al Qaeda cell.

Janjaweed used to be an Al Qaeda cell, but then they went solo.

The militia that invaded Darfur is still an active Al Qaeda cell.

Al Zarqawi was an Al Qaeda cell, I don't know if he is still connected with them

The Mahdi in Iraq have no connection to Al Qaeda.

The Mujadeen in Afg. are still a part of Al Qaeda

The Taliban were Al Qaeda allies, but they are not an Al Qaeda cell.

I know a fair amount about this. I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass. I'm not a fear merchant, I think an organized offensive could take them out, I think that some peace might eventually be possible by giving them there own private Israel or something, but not today. Right now they are convinced that they are going to win. We have to make it clear that that is not necessarily the case before any negotiation will be possible.

I know that the vast majority of Mulsims everywhere, as in France, are not Al Qaeda. But that does not mean that Al Qaeda is not stirring up trouble in France. I feel quite certain they are.

I think it serves Bin Laden's interests to have conflicts everywhere between particularly white westerners and Muslims. It's best for him if this is white western authority squashing poor muslims like bugs.

It's an advertising scheme. Bin Laden has made his reputation on predicting what the enemy will do. He says if the US is the evil greedy empire I say it is then they will invade and occupy an oil rich arab nation. Then we do, and the muslim people say, hey, that guy was right. Probably Bin Laden already knew the US was planning it, so he stepped in and vagued it up like prophecy. Well the new word is that the west is out to squash islam where ever it finds it. It's in Bin Laden's interests to see that it comes to pass.

So, he fills a school foundation in Russia with bombs, and kills a lot of Russian children, and the Russians respond just how Bin Laden wants them to. By squashing poor muslims like bugs.

He's a clever guy, and very powerful. And yes, he's everywhere you don't want to be.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 4, 2005 10:20 PM

HOWARD

Bin Laden a socialist?

Excuse me!!

He's a millionaire Saudi who hates
socialists and any secular creed.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 4, 2005 10:41 PM

FLETCH2

Checkout the other threads Howard. Dreamtrove has redefined "socialist" as "anyone I don't like and/or any truely evil b*d since the beginning of time..." Please don't get him started again. Everything else he's saying is bang on the money. Don't make the mistake of thinking that AlQ has some big war room somewhere and Bin Laden calls the shots. They provide money and know how to other disaffected groups with other petty and often local greavences. What Bin Laden does is to inject money and stir things up in the regions of conflict. I've read reports comming out of Iraq that the Iraqi insurgents --- ie the folks that live there --- are starting to fight AlQ's lot because they are now targeting Sunni Muslims in an attempt to start a civil war. Not nice people.

Osama has been married five times and currently has 4 wives and I believe at least 24 children. He follows standard Saudi practice --- legally he can have only 4 wives at a time so he divorces one when he takes a new one. One woman claims he kept her as a sex slave while he was living in Morocco. So probably not gay and definately not a good date.

These kids in France come from former French colonies in North Africa and have come to France as economic refugees. Until recently France favoured immigrants and guest workers who spoke French as a first language but the EU has open borders, so a lot of the menial jobs these people used to do have been taken by better educated and more ambitious folk from eastern Europe.

France is a secular state, a consititutional republic not a socialist state as some people suggest. Chirac if you could call him anything is a nationalist and is considered a conservative in France.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2005 4:40 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The French acted stupidly by failing to stand in solidarity with the United States and Britain. France is behind much of the drawn out turmoil facing the world.

Hear Hear,

The French betrayed themselves and the rest of the West with their treachery in dealing with Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. They are now reaping the bitter harvest of their misdeeds.

I believe Spain and Germany are next.

Andrew Lynch

Don't forget what happened to Theo Van Gogh in Holland.

From Wikipedia...

" Van Gogh was murdered in the early morning of Tuesday November 2, 2004, in Amsterdam in front of the Amsterdam East borough office (stadsdeelkantoor) on the corner of the Linnaeusstraat and Tweede Oosterparkstraat streets. He was shot with eight bullets from a HS2000 (a handgun produced in 2000 in Croatia) and died on the spot. His throat was slit, and he was then stabbed in the chest. Two knives were left implanted in his torso, one pinning a five-page note to his body. The note (Text) threatened Western governments, Jews and Hirsi Ali (who went into hiding). The note also contains references to the ideologies of the Egyptian organization Takfir wal-Hijra.

The murderer Mohammed Bouyeri, a 26-year-old man of Dutch and Moroccan nationalities, was apprehended by the police after being shot in the leg. Although born in Amsterdam, well-educated and apparently well-integrated, Bouyeri became a Muslim extremist and has alleged terrorist ties with the Dutch Hofstad Network. In most Dutch media the suspect is called Mohammed B., since it is common practice in The Netherlands to abbreviate the surnames of crime suspects (or even convicts) in order to protect their privacy. He is also charged with attempted murder of a police officer and bystander, illegal possession of a firearm, and conspiring to murder others, including Hirsi Ali. He was convicted on July 26, 2005 and sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole."

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2005 5:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

1. Osama Bin Laden seems awfully concerned about what goes on in the day to day lives of the French if he's not involved.

I follow world news in what many of the folks I know condsider a sick fashion, and frankly, in the last few years I can remember very, very few (read - none) massive Al-Qaida strikes in France, or videos released calling for French destruction. And the one time I do recall, the headscarf issue, was quickly resolved.

Quote:
2. Religion has everything to do with the hate. People don't hate them so much because of the bumming. Bumming off the system is in in europe these days. They hate them because of the Jihad.

