NationStates Jolt Archive

Just wanted to know when you guys think france will surrender to the rioters. "Surrender" being defined as giving concessions to the rioters such as, "positive discrimination" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) or giving the muslim areas political autonomy (please don't pretend the rioters are not muslim).

They'll be really ruthless...like they were with Hitler. Why is there a lack of "no" optioning? We can think that they won't surrender.

Just wanted to know when you guys think france will surrender to the rioters. "Surrender" being defined as giving concessions to the rioters such as, "positive discrimination" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) or giving the muslim areas political autonomy (please don't pretend the rioters are not muslim).

So what would be not surrendering? Killing the them all?

Let me guess: you are an american :)

They'll be really ruthless...like they were with Hitler. Why is there a lack of "no" optioning? We can think that they won't surrender.

Well this is clearly a trollish thread, so thats why there is no 'other' option.

They'll be really ruthless...like they were with Hitler. Why is there a lack of "no" optioning? We can think that they won't surrender.
Yeah, I really get the feeling that the french police have more access to supplies than the rioters so they could kee fighting them for longer than the rioters could keep rioting.

You don't like the French, do you?

I don't know what you mean with "positive discrimination", but I think it's highly unlikey that France will grant them political autonomy - and I was unaware that the rioters postulated something like this.

Anyone watch Stephen Colbert's show on comedy central?
He was talking about this the other night.. Since both sides are French, he was wanting to know who would surrender first.. It was hillarious.

They'll be really ruthless...like they were with Hitler. Why is there a lack of "no" optioning? We can think that they won't surrender.

There is a lack of "no" because this thread is meant to be funny (if not sarcastic), but not serious. And to the other poster, if this happened in the US (yes, I'm American :) ) we would've put this down in hours with tear gas, fire hoses, and, if we had to, rubber bullets. If all that failed, though, we would absolutely send SWAT in and kill the troublemakers (that is, anyone we thought was giving orders)

Anyone watch Stephen Colbert's show on comedy central?
He was talking about this the other night.. Since both sides are French, he was wanting to know who would surrender first.. It was hillarious.
That sounds funny, but it reminds me of Chapelles race draft scene.

"And the Chinese have chosen...the Wu Tang Clan!" Lots of Laughs.

You don't like the French, do you?

I don't know what you mean with "positive discrimination", but I think it's highly unlikey that France will grant them political autonomy - and I was unaware that the rioters postulated something like this.

Positive discrimination is the French word (or words?) for Affirmative Action in the US. Of course you are from Germany so I don't know if that helps or not.

Positive discrimination is the French word (or words?) for Affirmative Action in the US. Of course you are from Germany so I don't know if that helps or not.
Actually, he could be French, and in Germany. Its just his location.

And I took this thread way to seriously, I didn't notice any sarcasm, but I'm like that sometimes.

Maybe my original post was too serious, but I had thought the poll itself would cover my back.

Positive discrimination is the French word (or words?) for Affirmative Action in the US. Of course you are from Germany so I don't know if that helps or not.

I suspected something like this. Thanks for clearing that up.

Maybe you should use some of smileys next time to show that you are being sarcastic. There are several posters on this board who would come up with a thread like this and mean it. :rolleyes:

I can't be the only one around here who sees some eerie parallels between this violence and the rioting in the US during the civil rights era, right? Including the OP's presumably sarcastic suggestion of tactics on how to handle the situation.

And by the way, poll or not, that thread title is trollish, no question.

(This is a serious post)i can see your point, but the comparisons stop at the spirit behind the riots. (i suppose your talking about the Rodney King or whatever his name was) the blacks in the US wanted equality, while the Muslims in France want to be completely segregated. Also, if someone could clarify the meaning of trollish i'd be grateful(the joys of being on an international forum):)

I find it fascinating that the immigrants WANT to be left alone and WANT to live separately and DON'T want to "be French".

Evidently, the huge housing projects they live in were largely designed and built in the 1970s, and are very much like the failed housing projects the US built in the 1960s and tore down en masse in the mid-1990s.

