News Is Sarkozy addressing the ongoing violence in French suburbs effectively?

[Astronuc]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051107/ap_on_re_eu/france_rioting
Man Becomes First Killed in French Rioting

PARIS - A man who was beaten by an attacker while trying to extinguish a trash can fire during riots north of Paris has died of his injuries, becoming the first fatality since the urban unrest started 11 days ago, a police official said Monday. Youths overnight injured three dozen officers and burned more than 1,400 vehicles.

Apparent copycat attacks spread to other European cities for the first time, with five cars torched outside Brussels' main train station, police in the Belgian capital said.

Australia, Austria and Britain became the latest countries to advise their citizens to exercise care in France, joining the United States and Russia in warning tourists to stay away from violence-hit areas.

Alain Rahmouni, a national police spokesman, said the man who was beaten died at a hospital from injuries sustained in the attack, but he had no immediate details about the victim's age or his attacker.

The man was caught by surprise by an attacker after rushing out of his apartment building to put out the fire, Rahmouni said.

Clashes around France left 36 police injured, and vandals burned 1,408 vehicles overnight Sunday-Monday, setting a new high for overnight arson and violence since the rioting started Oct. 27, national police chief Michel Gaudin said.

The mayhem started as an outburst of anger in suburban Paris housing projects and has fanned out nationwide among disaffected youths, mostly of Muslim or African origin, to become France's worst civil unrest in over a decade.

Attacks overnight were reported in 274 towns and police made 395 arrests, Gaudin said.

 

[sid_galt]

That's disgusting!
And cars were burned in Berlin too now.
What do the right wingers on this board think: is this terrorism? Or a justified revolte against an evil socialist government? And if it's terrorism , which country should be invaded?

Neither. IMO, it is more like an unjustified revolt against an evil socialist government. Because a government is socialist doesn't mean that you riot in the streets destroying private property and attacking people.

Of course, the rioters most likely don't see it as a revolt against socialism. But socialism is the root cause.

 

[sid_galt]

The question is, if the police can't contain the violence in these suburbs, what happens if it reaches central Paris, which could feasibly be very soon?

It's not like the police cannot contain the violence. Just give shoot on sight orders and you won't see the rioters a 100 miles near Paris.

The other worry, for me, is that the same environment could easily spring up in the UK. It has a lower proportion of Arab immigrants and the New Labour government hasn't been quite right-wing enough to cause quite so much discontentment in the Muslim youth, but it is definitely there.

I hope you don't think that these riots are somehow the fault of rightwingers. Because its hard to imagine a government more socialist but not communist than the current French one.

We also have the same gang warfare that caused the zero tolerance approach in the French suburbs earlier this year which, I think, is the real reason for the exponential increase in rioting there.

Car burning and violence is a daily schedule in French suburbs. It's just that this time the police decided to intervene and the violence simply soared.

 

[Astronuc]

But socialism is the root cause.

That seems overly simplistic. How is socialism the cause.

IMO, the cause(s) are far more complex - what about corruption and racsim?

A point that has been made is that French government cannot keep statistics by race, so there is no way of telling how well or how poorly any racial group is doing. In theory, anyone with French citizenship is French - i.e. hypothetically there is not distinction based on race. Practically however, French society and Europe for that matter, and all nations of the world to various degrees, are divided by racial groups. Therein lies inherent conflict, particularly when one or more racial groups are less prosperous than neighboring groups.

If socialism has failed, it is failed to achieved 'equal' opportunity. But so-called 'capitalist' countries have also failed in this regard.

 

[sid_galt]

That seems overly simplistic. How is socialism the cause.

IMO, concretely speaking, it was the welfare state and the disastrous public housing projects coupled with a stifling of the economy through socialistic economic policies which caused this.

The welfare state did nothing but make the immigrants lazy and unwilling to work.

The public housing projects segregated the immigrant community from the rest of France and provided a way for the unproductive to survive. Had the system not been introduced, there wouldn't have been any segregation and only the productive and hard working would have stayed in France.

The socialist economic policies killed business and contributed to the unemployment.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

It's not like the police cannot contain the violence. Just give shoot on sight orders and you won't see the rioters a 100 miles near Paris.

They're not Brazilian, so there's no precedent. If this were possible, I can't see why it would not have been employed already under zero tolerance law enforcement, suggesting it is not an option, be it for legal or political reasons.

I hope you don't think that these riots are somehow the fault of rightwingers.

That isn't what I said. You need to read the words writ, not those emblazened on your inner eyelids after decades of propaganda. What I said was: I was concerned that this would be used by right-wing parties as means of either pressuring right-wing policies into legislation or gaining political power themselves, be it locally or nationally. Specifically I referred to white supremacist groups.