The people do hate them so much because of the bumming. Before Osama was even a blip on the radar the French were having this problem (as well as the Germans with the Turks). It's been going on since the French problems with Algeria, beginning in the 50's (if not before).

Quote:
Because we're right.

That's debatable.

Quote:
The north africans in france, and the Sudan have Al Qaeda connections, we're not making this up.

You might not be making it up about SOME of them. You really the majority of Chechnyan separatists care about BinLadin? You really think the majority of North Africans are all in one giant AlQaida cell? As I said before, it's just like me saying all Christians are involved in abortion clinic bombing; while many normally decent folks probably aren't losing any sleep over it (though they should be), it is too broad a statement to make.

And, if you've been looking, the riots were started over a typical issue that starts riots,

Quote:
The troubles were triggered by the deaths of two teenagers electrocuted in a power substation where they hid to escape police whom they thought were chasing them. A third was injured but survived. Officials have said police were not pursuing the boys, aged 15 and 17.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/11/01/france.riots.ap/
NOT a religious issue. Just because some of the rioters (not even all) are Muslim, you want to turn it into Osama, Osama, Osama.

Quote:
You don't want to become a fellow traveller of these people. Trust me, you really don't.

And here's where you lost all my respect for you. I hate condescending attitudes.

Quote:
For the record, the Chechen rebels are an Al Qaeda cell.

Every single one? Wow. I addressed this already this post though.

Quote:
If you don't believe me, go as them.

Why sure, I'll hop a flight tomorrow.

Quote:
The French terrorists ...

blah blah blah

Quote:
It's an advertising scheme.

So far the first time in this thread you were correct, except not in the way I think you mean. It is an advertising scheme. Let's paint everyone as a terrorist, that way we can ignore social issues and get rich fighting an imaginary war on a CONCEPT.

Quote:
Bin Laden has made his reputation on predicting what the enemy will do. He says if the US is the evil greedy empire I say it is then they will invade and occupy an oil rich arab nation. Then we do, and the muslim people say, hey, that guy was right.

Then it seems to me, the problem isn't the common Muslim. It's an administration that thinks it can go in and kick over sandboxes for profit and no one will care. Except they do care, and with every bomb we drop we set the peace process back another 5 years. We are playing right into his hands, yet we have a President that isn't focused on apprehending him. Maybe, had we caught him before trying to establish democracy in a country that didn't want it, we wouldn't have as many problems (but that's neither here nor there).

Quote:
Well the new word is that the west is out to squash islam where ever it finds it.

Crusade. Dead or Alive. Bring 'em on. Nuke Mecca. Wonder where they got that idea? (and no, before anyone jumps in with it, I don't think Clinton did all that great a job either)

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2005 8:50 AM

Quote:
“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 sheikhs, mostly from the Muslim Brotherhood, to negotiate an end to the hostilities. Some are even calling for the areas where Muslims form a majority of the population to be re-organized on the basis of the Millet system.

In Clichy itself more than 80 percent of the inhabitants are Muslim from Arab and black Africa.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=72731&d=5&m=11&y=200
5

Muslim clerics are scrambling to control the Muslim Proletariate in French Islamic cities, we can pretend that the riots have nothing to do with religion, but thats just wishful thinking. It matters less what the rioters are doing, but who controls them is the issue. If the French fail to deport the radical Islamic puppetmasters we will see more of France burn.

EDIT: broken link

ADD: Muslim Brotherhood Movement

http://www.ummah.net/ikhwan/

Manifesto #4 excerpt

Quote:
4- Political Activism: By putting political programs for "Islamising" government in different countries (after realistic studies), and establishing these programs thru the convenient ways which do not conflict with Islam.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15344

Quote:
I'm educating a new generation in the CIA that the Muslim Brotherhood was a fascist organization that was hired by Western intelligence that evolved over time into what we today know as al-Qaeda.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2005 9:36 AM

Okay A**holes

1. Bin Laden is not a socialist. Someone else said he was. Not me.
2. I never called bin laden a socialist.
3. WTF is up with people that are trying to re-invent me as boogeyman
4. I never reinvented socialist or redefined it, I posted the wikipedia definition and expanded on that in an incredibly consistant manner.
5. I never call evil people socialists because their evil.
6. It's not my fault that socialists have killed a couple hundred million people.
7. From the posts, none of these socialism apologists seems to mind the senseless mass slaughter of civilians.
8. If you love commies and nazis, go ahead, but don't blame me.

Moving on...

Quote:

Originally posted by lynch:

I believe Spain and Germany are next.

I think you're right. Much of europe has been playing a dangerous be nice to Al Qaeda game and it's paying off in massive death. It's like the kid who learns that beating people up gets some other kids to do what he says, so he beats those kids up more.

You forgot that Russia has already fallen victim to this for the same reason. Now they have fried school children to show for it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2005 10:09 AM

7%,

1. I too follow obsessively, France came up three times I think. I was surprised he cared at all. But old europe in general seems to be a focus if Osama Ire.

2. Bumming might be a factor. When debating with people who slam everything you say, there is a tendency to state more extreme positions than you actually support.

3.

Quote:
Quote:

Because we're right.

That's debatable.

Of course it is. But it's so much fun to say :)

Quote:

You might not be making it up about SOME of them. You really the majority of Chechnyan separatists care about BinLadin? You really think the majority of North Africans are all in one giant AlQaida cell? As I said before, it's just like me saying all Christians are involved in abortion clinic bombing; while many normally decent folks probably aren't losing any sleep over it (though they should be), it is too broad a statement to make.