1. This isn't a problem that will be solved overnight. It will probably take decades.
2. This isn't like the US problem - the blacks and poor in the US want what everyone else has, and they would rather not have to live confined to specific areas (in fact, a lot of US law and regulation has been passed over the past few decades to prevent segregation). And, in the US, we are a multicultural society by tradition.
3. The immigrants in France want their own areas - and they don't want to assimilate. But they still want jobs. And the typical remarks I've heard from French politicians is that the French do not want a multicultural society - they want a French society. One even said, "a multicultural society would be a disaster".

(This is a serious post)i can see your point, but the comparisons stop at the spirit behind the riots. (i suppose your talking about the Rodney King or whatever his name was) the blacks in the US wanted equality, while the Muslims in France want to be completely segregated. Also, if someone could clarify the meaning of trollish i'd be grateful(the joys of being on an international forum):)

Trollish = acting like a troll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll).

For more than a week, France has been torn by riots that have been, for the most part, concentrated in the poorer suburbs of Paris. The rioters essentially have been immigrants -- or the children or grandchildren of immigrants -- most of whom had come to France from its former colonies. They are, in many cases, French citizens by right of empire. But what is not clear is whether they ever became, in the fullest sense of the word, French.

And in that question rests an issue that could define European -- and world -- history in the 21st century.

Every country has, from time to time, social unrest. This unrest frequently becomes violent, but that is not necessarily defining. The student uprisings around the world in the 1960s had, in retrospect, little lasting significance, whereas the riots by black Americans during the same period were of enormous importance -- symptomatic of a profound tension within American society. The issue with the French riots is to identify the degree to which they are, or will become, historically significant.

For the most part, the rioters have been citizens of France. But to a great extent, they are not regarded as French. This is not rooted necessarily in racism, although that is not an incidental phenomenon. Rather, it is rooted in the nature of the French nation and, indeed, in that of the European nation-state and European democracy -- an experience that distinguishes Europe from many other regions of the world.

The notion of the European nation stands in opposition to the multinational empires that dominated Europe between the 17th and 20th centuries. These were not only anti-democratic, dynastic entities, but they were also transnational. The idea of national self-determination as the root of modern democracy depended first on the recognition of the nation as a morally significant category. Why should a nation be permitted to determine its own fate unless the nation was of fundamental importance? Thus, in Europe, the concept of democracy and the concept of the nation developed together.

The guiding principle was that every nation had a right to determine its own fate. All of the nations whose identities had been submerged within the great European empires were encouraged to reassert their historical identities through democratic institutions. As the empires collapsed, the submerged nations re-emerged -- from Ireland to Slovakia, from Macedonia to Estonia. This process of devolution was, in a certain sense, endless: It has encompassed, for instance, not only the restoration or establishment of sovereignty to the European powers' colonial holdings in places like Africa or Latin America, but pressure from groups within the territorial borders of those recognized powers -- such as the Basques in Spain -- that their national identity be recognized and their right to democratic self-determination be accepted.

Europe's definition of a nation was less than crisply clear. In general, it assumed a geographic and cultural base. It was a group of people living in a fairly defined area, sharing a language, a history, a set of values and, in the end, a self-concept: A Frenchman knew himself to be a Frenchman and was known by other Frenchmen to be French. If this appears to be a little circular, it is -- and it demonstrates the limits of logic, for this definition of nationhood worked well in practice. It also could wander off into the near-mysticism of romantic nationalism and, at times, into vicious xenophobia.

The European definition of the nation poses an obvious challenge. Europe has celebrated national self-determination among all principles, and adhered to a theory of the nation that was forged in the battle with dynastic empires. At the heart of its theory of nationalism is the concept that the nation -- national identity -- is something to which one is born. Ideally, every person should be a part of one nation, and his citizenship should coincide with that.

But this is, of course, not always the case. What does one do with the foreigner who comes to your country and wants to be a citizen, for example? Take it a step further: What happens when a foreigner comes to your country and wants not only to be a citizen, but to become part of your nation? It is, of course, difficult to change identity. Citizenship can be granted. National identity is another matter.

Contrast this with the United States, Canada or Australia -- three examples where alternative theories of nationhood have been pursued. If being French or German is rooted in birth, being an American, Canadian or Australian is rooted in choice. The nation can choose who it wants as a citizen, and the immigrant can choose to become a citizen. Citizenship connotes nationality. More important, all of these countries, which were founded on immigration, have created powerful engines designed to assimilate the immigrants over generations. It would not be unreasonable to say that these countries created their theory of nationhood around the practice of migration and assimilation. It is not that the process is not painful on all sides, but there is no theoretical bar to the idea of anyone becoming, for example, an American -- whereas there is a theoretical hurdle to the idea of elective nationalism in Europe.