Because its hard to imagine a government more socialist but not communist than the current French one.

France is becomming increasingly right-wing, as is much of Old Europe.

Car burning and violence is a daily schedule in French suburbs. It's just that this time the police decided to intervene and the violence simply soared.

You make it sound like a traditional past-time. It's not - it's a recent phenomenon. It's all part of the same issue and, yes, the zero tolerance approach and the presence of riot police in the 25 selected suburbs caused the rioting to escalate.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

The public housing projects segregated the immigrant community from the rest of France and provided a way for the unproductive to survive.

Do you want the unproductive to die? Such as the disabled or the elderly? True enough about the public housing, I'd say, but...

The welfare state did nothing but make the immigrants lazy and unwilling to work.

... this is just nothing but right-wing, zenophobic nonsense. There are plenty of examples of immigrants exploiting the welfare system and, sure, laziness. But to suggest these people are lazy spongers is blindness. Why would they be malcontent if they were happy just to laze around living off the state? You have completely missed the crux of the problem.

Had the system not been introduced, there wouldn't have been any segregation and only the productive and hard working would have stayed in France.

Or likewise had a better system been introduced.

 

[Astronuc]

The socialist economic policies killed business and contributed to the unemployment.

And under laissez-faire 'capitalism, many people lived in deplorable conditions. Just look at England or the US in the 1500's, 1600's, 1700's, 1800's and early 1900's.

Look at the writings of Charles Dickens, Upton Sinclair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair) or Ida Tarbell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_Tarbell) .

Now granted, socialism as manifested in the 'welfare state' has generally failed, but that is more a failure of implementation than of concept.

 

[sid_galt]

They're not Brazilian, so there's no precedent.

What do you mean?

If this were possible, I can't see why it would not have been employed already under zero tolerance law enforcement, suggesting it is not an option, be it for legal or political reasons.

I don't know about the legal reasons but I do know that the approach will work.

That isn't what I said. You need to read the words writ, not those emblazened on your inner eyelids after decades of propaganda.

You said that the Labor government hasn't been right wing enough to cause discontent implying that discontent is the fault of the right wing.

You make it sound like a traditional past-time. It's not - it's a recent phenomenon. It's all part of the same issue and, yes, the zero tolerance approach and the presence of riot police in the 25 selected suburbs caused the rioting to escalate.

It may be a phenomenon just 5-10 years old, but it has become a pass-time now.

 

[sid_galt]

And under laissez-faire 'capitalism, many people lived in deplorable conditions. Just look at England or the US in the 1500's, 1600's, 1700's, 1800's and early 1900's.

1. Yes they did. But in comparision to their previous lifestyles, they lived in a much better condition.
2. By capitalism I mean a system which recognized individual rights which only nearly existed in the late 18th and the 19th century - the time when the standard of living rose at an unprecedented scale. In all other eras, there have been a large number of controls by the state.
3. Capitalism is brilliant but it is not magic. You can't implement it in a poverty ridden world and expect it to solve the entire poverty problem in just a 100 years. No system in the world can do that.

Now granted, socialism as manifested in the 'welfare state' has generally failed, but that is more a failure of implementation than of concept.

1. It has always failed.

2. It is not a failure of implementation, it is a failure of concept.
Just like you can't continuously perform blood transfusion from a healthy being into a dead man and expect the healthy being to remain healthy forever, you can't expropriate the hard earned of the productive, give it to the good-for-nothings and expect to remain unscathed.

A welfare state punishes the productive for being productive and rewards the unproductive for being unproductive. This concept is an antipodal to justice. It is fundamentally unjust. If you implement it anywhere, it will fail.

 

[sid_galt]

Do you want the unproductive to die? Such as the disabled or the elderly?

Now where did I say I want the unproductive to die? I just want that the unproductive shouldn't live of the productive without the latter's consent.

But to suggest these people are lazy spongers is blindness. Why would they be malcontent if they were happy just to laze around living off the state?

Because an empty mind is home for the devil.

No one can actually be happy doing nothing and being a parasite. The welfare recipients don't realize that.

 

[Astronuc]

A welfare state punishes the productive for being productive and rewards the unproductive for being unproductive. This concept is an antipodal to justice. It is fundamentally unjust. If you implement it anywhere, it will fail.

Yes, I agree with this statement for the most part.

The discussion on socioeconomic systems really belongs in another thread. Evo already moved alexandra's and loseyourname's discussion on capitalism to a thread with that name.