1. No I'm not making any of it up. Bin Laden cut a deal with the US in '89 to focus on Soviet issues, and those soviet issues became chechnya. I figure this is locked in. They are certainly Al Qaeda, their the mainstay of Al Qaeda version 1.0

2. Then bin laden was kicked of of Afgh, and moved to Sudan. There he said up the Janjaweed, but later they went independent, and he replaced them with the group who are now fighting the janjaweed. I grant that janjaweed are the greater evil, and the active al qaeda cell who was hired by Deby of Chad to invade is actually less dangerous, but their action was the impetus for the disaster. The ironic this is that Deby hired an active Al Qaeda militia to invade darfur which chad and darfur both claim should be part of chad, but he hired them with money bush gave him through the panel-sahel initiative to fight al qaeda. For you conspiracy theorists out there, here's a crumb, There is also a pan-sahel pipeline project that is closely tied in to all of this. In theory when built it would run from darfur to chad and then down to cameroon.

3.

Quote:
As I said before, it's just like me saying all Christians are involved in abortion clinic bombing

No, it's not, it's really not. You got twisted in the logic there. It's like you saying "all abortion bombings lead back to chrsitians" and as a generalization that is probably true most of the time.

4. Sure there will be exceptions. I have no evidence that the violence in East Timor was connected to Bin Laden, it was muslim unrest, so maybe it had Al Qaeda links. But I don't know of any so I'm not saying so. I'm actually only saying what I know or have strong reason to believe. But if someone were to present me with a compelling case for a link between east timor and al qaeda, I would accept it.

5. The two teens, I am aware of the issue. But this is an exaggerated trigger. The fact is riots don't happen because of rodney king, they happen because of a riot prone situation of tension which has been building for years. It's like filling a room full of gas, and throwing a spark.

6. Sorry, I didn't mean to condescend. I think everyone in this forum has offended everyone once or twice. I agree, I hate condescending attitudes too. This really isn't what I meant.

What I meant was just because you don't buy Bush's war on terror (neither do I) it doesn't mean Al Qaeda isn't a serious threat.

Remember when this all started, Bush was looking for a Muslim enemy in Afgh/Iran/Iraq/Syria, because those were the PNAC targets.

At this time, Bush and co knew dick about AL Qaeda. They had Richard Clarke jumping up and down shouting at them "it's al qaeda, they're going to bomb the US" and they repeatedly told him to go away and shut up.

Bush was bent on a war on muslims and a war on terror was a perfect match. Therefore, not just Bush but

Quote:

It is an advertising scheme. Let's paint everyone as a terrorist, that way we can ignore social issues and get rich fighting an imaginary war on a CONCEPT.

I really agree, and every tin pot dictator in the world is signing up so that they can abuse their minorities.

But here's what I meant, and I didn't mean to condescend: It's easy to fall into the trap of, so this war on terror is a fraud, I don't have to worry about al qaeda, or at the very least you look like that's your point of view.

When I say Al Qaeda, I of course mean people trained and educated through the Al Qaeda network. It doesn't really work the way Bush wants it to work, it's not a command structure. It's a communication structure.

Chechen rebels are the creation of Bin Laden and co. They aren't under the direct command of Osama. Al Qaeda simply doesn't work like this. Because of it's amorphous fighting for an idea structure, it will be very hard to take down. Taking out Osama won't do it.

Some particular things, like the Russian school bombing just stink of OBL to me. I would probably wager money that he was involved at some point in the incident. But for the most part, he creates them, and then they stay in touch, but not under command. So the Chechans may have asked for advice on effective terrorist plans, and gotten suggestions re: the Russian school.

A former al qaeda cell, therefore, like the janjaweed is one which is no longer in close communication with the rest of the al qaeda communication network.

There have been some reports that Al Zarqawi has split and taken half the network with him, but I'm never sure what's real and what just spin. If this were true, it would be very convenient for Bush, so it is naturally suspect.

But I really didn't mean that as a condescending slight. I get enough of those myself, as you must notice from reading these. I just get a little ticked to see reasonable people defending Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein just because they hate Bush, and that's how it was coming across.

The enemy of your enemy is sometimes your enemy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2005 10:12 AM

7%, and a footnote.

Yes, govts. often exacerbate the problem, like putin and his bedmate russneft, or russtheft as I call it, going in and taking all the oil from chechnya. Strange how whereever there's islam there seems to be oil.

Hmm. This merits some more thought. I think it may prove that there's oil everywhere and only muslims know how to find it because of connections to saudis or something. Some well kept secret like the masons.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2005 9:28 PM

Franck Cannarozzo, deputy mayor of Aulnay-sous-Bois added:

Quote:
"We see among the rioters kids of 13 to 15, who are swept along, who are encouraged to take all the risks, and the ringleaders, who are used to creating trouble, terrorise everyone and don't want to stop." it could have been easily mistaken for a scene from the Palestinian intifada.

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2200912005

In France:

Quote:
Reda Ameuroud was epelled for exhorting fellow Muslims to wage holy war in speeches at a mosque in Paris.

Abdelhamid Aissaoui, an Algerian imam convicted for an attempted attack on a train was deported on July 23.

Pascal Mailhos told Le Monde last month that 20 French mosques are run by radical Islamic groups and 1,600 prayer halls are being watched.