This obstacle has been compounded by the European imperial experience. France was born of a nationalist impulse, but the nationalism was made compatible with imperialism. France created a massive empire in the 19th century. And as imperialism collided with the French revolutionary tradition, the French had to figure out how to reconcile national self-determination with imperialism. One solution was to make a country like Algeria part of France. In effect, the definition of the French nation was expanded to incorporate wildly different nationalities. It left French-speaking enclaves throughout the world, as well as millions of citoyens who were not French by either culture or history. And it led to waves of immigrants from the former francophone colonies becoming citizens of France without being French.

Adding to this difficulty, the Europeans erected a new multinational entity, the European Union, that was supposed to resurrect the benefits of the old dynastic empires without undermining nationalism. The EU is an experiment in economic cooperation and the suppression of nationalist conflicts, yet one that does not suppress the nations that created it. The Union both recognizes the nation and is indifferent to it. Its immigration policy and the European concept of the nation are deeply at odds.

The results of all of this can be seen in the current riots in France. As evident from this analysis, the riots are far from a trivial event. These have involved, by and large, French citizens expressing dissatisfaction with their condition in life. Their condition stems, to some degree, from the fact that it is one thing to become a French citizen and quite another to become a Frenchman. Nor is this uniquely a French problem: The issue of immigrant assimilation in Europe is a fault line that, under sufficient stress and circumstances, can rip Europe apart. Europe's right-wing parties, and opposition to the EU in Europe, are both driven to a large extent by the immigrant issue.

All societies have problems with immigration. In the United States, there currently is deep concern about the illegal movement of Mexican immigrants across the border. There is concern about the illegality and about the changing demographic characteristics of the United States. But there is no serious movement in the United States interested in halting all immigration. There is a management issue, but in the end, the United States is perpetually changed by immigrants and the immigrants, even more, are changed by the United States. Consider what once was said about the Irish, Italians or Japanese to get a sense of this.

The United States, and a few other nations, are configured to manage and profit from immigration. Their definition of nationhood not only is compatible with immigration, but depends on it. The European states are not configured to deal with immigration and have a definition of nationhood that is, in fundamental ways, incompatible with immigration. Put simply, the Europeans could never quite figure out how to reconcile their empires with their principles, and now can't quite figure out how to reconcile the migrations that resulted from the collapse of their empires with their theory of nationalism. Assimilation is not impossible, but it is enormously more difficult than in countries that subscribe to the American model.

This poses a tremendous economic problem for the Europeans -- and another economic problem is the last thing they need. Europe, like the rest of the advanced industrial world, has an aging population. Over the past generation, there has been a profound shift in reproductive patterns in the developed world. The number of births is declining. People are also living to an older age. Therefore, the question is, how do you sustain economic growth when your population is stable or contracting?

The American answer is relatively straightforward: immigration. Shortages of engineers or scientists? No problem. Import them from India or China, give them advanced education in the United States, keep them there. Their children will be assimilated. Is more menial labor needed? Also not a problem. Workers from Mexico and Central American states are readily available, on a number of terms, legal and illegal. Their children too can be assimilated.

Of course, there have been frictions over immigrants in the United States from the beginning. But there is also a roadmap to assimilation and utilization of immigrants -- it is well-known territory that does not collide with any major cultural taboos. In short, the United States, Australia and Canada have excellent systems for managing and reversing population contractions, which is an underpinning of economic strength. The Europeans -- like the Japanese and others -- do not.

The problem of assimilating immigrants in these countries is quite difficult. It is not simply an institutional problem: A new white paper from Brussels will not solve the issue. It is a problem deeply rooted in European history and liberalism. The European theory of democracy rests on a theory of nationalism that makes integration and assimilation difficult. It can be done, but only with great pain.