Having said that - I think such a discussion needs to reflect on human history of the last 500 or 1000 years, where many societies transitioned from imperial governance to civil governance - some going more in the capitalist direction and others going the more socialist/communist direction - and I think the one must consider did and did not work in all systems. Proponents of one direction must be ready to concede that that system is not flawless, and in fact all socioeconomic systems seems to be seriously (well that could be subjective) flawed (that needs to be quantified).

Basically, in Europe and in the world in general, modern conflicts among nations and ethnic groups are deeply rooted, and the world needs some extraordinary leaders to avoid further deterioration. Frankly, I don't see any extraordinary leaders among the nations' leaders at the moment.

 

[Informal Logic]

The mayhem started as an outburst of anger in suburban Paris housing projects and has fanned out nationwide among disaffected youths, mostly of Muslim or African origin, to become France’s worst civil unrest in more than a decade.

President Jacques Chirac …acknowledged that France has failed to integrate the French-born children of Arab and black African immigrants in poor suburbs, according to Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga, who met Monday with the French leader.

She said Chirac “deplored the fact that in these neighborhoods there is a ghettoization of youths of African or North African origin” and recognized “the incapacity of French society to fully accept them.”

Chirac said unemployment runs as high as 40 percent in some suburban neighborhoods, four times the national rate of just under 10 percent, Vike-Freiberga said.

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

This all got started with immigration to meet demand for cheap labor, not socialism. The US might watch and learn.

 

[nrolland]

If socialism has failed, it is failed to achieved 'equal' opportunity. But so-called 'capitalist' countries have also failed in this regard.

Socialism has failed because it is unrealistic to rely on people taking care of other people's interest as well as their own.

In france, it has not failed, it adopted a strategy of immigration to increase its electoral base and that was a good strategy for him.

It allowed
.to divide the right between the extrem right and the right
.it provided with long terms electors with the higher birth rate of the immigrant population, who are massively left
.and it helped to maintain poverty which is the necessary ground to explain its thesis


The official thesis for immigration evolved among the socialists from :

.Immigrants will have no difference with the french with time (the "integration" phase)

Even after fighting hard people who did not think that, by numerous association (MRAP, 'Touche pas à mon pote', LDH, etc,..) it was clear that this would not happen, so they change to phase 2

.Immigrants are different but it is good (the "diversity" phase)

Here again, they fought a lot people who dared thinking otherwise, and in the meantime the tap was on, with massive immigration going on.
For instance when the jews were being beaten, socialist had a very hard time admitting it was immigrants doing this, because it was contradicting the line of the party presented above. In the sametime, a few sordid stories of french being beaten to death for nothing came out.
This old guy Paul, retired and poor, got beaten and his house burned down days before the presidential campaign.
A woman called "supermamy" in her neighborhod had her throat slitted.
(that is just 2 I remember right now form that period)
Of course the politbureau attacked Paul for being an extreme right etc...


But the official line was undefendable when the word "insecurité" became the periphrase for the threat coming from the banlieue. Which lead to the 3rd phase.



.There are some problems in the banlieues and it was forecastable


This thema was brilliant as it enables to collect the support from the ex communists movements who were orphaned since the disclosure of the immensity of the disaster they supported. The new exploited was the immigrant, which enabled to federate the left, and strategically profit of the demography dynamic.

It fully adheres to the third world rethoric to say that french spoiled those people, parked them in towers, while they used them during the properous years, and they let them do the "dirty works".

Of course it disregards that those towers are being payed and given by the french, that there is no obligation of residency there, that mass immigration started well after the prosperous period, that other country with no immigration also had those years, and that they too have roads, that many french workers would be happy to build roads if that was not for african salaries and thousands of people lining up at 5am to find a job for the day, that no one invited the immigrants to come, that if they travel one way, they are also free to travel another way, etc...


So the good news is that everyone agrees on the conclusion :
.There are some problems and it was forecastable

Now of course the left attributes this fault to french, while the right, well, it was always their forecast.

Now the open questions are :
.What will be the next theory?
.Will it come with troubles?

 

[edward]

All French-born children of Arab and black African immigrants, this group of a dozen or so teens at Les Tilleuls housing project north of Paris complained of being marginalized by French society.

Years ago, France welcomed their parents as labor, often to do menial jobs most French did not want, they noted. And now, there are no jobs - or no one willing to give them one, they said.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/89-11072005-566597.html

Allowing millions of people of a different culture into the country, just for the purpose of obtaining cheap labor, was apparently not a wise idea.

 

[vanesch]

.it provided with long terms electors with the higher birth rate of the immigrant population, who are massively left

Bzzzt. Error. Many of those vote - paradoxically - extreme right.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Now where did I say I want the unproductive to die? I just want that the unproductive shouldn't live of the productive without the latter's consent.