Religion has everything to do about the current rioting in France. The immigrant youth are being used, as usual, by radical muslim preachers and clerics.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2005 5:37 AM

Agreed, and "ringleaders" read "Al Qaeda"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2005 7:14 AM

SIMONF

It reminds of the 4 days of rioting we had in Belfast during the summer. An impoverished Christian underclass angry at the lack of jobs and the poverty they live in and the supposed discrimation against them. The burning of cars, petrol bombing of the police and army in a British city could have quite easily have been mistaken for the sort of trouble one sees in the Middle East.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2005 8:00 AM

Quote:
the rolling nightly riots are being organized via the Internet and mobile phones, officials have pointed the finger at drug traffickers and Islamist militants.

KLA - Kosovo runs drugs into Europe and is tied to muslim terror groups.

Quote:
Six youths were arrested in a raid on a building south of Paris, during which more than 100 bottles, gallons of petrol and hoods for hiding rioters' faces were also found.

This is organised behaviour, not some random collection of young men tossing rocks.

http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/06/ufr
an.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/11/06/ixportaltop.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2005 8:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadLatin:

This is organised behaviour, not some random collection of young men tossing rocks.

On a semi-related side note, this is part of the reason humanity often tends to make me sick. 5 guys hatch a plan to break stuff, and start stirring up trouble in front of 10 individuals. Instead of those 10 individuals saying, "let's stop this while we can," they instead say, "what do those 5 know that I don't," and without thought start breaking stuff too. Mob mentality is going to kill us all one day. I forget who said it (I think it was Einstein), but "I don't know how WW3 will be fought, but I know WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones."

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2005 10:42 AM

Sorry about that. I was really ticked off.

I think the internet is mostly a left of center haven. I have a theory on why that is.

This more or less mimics the experience that I had in my own life.

Your first political encouters in life are pretty much of acceptance. For me it was Nixon good, Ford good Carter good. No real political slant there.

Then comes the teen rebellion, which basically amounts to authority bad. So for me that became, Regan bad.

Then I went to college where I was subjected to an organized left-wing brainwashing. Part of this definitely influenced me, and part of it seemed like politics in a can. I was torn between the common left-wing view of "the right is just conservative because it's dumb." and "maybe I'm only getting hald the story here.

So then population splits, and you either start examining things and try to make up your own mind, or you accept the politics you're surrounded by.

For me, I analyzed the policies of George H. W. Bush, and they made a lot of sense to me. Then I analyzed the policies of Bill Clinton and they didn't make a lot of sense to me.

Then I went back historically and tried to figure out the difference, and why some people would be left or right. I came to the conclusion that 80% of the population is sheep. the country is about 40% non-thinking liberal, 40% non-thinking conservative, 10% intentional thinking liberal, and 10% intentional thinking conservative.

Moreover, the split followed like this:

Educated people were liberal, because the education system is liberally dominated, and so eveidence is given to you in college to support liberal arguments and knock down conservative ones, but often no counter arguments are given, or the counter arguments are intentionally far weaker.

Conservatives tend to be people with a lot of real life experience, older people, and people who work in business or rural farmers, etc. These are people who have often seen a lot of these leftist ideas in action and seen them fail, and prefer things a little more old fashioned and independent, and not as idea-guided.

This understanding led me to be a conservative. But I'm a philosophical conservative. I am not supporting someone just because they oppose the left, but because they support conservative values. I am not a believer in think-tank planned utopian ideological social structures, I'm a fan of tried and true social structures that I'm pretty familiar with from my studying of history, one of the few places where, though in low level courses liberal dominance is strong, it doesn't hold up the more you learn.

The internet is populated mostly by the young educated, college students making up the single largest block, closely followed by rebellious teens, and so it logically follows that general liberalism is strong, and anti-GOP is also strong online.

So presently, I can't support the president or more importantly his think tankers because I know their liberal background, and I see them display the same liberal fallacies. I agree with them on many points, but I would be much happier if this administration were a lot more like that of his father. I support the take down of the administration because I see it as coming from Bush Sr. style administration loyalists, traditional republicans, and I see it as aiming to replace the neo-con thinktank planning circle with a more traditional conservative circle.

Back to Al Qaeda and company.

I generally agree with most of what you've posted here.

Quote:

And it is moving west into Germany and the rest of Europe.

I would say it's moving north.

These problems seem to be showing up primarily whereever european society meets muslim society, geographically, which is mostly N/S. So the jihad is crawling up from Africa through western europe, from asia minor through the balkans, and from the caucuses through russia.

I also think that on the whole, western europe is riddled with liberal ideologues who are driving the economy down, and who are ignoring the jihadist problem because recognizing is politically incorrect.

By contrast I think eastern europe is much more level headed. I credit this to the fact of the soviet union, which has shown the fallacy of left wing over institutionalization, and the danger of cultural imperialism.

Here's a serious problem that I suspect only right wingers will understand.

The EU.

The EU, which Bush/Blair and company support will serve to silence the rational right wing voices of eastern europe under the thumb of liberal dominated western european leadership. The EU's more or less open immigration and it's pro-tollerance stance will further force the east to ignore the jihadist influence.

In time what will happen is that the one-nation Europe will bring absurd anti-business taxes and use them to support a large scale military force which, bowing to it's increasing appeasement of the growing muslim populations, lead it to oppose US military action.

So Europe, if not properly dealt with, could become an enemy, and in doing so, it would not only hurt US interests, but harm european businesses and be a huge detriment to individual freedoms in europe.