It is not coincidental, therefore, that the rates of immigration to European states are rather low in comparison to those of the more dynamic settler-based states. This also places the Europeans at a serious economic disadvantage to the immigrant-based societies. The United States or Canada can mitigate the effects of population shortages with relative ease. The influx of new workers relieves labor market pressures -- encouraging sustained low-inflation economic growth -- and the relative youth of immigrants not only allows for steady population growth but also helps to keep pension outlays manageable. In contrast, the European ideal of nationality almost eliminates this failsafe -- so that while, as a whole, Europe's population is both aging and shrinking, the dearth of young immigrant workers spins its pension commitments out of control.

These are the issues that, over the next few generations, may begin to define the real global divide -- which will be not only between rich and poor nations, but between the rich nations that cannot cope with declining populations and the rich nations that can.

(This is a serious post)i can see your point, but the comparisons stop at the spirit behind the riots. (i suppose your talking about the Rodney King or whatever his name was) the blacks in the US wanted equality, while the Muslims in France want to be completely segregated. Also, if someone could clarify the meaning of trollish i'd be grateful(the joys of being on an international forum):)
So, now poor cities = muslim?

This is class warfare, not racial riots. The poor area, slums if you will, are fed up with social inequities and rioted. Being Muslims have nothing to do with it, except maybe to note that there are generally more poor muslim in these slums than other ethnicities.

Besides, fixing a situation by making programs to bring back social justice is hardly "surrender", it'S the right thing to do.

The more I read about your posts, the more you seem a troll who is using the "It'S a joke, geez!" excuse to try and see how long he can insult / anger before people realize he's not joking. As such, this is the last post I make in this thread.

I find it fascinating that the immigrants WANT to be left alone and WANT to live separately and DON'T want to "be French".

Evidently, the huge housing projects they live in were largely designed and built in the 1970s, and are very much like the failed housing projects the US built in the 1960s and tore down en masse in the mid-1990s.

1. This isn't a problem that will be solved overnight. It will probably take decades.
2. This isn't like the US problem - the blacks and poor in the US want what everyone else has, and they would rather not have to live confined to specific areas (in fact, a lot of US law and regulation has been passed over the past few decades to prevent segregation). And, in the US, we are a multicultural society by tradition.
3. The immigrants in France want their own areas - and they don't want to assimilate. But they still want jobs. And the typical remarks I've heard from French politicians is that the French do not want a multicultural society - they want a French society. One even said, "a multicultural society would be a disaster".
The French reaction sounds, to me, very similar to the reaction of most US whites to integration during the 60s, and the Muslim reaction is similar to the words of the early Malcolm X.

Here's the thing--we don't really know if the French Muslims would assimilate or not, given the chance, because they've never really been offered it. Given that situation, why shouldn't they ask for autonomy? But in order for that to happen, the French have to be willing to become a multi-cultural society, and they're very resistant to that.

I think you're right that the US's lack of cultural homogeneity has made it easier for us to deal with the strains of multiculturalism, but we had (and still have, on occasion) problems of our own along these lines. It's not a perfect analogy, but I think there are some lessons to be garnered from the civil rights movement of the 60s and 70s in relation to the problems the French are having now.

What bugs me in this discussion is the willingness of some in the media to try to cast this as an inevitable extension of the Crusades, of the clash between Islam and the secular west--there may be ghosts of that involved, but this is, in my opinion, far more closely linked to the aftereffects of colonialism.

So, now poor cities = muslim?

This is class warfare, not racial riots. The poor area, slums if you will, are fed up with social inequities and rioted. Being Muslims have nothing to do with it, except maybe to note that there are generally more poor muslim in these slums than other ethnicities.


Most of them are immigrants. Most of the immigrants are Muslim. It doesn't have much to do with Islam, but it does have a lot to do with the fact that despite being given French citizenship, neither they nor the native French view them as French.

The French reaction sounds, to me, very similar to the reaction of most US whites to integration during the 60s, and the Muslim reaction is similar to the words of the early Malcolm X.

Here's the thing--we don't really know if the French Muslims would assimilate or not, given the chance, because they've never really been offered it. Given that situation, why shouldn't they ask for autonomy? But in order for that to happen, the French have to be willing to become a multi-cultural society, and they're very resistant to that.