Well, if only the productive may live there, what will the unproductive do there? Die?

Because an empty mind is home for the devil.

Ah. Religion. Explains a lot.

No one can actually be happy doing nothing and being a parasite. The welfare recipients don't realize that.

So welfare recipients are parasites..? That's what you're saying?

 

[Zlex]

The ingrates; after all that headlong appeasement.

...after all that socialist state nirvana.

..after all ..er... Oil For Food scammin' compassion.

Now, whoda ever thunk it, as they stare into their Capuccinos and munch their Toblerones? Where oh where did they go wrong, and who could have possibly seen this coming?

The People's States of Europe (France, Belgium, Germany) better start blaming Bush, capitalism, Big Oil, the WTO/World Bank, for this, and fast...while the pointless blaming is good.

Let's see them try to 'Third Way' themselves('Dites seulement l''Non!', s'il vous plait!') out of this one.

Last one out of town, turn off the lights on the Champs Elysees.

Meanwhile, we and ours are stuffing the last pastries into our own mouths, denying at all costs the fact that a world war started years ago. Mr. 'Mo' is on their side, because half of us are still singing Kumbaya and/or thinking they'll be able to ride this tiger to some political advantage.

Oh, it's just a little class warfare/crime wave. Wrong. It's the next test. Does Modernity have the spine to defend itself, and is there anything of either substance or principle standing in the way of restoring the Caliphate? Words, wishes & intentions are not nearly about to stop anything.

France; failing, being pressed to demonstrate where the 'stops' are, in denial the whole way.

Spain: rewarded for its failure, declared ripe for the taking.

 

[Skyhunter]

Nice sentiments Zlex.

I don't remember the French saying such "nice" things about the US after 9/11.

 

[sid_galt]

Well, if only the productive may live there, what will the unproductive do there? Die?

If they don't work they'll die, yes.

Ah. Religion. Explains a lot.

That's just a saying which I quoted because it was relevant to the topic. Personally, I am an atheist.

So welfare recipients are parasites..? That's what you're saying?

Those who expect to be fed by other people while they themselves laze around, yes, they are parasites. I would guess this makes up the majority of the welfare recipients.

I wouldn't condemn anyone on welfare if for instance its a choice between life and death or if the person has already payed for it before in the form of taxes.

 

[TRCSF]

Nice sentiments Zlex.
I don't remember the French saying such "nice" things about the US after 9/11.

Then you don't remember the whole 911 thing very well. The French were, as with most of the rest of the world, very sympathetic to the US. They were the hallmark of foreign sympathy to the US, it was the leading French paper that ran the oft-quoted headline "We Are All Americans Now."

It was after the right wing media attack towards the French for being right about Iraq that things started heading south.

 

[TRCSF]

Ever heard of 40 cars being burnt every night in America, Britain, Germany?

In France the cars are being burnt in a political riot. Once things calm down the rioters will go back to being decent, law abiding citizens.

America, on the other hand, will remain a far more violent and criminal country. The murder rate, for example, is twice as high in the U.S.

 

[TRCSF]

Those who expect to be fed by other people while they themselves laze around, yes, they are parasites. I would guess this makes up the majority of the welfare recipients.
I wouldn't condemn anyone on welfare if for instance its a choice between life and death or if the person has already payed for it before in the form of taxes.

But the rioters are angry because they want to work, and they're not being allowed to due to discrimination.

 

[deckart]

So welfare recipients are parasites..? That's what you're saying?

They sure can be. I once was a recipient and lived among a community of welfare recipients. Most were content to sit on their butt’s and do nothing on the tax-payers dime. It’s not so much that they are parasites but that the system gives them incentive to become parasites. It’s human nature to follow the path of least resistance. Welfare is a necessity in emergency situations but should not be a lifestyle.

 

[sid_galt]

In France the cars are being burnt in a political riot. Once things calm down the rioters will go back to being decent, law abiding citizens.

Actually according to the Guardian, thousands of cars are burnt regularly each month without riots in the suburbs.

The International Herald Tribune also had a quote from the French Interior Minister who said that 20-40 cars are burnt regularly in the suburbs. Many here doubt about the authenticity of the quote. Personally, I believe its genuine. Violence in French suburbs is a documented fact.

 

[sid_galt]

But the rioters are angry because they want to work, and they're not being allowed to due to discrimination.