And, in case anyone should think otherwise. I am not anti-muslim, or anti arab. The fact remains that muslims already dominate the globe. They do not "need" more land to control. It's a force for global domination, and other societies which are not muslim DO have a right to exist and to defend themselves.

So do muslims, I oppose our "strike them at home" sort of approach, I think it fuels the fire.

Finally, re: bin laden.

I totally agree. I think bin laden is a racist. He has many times refered to caucasians in ways that paint them as inferior, and to having no right to be on the asian continent. Just seeing some of these terrorist attacks or reading the stories where people describe armed arab militants laughing at dying white children. The humor apparantly is that is "master race" dying there, and isn't that funny? Some 8yo girl instantly painted as aryan overlord.

I think one thing that is hard for white liberals to see is that white people, also, have a right to exist. They don't have more of a right than other races. But just because nazis were evil doesn't mean the rest of us should lay down and die. I think Bin Laden certainly thinks that we should, and I agree, by defining it all as a religious battle he gets white muslims to do the bulk of the dying for him. I think he also believes in a high level of acceptable casualties. If he can have his perfect unfettered society, it's okay if 1/2 the people die getting there. This is probably the only thing he has in common with certain socialist leaders.

I suppose as a footnote to stem off some accusations, I don't say this "white people have a right to defend themselves and their culture" because they're white. I have before and I will in the future make the same argument in support of arabs, asians or blacks. I think it's clear the arabs are in the wrong in darfur, and the oil there should belong to the black africans, and they should probably have an independent black african state of darfur set up, and it could sell oil to the world on the open market. Such money would enable them to build hospitals schools and infrastructure that would carry them into the first world. I think this is true of a number of countries in africa. I also think that the US leadership has failed to do the right thing here under Bush and under Clinton. If someone wants to send in the US military to defend and establish an independent state of Darfur to this end, they have my vote right off the bat.

Also, I'm not a christian. I'm not anti-muslim. If mulsims are the wronged party in a conflict, as I think they may be in Iraq, as victims of us, and as victims of other muslim extremists. I do want to point out here that Iraq was a very secular society, and these bin laden-ites leading them in religious ferver are really also stamping on that secular culture and sacraficing their lives in an anti-american jihad. We did, after all, set up a democratic goverment that they could participate in if they have legitimate concerns, which I think they do. And though this govt. may be a US puppet farce, it is largely so because of a failure of Iraqis to participate in it, and someday soon Bush will be gone, and some administration, democrat or republican that's not really interested in stealing their oil will be in place, and it will be better if they have a govt. in place they can take part in, to see that the free market sale of that oil benefits the people of Iraq, instead of some religious zealot mullah theocracy.

Okay apologies for that, because that was a lot of rant to take in. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2005 11:20 AM

I refuse to engage in the political blame game, Islamic terror is what I oppose. I don't care what political stripe people wear, it's when they refuse to face what is currently happening throughout the world. Right now Islam is engaged in most of all the global conflicts, from the Phillipines to India and former Soviet satellite states.

It's not the bloody Catholics or Mormons cutting off heads, forcing women to wear head coverings, honour killing women, performing clitorectomies on young female girls, ripping down 2000 year old religious symbols, attacking cruise ships off the Barbary Coast or mass killing people in football stadiums.

I am revolted by this. Period. End of story.

I don't give a rats arse if some young kid claims he can't find a job, he has no right to take others property by fraud or force. He has no right to kill old feeble ladies or shoot at riot police and firemen. He has no right to fly a jet into a skyscraper, bomb a tourist bar or murder girls walking to school.

Drop the Clinton-Bush-Blair hate meme and come together to oppose whats really wrong. Proclaiming a political belief converts no one to the real cause.

PS: I'll add this

Thatcher, Reagan, Bush1&2, Blair, Clinton have all failed to protect us from Radical Islamofascism, each one of these people added a part to the puzzle and now we are confronted by the finished product.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2005 12:11 PM

Quote:
A police chief, Frederic Aureal, said his officers were encountering an unprecedented hostility from gangs, which he described as prepared, structured and armed. People have attacked us with picks, petanque balls and Molotov cocktails".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051106/wl_afp/franceriots_051106181914;_
ylt=Am2pSGCzNBaBKSjcLyLTzeys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

I couldn't figure out what petanque balls are, but they seem to be like Bocce balls.. but metal ;D

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2005 1:07 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think the internet is mostly a left of center haven. I have a theory on why that is.

I think there's a deeper reason than the college kid demographic. I think the internet itself, the so-called "information super-highway" is leftist by nature, because intellectual freedom is fundamentally anti-authoritarian. Silence only serves the status quo. Discourse fundamentally destablizes entrenched ideology. Where there is freedom of thought, there is liberality. There will never be a rightwing Woodward & Bernstein. "News is only what they don't want you to know, everything else is advertising."

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2005 3:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Silence only serves the status quo.

The current print and broadcast media status quo is center left. NYT LAT Le Monde Morgenbladet Die Zeit SMH are a few examples ranging from Europe to Oceana.

http://www.acage.org/articles/?id=0103

The media’s reaction? First, it was silence.

...In the hopes that the riots will quickly quell themselves and will retain a scale small enough to ignore them, as it has happened in the past, World’s most renowned media outlets fell into collective fit of amnesia...

... as they realised that sweeping the issue under the rug is not an option anymore, as the riots spread and assumed a scale too vast to ignore...

... have filled their news stories with relentless attacks against the ‘forced integration of immigrants’ and exclusive citations of the Muslims’ points of view...