I think you're right that the US's lack of cultural homogeneity has made it easier for us to deal with the strains of multiculturalism, but we had (and still have, on occasion) problems of our own along these lines. It's not a perfect analogy, but I think there are some lessons to be garnered from the civil rights movement of the 60s and 70s in relation to the problems the French are having now.

What bugs me in this discussion is the willingness of some in the media to try to cast this as an inevitable extension of the Crusades, of the clash between Islam and the secular west--there may be ghosts of that involved, but this is, in my opinion, far more closely linked to the aftereffects of colonialism.


If you think of the Mediterranean as a European lake, you can get some idea of the scope of the problem.

The jobs, if any surplus exist, and the wealth, is all on the northern shore.

The hordes of unemployed young people are on the southern shore.

This problem has been coming for a long, long time - and building massive housing projects and giving people French citizenship is not a solution.

Just wanted to know when you guys think france will surrender to the rioters. "Surrender" being defined as giving concessions to the rioters such as, "positive discrimination" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) or giving the muslim areas political autonomy (please don't pretend the rioters are not muslim).It would be nice if you actually took a look at what you're talking about instead of starting an anti-French rant.

Most of them are immigrants. Most of the immigrants are Muslim. It doesn't have much to do with Islam, but it does have a lot to do with the fact that despite being given French citizenship, neither they nor the native French view them as French.

I think Islam does play a large role in this (not that Allah has told them to take over France or any absurd notion like that). In western cultures we consider ourselves to American, Engish, French, German, etc. just as much, if not more, than we consider ourselves Christian, Jew, Muslim, Athiest, or whatever. However, this is not the case in Middle Eastern countries, where Christians, Jews, and Muslims are members of their religion first and citizens second. This mentality makes it hard for them to assimilate into any culture not founded on their faith.

I think Islam does play a large role in this (not that Allah has told them to take over France or any absurd notion like that). In western cultures we consider ourselves to American, Engish, French, German, etc. just as much, if not more, than we consider ourselves Christian, Jew, Muslim, Athiest, or whatever. However, this is not the case in Middle Eastern countries, where Christians, Jews, and Muslims are members of their religion first and citizens second. This mentality makes it hard for them to assimilate into any culture not founded on their faith.

I don't believe that. There are Muslims here in the US, and there's a mosque not too far from my house. There are Muslims here where I work.

Lot of assimilation going on.

It would be nice if you actually took a look at what you're talking about instead of starting an anti-French rant.

I should have put an option in the poll that said

"You are a moron and I have no sense of humor"

I DO NOT HATE THE FRENCH!!! i just dont respect them:p

(yes that was sarcastic)

I can't believe I'm posting in a thread with such a title.

Most of them are immigrants. Most of the immigrants are Muslim. It doesn't have much to do with Islam, but it does have a lot to do with the fact that despite being given French citizenship, neither they nor the native French view them as French.

Sorry, there you are completely wrong. Most of the people in suburbs see themselves as french. There might be a a few who doesn't say so, but they are a minority.

In fact, what is terrible is that they have the french nationality, they speak french (often it's the only language they speak), they consider themself french BUT they are not treated like french by the society.

The northern african immigration started in the early sixties. So we're now talking of second or third generation immigrants.

Maykoy

The northern african immigration started in the early sixties. So we're now talking of second or third generation immigrants.


Maybe it would have helped if you didn't pack them into massive apartment blocks outside of town.

I don't believe that. There are Muslims here in the US, and there's a mosque not too far from my house. There are Muslims here where I work.

Lot of assimilation going on.

Yes, but they have been faced with American style Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Tolerance everywhere. The Middle East and Africa have very different stories.

I should have put an option in the poll that said

"You are a moron and I have no sense of humor"

I DO NOT HATE THE FRENCH!!! i just dont respect them:p

(yes that was sarcastic)Some things just aren't funny (especially when you hear the "joke" for the millionth time).

Because, of course, the French surrendered the second Bush starting waving his potty around his head and screaming demands that they help him invade Iraq, didn't they?
Unlike the Spanish and the British...

Yes, but they have been faced with American style Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Tolerance everywhere. The Middle East and Africa have very different stories."American style Islam"? And to be honest, I wouldn't equate American adherance to freedom of speech with tolerance. I seriously see a lot more intolerance in American media and celebrities than in Europe...