1. A person who wants to work will not go around destroying property. Thats a job for gangsters.

2. I don't know how much discrimination exists in France no matter what Villepin says. Segregation is definitely there.

 

[TRCSF]

1. A person who wants to work will not go around destroying property. Thats a job for gangsters.
2. I don't know how much discrimination exists in France no matter what Villepin says. Segregation is definitely there.

1. The people who are actually rioting disagree with you.

2. Discrimination is widespread. That's why there's the segregation.

 

[SOS2008]

..after all ..er... Oil For Food scammin' compassion..

Check out post #26 in the impeachment thread--good old Halliburton and Bush and his administration's wonderful management of Iraq.

(I now realize why people dislike intellectuals--especially those who love to listen to themselves.)

They sure can be. I once was a recipient and lived among a community of welfare recipients. Most were content to sit on their butt’s and do nothing on the tax-payers dime. It’s not so much that they are parasites but that the system gives them incentive to become parasites. It’s human nature to follow the path of least resistance. Welfare is a necessity in emergency situations but should not be a lifestyle.

We discussed this before in another section of PF, and I agree with you on this one deckart.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I keep reading that it is all the "youngsters" rioting - is this because young men (not women I assume) are more likely to riot, or because they are the ones out of work? Do the older citizens support this, or have they accepted their fate in such a crappy system?
I'm inclined to believe a little bit of both.

Here's what I found from a quick search (obviously a theory based on "race"/melanin count and national identity, but I do think that young men are the most violent and reckless group naturally).

http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/content/2003-03/14hendrixson.cfm"

The correlation that the media makes between young men and violent uprisings popularizes the "youth bulge" concept. This concept identifies young men as a historically volatile population. It explores the idea that the presence of more than twenty percent of young people in the population signals the possibility of political rebellion and unrest. The concept specifically equates large percentages of young men with an increased possibility of violence, particularly in the global South where analysts argue that governments may not have the capacity to support them.

Historically, the United States has viewed youth in the South as a threat to national security. After World War II, when overall perceptions about population growth were beginning to shift, U.S. military analysts and academics began to define the growing number of youth in the South as a problem. This fear of youth in the South coincided with growing U.S. interest in access to raw materials to supply industry.

For the U.S., this access depended on good relationships with Southern governments. However, at the time anti-colonial nationalism was on the rise, and U.S. interests were threatened by this trend. Betsy Hartmann, author of Reproductive Rights and Wrongs, notes:

The success of the Chinese Revolution, Indian and Indonesian nonalignment, independence movements in Africa, economic nationalism in Latin America-all these contributed to growing U.S. fears of the Third World. Population growth, rather than centuries of colonial domination, was believed to fuel nationalist fires, especially given the increasing proportion of youth.

Though political trends have shifted since that time, U.S. military analysts have continued to characterize youth as a threat and have created "appropriate" defense policy in response. Personified as a discontented, rebellious teenage boy, almost always a person of color, the youth bulge is portrayed as an unpredictable, out-of-control force in the South with the potential to catalyze uncontainable conflicts that may spill over into neighboring countries and even other areas of the world, including the U.S.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Also from that site:

Christian Mesquida and Neil Weiner, researchers at York University, go so far as to suggest this violence is biologically determined. Weiner contends that, "human (especially young male) tendencies to engage in coalitional aggression must be an advantageous trait; if not, natural selection would have ensured the trait's extinction by now."

I think for these riots, it is probably more culture and social situation, but we do see that it is the young men that are at the forefront when given a chance.

 

[devil-fire]

does anyone think this will be a catalist for postive change? surely with the amount of attention all the damage is drawing, the problem will no longer be ignored.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I think it takes more than direct, even embarrassing, attention to change something so deeply rooted in a society. Even in India, where the caste system has been outlawed and "frowned upon" by the West, it still continues. It is the mind colonization that you have to work on, the laws will be a byproduct of this rather than a successful way to change the perspective. Things like this operate on multiple sites - hence it takes much effort to change.

 

[loseyourname]

I keep reading that it is all the "youngsters" rioting - is this because young men (not women I assume) are more likely to riot, or because they are the ones out of work? Do the older citizens support this, or have they accepted their fate in such a crappy system?

According to the statistics presented in some of the papers and websites I looked over back when I was trying to get at the causes of high unemployment in France, it seemed to be the case that they had very good job security, but it was difficult to get a job in the first place, and difficult to get a new job once you've lost one. Most of the unemployed were young people, so it makes sense that they would be the ones rioting.

 

[loseyourname]

I think it takes more than direct, even embarrassing, attention to change something so deeply rooted in a society.

How deeply rooted do you think it is? As far as I can remember (of course, I've only looked over the history once), they've only had these laws and this unemployment problem for about twenty years or so.