...the British Broadcasting Corporation has simply decided to avoid mentioning the religious affiliation of the protesters altogether....

Same with AP ALP.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2005 6:32 PM

Okay, once again, trying to be succinct, and probably failng is me. So, here goes:

Malbadlatin.

To some extent, sure I agree, and to some extent, this is a very very dangerous suggestion.

1. I obviously oppose bin laden, and am probably more serious about it than most of the people here.
2. To ask blind obedience to leaders, even way they may in fact be fronting for the enemy, is nothing short of treason. It's treason to the fundemental values of America, and it's treason to Americ itself. A former member of the Bush Cabinet has actually personally tried to convince me that Bush knocked down the towers. I don't know if I believe him, but he made a very compelling case. This is one of the many very serious charges to address. What if it were true? I'm a loyal republican, sure, but loyal to the party and its principles, not to a man who won the primary and ran on the party ticket, should it turn out that he cut a deal with Al Qaeda. I'm using this alarmist example to show why, even the right wing extremist that I am, questioning authority is a core American value. It is this value which prevents America from ever becoming Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. The Weimar Republic in Germany was built on the same basic principles of freedom that America was, but one that held more respect for authority, as your suggesting. This blind obediance didn't just create the monster, it was the monster.
3. I'm sorry if I read this wrong, but we must attack Bush, Blair and Clinton for whatever they have done wrong, and continue to do so, because still as of yet, their power to harm America far exceeds bin laden's. And because it is very American to do so.
4. Please, it's nothing personal, I blast everything :) Some people hate me for it. Don't waste the energy do that, but:
5. Islam is not the enemy! This is a christian and jewish idea. The enemy is islamic, yes, but most of islam has spent most of the time being our ally. Islamic Jihadist Terrorism is the enemy, specifically Al Qaeda. We will never destroy Al Qaeda, that's absurd, please, no one should ever try. No one has ever destroyed an enemy. At the moment the global influence of the holocaust survivors greatly exceeds that of the nazis. And I can't think of an enemy more destroyed than the german jews. The goal here is to defeat Al Qaeda, to force them to the table, and to drive them into what we consider to be the legitimate political arena. This will not end Islam, it will not end Islamic Fundementalism, and it will not end Al Qaeda. It will end terrorism, which is all we are after. Anyone who aiming to destroy Al Qaeda is a religious or ideological zealot, and a danger to our great nation.

I am, have been here, Al Qaeda's worst enemy, or close to it. Someone might claim to hate them more, but as a new yorker I know many people who lost family members on 9/11.

Please,

Consider reality.

Here's what we know.

1. Al Qaeda is huge.

2. They represent an ideological position shared be a very large number of people.

3. They, like everyone else seek to spread their influence.

4. They, like everyone else, wish to remain alive.

Since the more that we kill them, the stronger we make them, because those sympathizers join the cause, more sympathizer are born, and do you see where I'm going with this?

In a sane political arena, the weight of their ideology will fade, and they will kill no one. They will be so busy attempting to compromise with everyone else to secure their main most important points, stuff they really care about, that we will then have the power to force them to back down on things we consider human rights abuses, and to abandon terrorism.

How to get there is another issue, but if we are to succeed, then we must realize that this is the only goal which can actually be achieved. Any other goal would trap us into an eternal perpetual war. And no, I don't have an ulterior motive in saying this, I say it because I actually believe it.

Finally, and very importantly, we need to accomplish this without allow the terrorists to change who WE are in our opposition to them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2005 6:42 PM

Quote:

I think there's a deeper reason than the college kid demographic. I think the internet itself, the so-called "information super-highway" is leftist by nature, because intellectual freedom is fundamentally anti-authoritarian. Silence only serves the status quo. Discourse fundamentally destablizes entrenched ideology. Where there is freedom of thought, there is liberality. There will never be a rightwing Woodward & Bernstein. "News is only what they don't want you to know, everything else is advertising."

Probably true, but I intend to bicker.

Okay, I hadn't read this post before posting my last on, but clearly I'm going to disagree a little here. Question Authority is an American value to me, and I'm a right wing nut. I think of personal freedom as being libertarian, and of libertarians as being basically conservative.

So clearly there will be.

More importantly, I have to support what everyone seems to be asking for here, which is that we treat authoritarianism as perpendicular to the left right axis. I generally personally just think of it as a left wing thing. If the lefties don't want it, then we can probably actually come to agreement that none of us want it.

But this doesn't explain why college kids would support random left wing issues, like, say, opposition to privatization of social security.

Anyway, opinions always welcome. I think there may be a number of things that feed into it.

So here's the probably true. Your suggestion is part of the picture, but to it I would add this:

While either political perspective may feed that question authority angle, the left tends to so seeds of suspicion towards industry, the right would throw seeds of suspicion towards big govt. programs and spending.

There is a very clearly an angle the right could take in a university setting to feed off of the natural anti-establishment teen rebellion thing. The left clearly is doing a better job of doing so. I don't think that makes them any more correct, but it does make them more successful.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2005 6:46 PM

I tend to agree the media is left leaning but not as much as it used to. It seems to overly support Bush, but probably because Bush isn't very far right.

Also, and I hope this doesn't come out as anti-semitic because I don't intend that, but there is a strong zionist streak in the mainstream media, and so it is unlikely to oppose a president who strongly supports Israel.