Surrender? WTF??? If they give concessions it is just logic, these suburbs have been neglected for years, they receive less funding then necessary and the unemployment rates are through the roof

There is no real effort to try and stop the riots. A few half hearted platitudes and a badly enforced curfew after a fortnight is about it.

Of course this is the plan. No doubt the french government hopes this will go on for months, so they will have an excuse to inflict massive reprisals at some point in the near future.

I admire the cunning.

You would think, though, that it would be the evil poverty-inducing American capitalists having this problem, not the enlightened European Socialists. Just food for thought as I head out the door (and soon the be accused of cowerdice for leaving before defending this statement, but oh well). Talk to all of you again I'm sure;)

Maybe it would have helped if you didn't pack them into massive apartment blocks outside of town.
I don't think there was a deliberate policy to isolate the immigrants. The easiest solution was to build new houses for them, and it's certainly much simpler to build them all in the same place than building one house in a neighbourhood, another house in another neighbourhood etc. This way, the immigrants were unintentionally segregated.

You would think, though, that it would be the evil poverty-inducing American capitalists having this problem, not the enlightened European Socialists. Just food for thought as I head out the door (and soon the be accused of cowerdice for leaving before defending this statement, but oh well). Talk to all of you again I'm sure;)
Wait a minute... I though this whole thread was a joke. Well, which is it? A joke or not?

:rolleyes:

You would think, though, that it would be the evil poverty-inducing American capitalists having this problem, not the enlightened European Socialists. Just food for thought as I head out the door (and soon the be accused of cowerdice for leaving before defending this statement, but oh well). Talk to all of you again I'm sure;)
The French government isn't socialist, and the American underclass has no tradition of civil disobedience anymore, but a nice try.

You would think, though, that it would be the evil poverty-inducing American capitalists having this problem, not the enlightened European Socialists. Just food for thought as I head out the door (and soon the be accused of cowerdice for leaving before defending this statement, but oh well). Talk to all of you again I'm sure;)Chirac, de Villepin, and Sarkozy aren't socialist. They're conservative.

The French government isn't socialist, and the American underclass has no tradition of civil disobedience anymore, but a nice try.

Civil Disobedience != Rioting.

Maybe it would have helped if you didn't pack them into massive apartment blocks outside of town.

?

1. The french governement was quite in a hurry. Don't forget that in 1962, Algeria became independent. One million french had to moved to France almost overnight. Plus other immigrants.

2. At that time no one thought of the consequences, building them a home was a great improvement.

3. This is being undone, but, as you may not know, it takes time. Stop believing that it's only in the US things are changing.

4. Not all the immigrants were packed in massive appartement blocks outside of town. If you go to the very heart of Paris for example, in the 10ème arrondissement (where I live), you'll find four floor buildings with the same population. I don't say it's a great place to live, it is not. But it is much better than the suburbs.

Maykoy

Civil Disobedience != Rioting.
Rioting is definitely a form of civil disobedience. It just isn't a terribly constructive or helpful one.

Rioting is definitely a form of civil disobedience. It just isn't a terribly constructive or helpful one.

No it's not. It's rioting. Civil disobedience is refusing to the obey laws, or lawful commands of the government, that you consider to be unjust.

Actively going out and setting fire to the property of others can never be civil disobedience. It's just mindless thuggish behaviour.

No it's not. It's rioting. Civil disobedience is refusing to the obey laws, or lawful commands of the government, that you consider to be unjust.

Actively going out and setting fire to the property of others can never be civil disobedience. It's just mindless thuggish behaviour.
There are laws against destroying other people's property. Therefore riots are a form of civil disobedience.

the reasons there are riots is because the police went in and shot people

they have been pissed off for ages

the poor are getting back at the state for how they are being treated

its not just muslims

admitadly the poorest are often immagrants and most of them will be muslims due to where france had an empire.

There are laws against destroying other people's property. Therefore riots are a form of civil disobedience.

So the rioters believe that the laws against destroying other peoples property are unjust, and are therefore breaking them in an act of civil disobedience? I hardly think so.

It's like this:

Burning your draft card = civil disobedience.

Burning down someone elses house in an anti-draft riot = thuggish rioting.

By your logic, stabbing a homeless person in the face because taxes are too high is an act of civil disobedience.