Or are you referring to the discrimination against immigrant populations?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

If they don't work they'll die, yes.

And that's what you want?

Those who expect to be fed by other people while they themselves laze around, yes, they are parasites. I would guess this makes up the majority of the welfare recipients.
I wouldn't condemn anyone on welfare if for instance its a choice between life and death or if the person has already payed for it before in the form of taxes.

The vast majority of people on welfare do so because they cannot work. Whereas you seem to think they should work or die, we have a less barbaric attitude towards human life. In the case of immigration, I don't know how it works in France, but in the UK you cannot work for the first 6 months following your application. The recipient has no choice but to receive benefits. This is what you refer to as 'laziness' I guess.

It is true that such a system is frequently exploited, which is why the government should continually improve such a system to ensure that it is not. However this is an issue of how the system is implemented, not the system itself.

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that most people are on welfare because they are too lazy to work, or are you just spouting knee-jerk, callous nonsense?

They sure can be. I once was a recipient and lived among a community of welfare recipients. Most were content to sit on their butt’s and do nothing on the tax-payers dime. It’s not so much that they are parasites but that the system gives them incentive to become parasites. It’s human nature to follow the path of least resistance. Welfare is a necessity in emergency situations but should not be a lifestyle.

That wasn't the question.

I keep reading that it is all the "youngsters" rioting

It's not just youngsters. If you look at some of the footage you'll see normal men and women setting cars and bins ablaze. However, I think much of the worst attrocities, such as the man beaten to death for trying to extinguish a fire outside his house, and the disabled woman set on fire, are the work of kids.

 

[Astronuc]

A slightly different perspective from a conservative friend who is pro-Israel:

French solution: Paristinian state - http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47285
by Joseph Farrah

It's clear France is no longer in control of its population.

It's clear millions within its borders are struggling for freedom and independence.

It's clear that these people are not rioting for the sake of rioting, they are responding to oppression from French authorities.

It's clear that their uprising cannot be met with state violence, because that would only lead to a cycle of violence.

It's clear that these freedom-fighters – whom I have dubbed "Paristinians" – want a state of their own.

. . . .
As I mentioned yesterday in my column, if France has these kinds of systemic problems with its Muslim population, then it is time to partition France. It's time for an independent Muslim state to be created. After all, isn't that what France and other European nations have determined is the proper solution for Israel?

The major difference between the situations in France and Israel would be that many Palestinians were expelled from what is now Israel, while the violence in France arises from an immigrant population.

The solution in France and Europe is to stop the descrimination and segregation - not that it is necessarily easy.

How to have two perspectivly (not perceptively or perceptibly) different cultures coexist peacefully? Hmmm.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I think it's a somewhat extreme view to say these people are fighting to create their own state. There's no suggestion of that, that I have seen anyway. I think we're just looking at a part of the country the state thought of as an oubliette that they're now they're being very rudely reminded of. People who have never had the benefit of law and regulation, but are of late the focus of it. But whether they arrived at this action independantly through desperation, or whether their desperation has made them open to such action provoked from outside... I don't know.

Still... whatever the reason... burning disabled women and beating someone to death for trying to extinguish a fire doesn't make a sympathetic case. If the French can't handle it, they should ask for help. Like that would ever happen.

 

[Astronuc]

I think it's a somewhat extreme view to say these people are fighting to create their own state. There's no suggestion of that, that I have seen anyway. I think we're just looking at a part of the country the state thought of as an oubliette that they're now they're being very rudely reminded of. People who have never had the benefit of law and regulation, but are of late the focus of it. But whether they arrived at this action independantly through desperation, or whether their desperation has made them open to such action provoked from outside... I don't know.

That is correct. The article I cited is sarcastic. The the writer and others who are sympathetic, the proverbial shoe is on the other foot with respect to France.

I do see the violence as an outcome of frustration - much like the riots in the US during the summer of 1968 when African Americans reacted to the assassination of Martin Luther King and the general racist environment in the US at the time.

However, the use of violence, the injury or killing of innocent people, is fundamentally wrong and counter-productive.

 

[Art]

A slightly different perspective from a conservative friend who is pro-Israel:
French solution: Paristinian state - http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47285
by Joseph Farrah
The major difference between the situations in France and Israel would be that many Palestinians were expelled from what is now Israel, while the violence in France arises from an immigrant population.
The solution in France and Europe is to stop the descrimination and segregation - not that it is necessarily easy.
How to have two perspectivly (not perceptively or perceptibly) different cultures coexist peacefully? Hmmm.

He forgot to mention the holocaust in that article.