Re: the French thing. I think the media doesn't really have a political point of view on it yet. No one has come up with a good political leverage viewpoint so it's been reduced to "random something happening in some other country" like the orange revolution in the ukraine, something of mild interest. Interest and spin will definitely pick up if the terrorists seize control of Paris office buildings.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 7, 2005 4:06 AM

Intifadah Spreads to Brussels and Berlin

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/

Quote:
The Muslim insurgency did not stop at the French borders. Last night five cars were torched in Berlin.

In Brussels five cars were destroyed by fire last night. The cars were in Sint-Gillis, one of Brussels’ Muslim quarters. Sint-Gillis is the area surrounding Brussels’

Soon Islamic leaders from The Muslim Brotherhood will step forward to negotiate a peace deal. The peace deal will include demands for Islamic autonomy in the Muslim ghettos and the freedom to install sharia law and a millet system.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 7, 2005 4:57 AM

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If it plays out as you say, that will be bad.

While I support the right of anyone to set up their own society with their own rules as long they aren't hurting anyone else, ie. the amish, whathaveyou, this doesn't fit that. The sharia is definitely going to harm people. First of all, other non-fundementalist muslims, and secondly, anyone who winds up there. Since we know bin laden is a racial purist, because he's basically said so many times, any society of arab immigrants he sets up is probably going to have laws regarding thing like interracial marriages, or relationships, not to mention bans on homosexuality, etc. So ultimately picture some french person of white and jewish extraction has a gay relationship with an arab (yeah, there are gay muslims, I have a friend who is one) anyway, you just know nothing good would happen to the frenchman.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 7, 2005 8:07 AM

CNN- US had a few clips of rioters shouting intifada type slogans, do the rioters really believe the slogans or are they just using them to scare the French mainstream population.

Will radical Islam be able to gain control of events in France and Europe? Time will tell.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 7, 2005 8:09 AM

You know, I have no doubt that you guys are very intelligent, probably even smarter than I am. But you're so focused on BinLadin and Fundamentalist Islam that you're ignoring the base causes of the problem. You've got so many 'facts' that you are ignoring basic human behavior. The base cause of the problem is this:

Quote:
working-class suburbs, peopled primarily by North African and West African immigrants and their French-born children. Unemployment in the neighborhoods is double and sometimes triple the 10 percent national average, while incomes are about 40 percent lower.

This is why Islamic Fundamentalism gets a hold on these people; it's the engine that drives rioting. Happy people don't get pulled into hard-line Islam (same with Xtianity; look at where fundie Xtians are concentrated in America - Impoverished, scientifically and industrially deficient states), neither do thinkers. I can't think of the last scientist I heard offer to blow something up for Jesus, but I hear people in trailer parks talking glass lots 7 days a week.

I can't buy into the 'lets wipe Islam off the face of the map' argument. That won't solve anything but set someone else up to be the least poor and the most downtrodden, and it will happen again in a century. We have to fix the root issues of poverty and ignorance, and the Muslim world will fix itself.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 7, 2005 8:34 AM

7%

I agree. I'm opposed to any kind of "war on islam." If the basis of your conflict is "destroy the enemy" you have no point for negotiation.

But...

And here's the but.

There is no solution for the socioeconomics of these people, as they are refugees in western europe. Western Europe by itself is an employment desert. It's almost a dysfunctional society. Having discussed this with a large number of western europeans, some of whom see this as a problem and some don't, I am somewhat aware of the nature of the situation. Western European society perpetuates itself on ownership. Because they own so many interests worldwide, and reap the benefits of those assets, they continue to be wealthy, taxed from those businesses then go into the coffers and drive the system. But objectively, there is fairly little in the way of western european native industry to support the overgrown social support system.

To add to this, the immigrant population is very weak on marketable skills, even if there were jobs to be filled. Lack of a strong competitive skill base coupled with the fact that the muslim immigrants own none of this "global ownership" society that keeps the nations of Western Europe running really puts them between a rock (not Iraq) and a hard place. It means that on balance, the muslims become part of the drain on the system which is feeding into its inevitable collapse, and everyone in western europe seems to see this, that it is headed for an inevitable collapse, economically, they become an anathema to the state.

It's really solutionless. It's not that the state could simply set up a welfare system to help them out of poverty, the states in question are on a collision course with bankrupcy as it is. I read recently that France and Germany will both be bankrupt by 2015, meaning they will no longer have enough revenue coming in to pay out the benefits that are already owed. With increasing immigrant populations who can't compete in the basically non-existant job market drawing in addition to an aging population, the tax base based on the world's highest taxes will no longer be able to support it, the end result does become inescapable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 7, 2005 8:42 AM

But the horse is already out of the barn. The French have ignored the social aspects of the cites' for 2 decades now. I can't change the fact that the people living in these - Clockwork Orange Dystopia ? are pissed off and want to burn and pillage.

I know it might appear that I dislike Muslims but the fact is I don't. I dislike radical Islam and the supression of free will that accompanies it.

I agree that i'm on the edge of information overload. I linked to alot of different sites because information can help each one of us arrive at better conclusions. I care more that everyone tries to be informed and less that they may agree with me. I'm just not going to bicker with people 3000k away from me.. theres no joy in it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 7, 2005 5:51 PM

Malbadlatin

It wasn't anything person, it's just if you read a lot of blogs, which I assume you do, you run into something like this a lot:

"We're fighting a war against Islam"

which becomes a rallying cry for a really bad idea. It's like what's bouncing around in the arab press "America needs to get the jews out of govt." What do they mean Arlen Spector? Russ Feingold? Norm Coleman? No, of course they don't. They might mean Joe Lieberman :) Nah, just kidding, I wouldn't mind seeing Joementum out of govt. myself, but seriously. They mean the neocons, and I kind of agree, but they didn't say that, and it leads people in the wrong direction.