No it's not. It's rioting. Civil disobedience is refusing to the obey laws, or lawful commands of the government, that you consider to be unjust.

Actively going out and setting fire to the property of others can never be civil disobedience. It's just mindless thuggish behaviour.

It isn't mindless, it has a purpose and this sums it up best from what I have seen.

Barbara Stock: France is witnessing a skirmish. A "feeling out" of what the French authorities will do and how this uprising will be dealt with. So far, the Muslims are winning. Some arrests have been made but it seems as though the French are just hoping the rioting Muslims will just get tired and go home. So far, that doesn't seem to be happening. The violence is spreading and along with the fire bombs, guns are being used.

Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin stated, "The return to calm and the restoration of order are the priority -- our absolute priority." Unfortunately, de Villepin offered no solution to the problem. What the French should do is deport each and every one of the rioters and their families back from whence they came--but they won't. That wouldn't be "politically correct." Meeting a crisis head-on just isn't the French way. The government will try to "reason" with the rioters to get in touch with their anger so that their anger can be understood. Muslims will make demands and those demands will be met. Round one: Islam wins.

The French will blame themselves for their lack of sensitivity to the Islamic way of life for the unrest. After consultations with Islamic leaders it will be decided that expecting Muslims to become French was an infringement on their rights. In the end, it will be the French that change, not the Muslims. Once again, Islam will be rewarded for violence and its cause will be advanced.

So the rioters believe that the laws against destroying other peoples property are unjust, and are therefore breaking them in an act of civil disobedience? I hardly think so.

It's like this:

Burning your draft card = civil disobedience.

Burning down someone elses house in an anti-draft riot = thuggish rioting.

By your logic, stabbing a homeless person in the face because taxes are too high is an act of civil disobedience.

For some on the left, any act by anyone on the left is not only excusable or pardonable, but essential and necessary. It's not fascism or rioting or murder or thievery when "they" do it.

So the rioters believe that the laws against destroying other peoples property are unjust, and are therefore breaking them in an act of civil disobedience? I hardly think so.

It's like this:

Burning your draft card = civil disobedience.

Burning down someone elses house in an anti-draft riot = thuggish rioting.

By your logic, stabbing a homeless person in the face because taxes are too high is an act of civil disobedience.
No it isn't. A large chunk of the population of a city running amok because they're thoroughly pissed off with their government's behaviour is definitely civil disobedience. Or was the Boston tea party just thuggery?

No it isn't. A large chunk of the population of a city running amok because they're thoroughly pissed off with their government's behaviour is definitely civil disobedience. Or was the Boston tea party just thuggery?
I'm sure the British thought it was thuggery.

As would modern day US police.

Civil disobedience is usually marked by one or both of the following:

1. passive resistance
2. peaceful demonstration

No overt acts that involve the destruction of anything.

I'm sure the British thought it was thuggery.

As would modern day US police.

Civil disobedience is usually marked by one or both of the following:

1. passive resistance
2. peaceful demonstration

No overt acts that involve the destruction of anything.
We're operating under different definitions of civil disobedience, then.

We're operating under different definitions of civil disobedience, then.
Agreed. I find that Gandhi and Martin Luther King are classic examples of my flavor of civil disobedience.

Rioting, arson, looting, killing or injuring civilians who just happen to be around, and other violent acts don't count as civil disobedience (at least not here in the US). Violence is not a protected form of protest here.

the reasons there are riots is because the police went in and shot people
they have been pissed off for ages

the poor are getting back at the state for how they are being treated

its not just muslims

admitadly the poorest are often immagrants and most of them will be muslims due to where france had an empire.
Care to back that up with a link?

'cause I heard that the riots started after two persons hid in an electric generator because they thought they were chased by the police.

Care to back that up with a link?

'cause I heard that the riots started after two persons hid in an electric generator because they thought they were chased by the police.

CHRONOLOGY-Key developments since French riots began
09 Nov 2005 15:08:57 GMT
Source: Reuters
Nov 9 (Reuters) - French youths have set fire to thousands of cars in riots over the last two weeks in which one man has been killed.

Here is a chronology of developments since the unrest began:

Oct. 27 - Two teenagers of African descent are electrocuted in an electricity sub-station while apparently fleeing police, prompting violence in Clichy-sous-Bois, a northeastern suburb of Paris.