Mind you his complete and total misunderstanding of the situation goes someway to explain why Israel has so many problem's with it's neighbours. They really need to discard that victim mentality they like to revel in.

 

[Skyhunter]

Then you don't remember the whole 911 thing very well. The French were, as with most of the rest of the world, very sympathetic to the US. They were the hallmark of foreign sympathy to the US, it was the leading French paper that ran the oft-quoted headline "We Are All Americans Now."
It was after the right wing media attack towards the French for being right about Iraq that things started heading south.

Sorry I forgot to add the [sarcasm] brackets.

 

[deckart]

That wasn't the question.

It may very well be part of the answer.

 

[Informal Logic]

Above I posted the issue of immigration to meet demands for cheap labor, and the similarity to the current explosion of immigration into the US (though mostly illegal, and the French are probably less accepting than Americans). I made that point, and add the information below because IMO these problems can arise for reasons not related to a particular race, but rather a matter of a foreign culture into another and inevitable assimilation problems. It brought to mind other times of US history:

Once Africans were captured and brought across the Atlantic on the horrific Middle Passage, they were put into slavery in South America, the Caribbean, or the United States. By the late eighteenth century, a growing number of people in the United States began to express uneasiness with the slave system. George Washington, the nation's first President, freed his slaves upon his death in 1799. Others did the same, and the number of free blacks in America began to rise sharply in many areas during the nineteenth century. At the same time, abolitionist groups that demanded the emancipation of all slaves rose in strength.

From this climate was born the idea of colonization, which proposed sending blacks, free and slave, back to Africa. The plan was supported by many of America's most prominent citizens, and by 1817 the movement began officially with the founding of the American Colonization Society. Sending their first blacks to Africa in 1820, the effort faltered at first due to its failure to find suitable territory on which to settle. The problem was solved, however, after the U.S. was able to acquire a large portion of land on the west coast of the continent. Liberia was created from this early settlement, and later became an independent country. Colonization continued sporadically for the next few decades, but support was inconsistent. The Civil War, and the emancipation that came with it, basically brought an end to the era of colonization in the United States.

http://beatl.barnard.columbia.edu/students/his3487/lembrich/seminar6.html

...I think we're just looking at a part of the country the state thought of as an oubliette that they're now they're being very rudely reminded of. People who have never had the benefit of law and regulation, but are of late the focus of it. But whether they arrived at this action independantly through desperation, or whether their desperation has made them open to such action provoked from outside... I don't know.

Still... whatever the reason... burning disabled women and beating someone to death for trying to extinguish a fire doesn't make a sympathetic case...

I believe there was another “Back To Africa” movement in which many African Americans went back to Africa of their own choosing, though mostly unsuccessful as they found life there to be even more undesirable than as a minority in the US. It makes me wonder if these citizens of immigrant ancestry have stopped to consider the alternatives and reflect upon their own efforts toward assimilation. Certainly it is not accomplished through destruction of property or risk to life.

Mind you his complete and total misunderstanding of the situation goes someway to explain why Israel has so many problem's with it's neighbours.

I also wonder how the Israeli’s would feel if another Arab state was created like Liberia…and like Israel?

 

[Zlex]

Check out post #26 in the impeachment thread--good old Halliburton and Bush and his administration's wonderful management of Iraq.
(I now realize why people dislike intellectuals--especially those who love to listen to themselves.)
We discussed this before in another section of PF, and I agree with you on this one deckart.

'Dites seulement l''Non!', s'il vous plait!

Belgium, of all places. Gee, who was the first to lead the *****ing up in Rwanda, turning over their unfired automatic weapons to random thugs on behalf of the West before being tortured and brutally murdered?

I'm willing to bet the Enlightened Intellectuals award Kofi another Noble Peace Prize for handling this one, but he's going to have to break his '800,000 corpses' record this time.

I wonder what the Las Vegas odds are on that one? I don't think they actually take bets on sure things.


The European Riots will stop

a] ...when the rioters find the stops.

b] ...when the rioters get tired of finding that there are no stops.

c] ...temporarily, when the rioters agree to allow UN Peacekeepers to show up and defend themselves, just so they can torment them by immediately booting them out of Europe? (But...where will the Belgians run this time?)

d] ...when they are shamed by armies of ... BigHeadedPuppeteers?

e] ...when McDonald's serves them all the free veggieburgers they can carry away?

f] ...when the US leaves Iraq?

g] ...when the Jews are finally wiped off the face of the earth?

h]... when the Dems retake control of the DoD? Wait a minute, that was a repeat of g] sorry.

i]... when they finally receive some understanding?

j]... when Hell freezes over?

k]...when Joan Baez sings at them?

l]...when Jane Fonda poses on a burned out Citroen and gives them a big thumbs up?