Myself, I don't dislike Islam. I don't dislike radical Islam. I don't dislike Wahabism. I really don't. Everyone has the right, within reason, to a religious preference, and though Wahabism is extreme in many ways, I don't see why it, like the Amish and Mennonites in this area where I live, couldn't go off into little communities by themselves and do their own thing. I think that if people want to leave those societies, and no one is letting them, that's a problem, and if people are being killed that's a problem, but as long as people are free to leave, and free to live, there is not problem with people doing their own thing.

Mr. Osama Bin Laden I do have a problem with. He says that he wants to live his own lifestyle without interference, but I think that he's lying. I think he says that because it's what his people want, but I think that as long as we DO interfere, he is a hero, he is de facto the son of God, and he likes that. Just a little too much. Also he is bent on destroying the jews and their way of life, and the Americans and their way of life. If he wanted to stop the spread of Israel, that would be a different thing, but that's not what he wants. The way of life in the city not far from here (maybe 200mi) is capitalism, and Mr. Bin Laden has interfered in that way of life and will do so again.

Particularly I think that Bin Laden, and Al Qaeda are specifically stirring up trouble. I think that there may be a couple other players, but we're dealing with a small group of people who has a large amount of influence over a musch large group of people, Mullahs and what not, who in turn have a large amount of influence on a truly gigantic group of people, radical muslims.

But left to themselves, I think the vast majority of radical muslims would wall themselves off and live away from everyone else, like the Mennonites.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 5:00 PM

Lynch, yeah, not my claim. The man makes a compelling case. I didn't say I believed him. I was trying to illustrate where this idea could lead.

He actually sent me an email to that effect, complete with a story full of details. So there's no link for me to give you, but you can easily google this, since the idea has been posted on over a million sites, include several thousand that mention the man by name.

Morgan Reynolds is the name and he was Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term. Or so all these sources claim. I randomly ended on his page, which I'm sure can also be googled, and he had some rantings against the administration. I'm always interested in what republican's against Bush have to say, so I emailed him, and we corresponded on the subject, he told me his theories, which he said he has printed, so I'm sure they can be found.

This is a conspiracy theory, unlike accusations I would make, and it is far from proof. It does raise questions, including ones that maybe Mr. Reynolds didn't mean to raise, like for instance, the one which springs most clearly to my mind:

Do we have Al Qaeda operatives somewhere within our govt. possibly at moderately high levels. It could a state dept. staffer, or a CIA operative. Not saying an executive or deputy. Maybe just a desk clerk at the FBI with decent hacking skills. If this were to be the case it would:

a) It would explain some of the evidence that keeps coming up in these conspiracy theories.

b) It would be a very serious issue we would need to deal with.

I am by nature, somewhat paranoid. This is the sort of notion that would occur to me.

The idea occurs to me that you may be a mole. Perhaps for PNAC or some other neocon organization, or some descendent of a trotsky-socialist group. I like you, and agree with a lot of what you post. This doesn't mean that I'm sure you're not a mole. You may be a mole and I may like you anyway.

It occurs to me that Chavez is fronting for China, and may be planning to fund international terrorism in Central America to establish a new socialist bloc.

It occurs to me that Jeb Bush is also planning on funding international terrorism to a similar end, but in a pro-America rather than pro-China way, but still dangerous and not in favor of an objective free market and unfettered democracy.

I am naturally suspicious. I don't think by any means that Bush called Osama Bin Laden and said "hey, you want to fly planes into the buildings?" I am on the fence about whether or not those planes caused those building to collapse. My own number crunching backs up that of Mr. Reynolds. This, if true, means there were additional terrorists, or conceivably a US demolition team. Any of this would not implicate Cheney immediately and directly, and even if it did, it would be hard to prove.

But, if I were Cheney, and I knew my innocense as a fact, I would be incredibly paranoid that there might be an al qaeda operative somewhere in my govt. and open an investigation. I would also know that not doing so would lead people to suspect me.

Finally. Black people believe it. This bothers me. Some of them believe some things which aren't true, like twana brawley (sp?) and OJ's innocense. But they vote, and as long as they think Republicans intentionally knocked down the twin towers, the number of them that will vote for the elephant is going to come painfully close to zero.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 5:16 PM

RIVER6213

Small Wonder that The-Earth-That-Was became The-Earth-That-Was.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 7:48 AM

HKCAVALIER

Al Qaida is a conspiracy theory. Imagining that Bin Ladin has this kind of far reaching support and control suits his agenda very well; and the agenda of those in our government that want to maintain power over a fearful public. Did the cold war even happen for you guys? Same show, different cast. Hello, the U.S.S.R. had everything this Al Qaida conspiracy is today, plus they had real estate and the bomb. As long as we demonize Bin Ladin as the great enemy of America, he will be more than happy to play the role.

The rioters are French North Africans. This is about 200 years of colonialism. We in America tend not to have the slightest clue what colonialism means in Africa and the Middle East. This whole phenomenon, from the Iraq insurgence to the rioting in France, is a single entity, yes; not under the control of Bin Ladin, but determined by western imperial control of the indiginous populations of countries we choose not to accept as equals. Simply put, if you treat a man like a dog long enough, he will eventually bite you.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 2:41 PM