Who knows? We're still in the 'racism and poverty' spraytpainting of kids in Polo shirts part of the festivities.

 

[SOS2008]

'Dites seulement l''Non!', s'il vous plait!
Belgium, of all places. Gee, who was the first to lead the *****ing up in Rwanda, turning over their unfired automatic weapons to random thugs on behalf of the West before being tortured and brutally murdered?
I'm willing to bet the Enlightened Intellectuals award Kofi another Noble Peace Prize for handling this one, but he's going to have to break his '800,000 corpses' record this time.
I wonder what the Las Vegas odds are on that one? I don't think they actually take bets on sure things.
The European Riots will stop
a] ...when the rioters find the stops.
b] ...when the rioters get tired of finding that there are no stops.
c] ...temporarily, when the rioters agree to allow UN Peacekeepers to show up and defend themselves, just so they can torment them by immediately booting them out of Europe? (But...where will the Belgians run this time?)
d] ...when they are shamed by armies of ... BigHeadedPuppeteers?
e] ...when McDonald's serves them all the free veggieburgers they can carry away?
f] ...when the US leaves Iraq?
g] ...when the Jews are finally wiped off the face of the earth?
h]... when the Dems retake control of the DoD? Wait a minute, that was a repeat of g] sorry.
i]... when they finally receive some understanding?
j]... when Hell freezes over?
k]...when Joan Baez sings at them?
l]...when Jane Fonda poses on a burned out Citroen and gives them a big thumbs up?
Who knows? We're still in the 'racism and poverty' spraytpainting of kids in Polo shirts part of the festivities.

My French is rusty, but I did enjoy the humor in your post. Joan Baez…you want to talk about torture, Limp Bizkit doesn’t come close.

 

[Mercator]

My French is rusty, but I did enjoy the humor in your post. Joan Baez…you want to talk about torture, Limp Bizkit doesn’t come close.

Nice to see that somebody knows what he is talking about. Another flaw in the intelligent design if you ask me.

 

[SOS2008]

Nice to see that somebody knows what he is talking about. Another flaw in the intelligent design if you ask me.

Oh, I thought it was entertainment.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

It may very well be part of the answer.

Yes, to a different question.

I believe there was another “Back To Africa” movement in which many African Americans went back to Africa of their own choosing, though mostly unsuccessful as they found life there to be even more undesirable than as a minority in the US. It makes me wonder if these citizens of immigrant ancestry have stopped to consider the alternatives and reflect upon their own efforts toward assimilation. Certainly it is not accomplished through destruction of property or risk to life.

I really hope this isn't a "they should be happy they're not in Afghanistan" argument. That somewhere in Africa was worse than living as a minority in the US does not justify oppression and racism in the US, and it is not easy to make an effort towards assimilation when the would-be assimilators don't want you.

 

[Informal Logic]

I really hope this isn't a "they should be happy they're not in Afghanistan" argument. That somewhere in Africa was worse than living as a minority in the US does not justify oppression and racism in the US, and it is not easy to make an effort towards assimilation when the would-be assimilators don't want you.

No, I do not propose that argument. I assume the immigrants entered France legally. If so, there is obligation on Frances part to help them assimilate. At the same time immigrants are responsible for assimilation into the host country as well. Often minorities set themselves apart. People want to immigrate where life is better, but you do not show up on someone’s doorstep and make demands that they change their home to your liking. For example, learning the national language, abiding by laws, etc.

 

[Anttech]

No, I do not propose that argument. I assume the immigrants entered France legally. If so, there is obligation on Frances part to help them assimilate. At the same time immigrants are responsible for assimilation into the host country as well. Often minorities set themselves apart. People want to immigrate where life is better, but you do not show up on someone’s doorstep and make demands that they change their home to your liking. For example, learning the national language, abiding by laws, etc.

actually I'll bet that these people are 2nd 3rd generation Immigrants... Ill have a look to see if i can back this up with some links

 

[Informal Logic]

actually I'll bet that these people are 2nd 3rd generation Immigrants... Ill have a look to see if i can back this up with some links

I believe these are second and third generation, and that Germany had similar immigration but to what extent I cannot recall. I admit that since I do not live in France, I am viewing the topic more generally. In reference to the US, I will try to find transcripts for a recent review of black culture and how it hurts performance of high school students, for example. More recently there is the matter of sudden increase in the Hispanic population and demands to speak Spanish in business, etc., which has caused resentment by other Americans. It just seems both parties need to make an effort toward improvement of conditions.