Nov. 2 - Rioters shoot at police and firemen for the first time as violence spreads to other Paris suburbs.

Bah. The French should realy crack some heads. Send in the Legion and let them take whatever action they find necessary. And the rioters that were arrested, put them on the next boat to N-Africa.

Bah. The French should realy crack some heads. Send in the Legion and let them take whatever action they find necessary. And the rioters that were arrested, put them on the next boat to N-Africa.

These aren't the days of the OAS, although one might say that the current problem has ancient roots in the Algerian problem.

Bah. The French should realy crack some heads. Send in the Legion and let them take whatever action they find necessary. And the rioters that were arrested, put them on the next boat to N-Africa.The Legion is barred from operating inside France ever since it was created.

CHRONOLOGY-Key developments since French riots began
09 Nov 2005 15:08:57 GMT
Source: Reuters
Nov 9 (Reuters) - French youths have set fire to thousands of cars in riots over the last two weeks in which one man has been killed.

Here is a chronology of developments since the unrest began:

Oct. 27 - Two teenagers of African descent are electrocuted in an electricity sub-station while apparently fleeing police, prompting violence in Clichy-sous-Bois, a northeastern suburb of Paris.

Nov. 2 - Rioters shoot at police and firemen for the first time as violence spreads to other Paris suburbs.
My point exactly.

Although I need to add that the kids thought they were chased by the police. The police is claiming otherwise. Are they covering their asses? I'll keep saying "allegedly" while the truth of the matter is not settled. That chronology of yours has come to it's own conclusion without leaving any kind of wiggle room.

The Legion is barred from operating inside France ever since it was created.
Realy? Even now that they proclaimed the ausnahmezustand (forgot what the english word is) ?

My point exactly.

Although I need to add that the kids thought they were chased by the police. The police is claiming otherwise. Are they covering their asses? I'll keep saying "allegedly" while the truth of the matter is not settled. That chronology of yours has come to it's own conclusion without leaving any kind of wiggle room.

I just quoted Reuters. We'll probably never know what really happened.

These aren't the days of the OAS, although one might say that the current problem has ancient roots in the Algerian problem.
Right. And since a good portion of the rioters are of Algerian decent they should be send back. Withdraw their French nationality and work out the details of their resettlement with the Algerian government.

Right. And since a good portion of the rioters are of Algerian decent they should be send back. Withdraw their French nationality and work out the details of their resettlement with the Algerian government.

Are you kidding? Two generations later?

Realy? Even now that they proclaimed the ausnahmezustand (forgot what the english word is) ?State of Emergency is what you were looking for. The Legion was founded on the grounds that it could never serve in France. Otherwise, they wouldn't have let Foreigners in, pretty much defeating the purpose of a Foreign Legion.
In it's more recent history, the Foreign Legion operated in France to oust de Gaulle. There's no real intention of bringing the Legion to France, besides, there's others that would be suitable for engaging rioters. And an important point of the exercise would be to prove that the police aren't going to kill, which is pretty much what started this whole mess.

Right. And since a good portion of the rioters are of Algerian decent they should be send back. Withdraw their French nationality and work out the details of their resettlement with the Algerian government.I'm technically only a 2nd or 3rd Generation West German. I still think I qualify as German, since I have a passport.

Are you kidding? Two generations later?
Why not? They don't like it there (in France) anyway. They would be doing them and the entire nation a favor.

I'm technically only a 2nd or 3rd Generation West German. I still think I qualify as German, since I have a passport.
Whats a 2nd or 3rd generation west-German? Where did the 1st generation come from and how does that in anyway relate to France?

Whats a 2nd or 3rd generation west-German? Where did the 1st generation come from and how does that in anyway relate to France?
They have French Passports. They're French. They're about as French as I am technically West German (Granparents and mom fled through Berlin before the Wall went up and were East German citizens before). I don't see why I'm any less German than someone whose family has been on West German territory the entire time. Same thing goes for the 2nd and 3rd Generation immigrants. I'm a 2nd or 3rd generation immigrant, depending on how you view it and I don't think you have the right to renounce my citizenship or that of any other 2nd or 3rd Generation immigrant simply because one "doesn't like it there".

No it isn't. A large chunk of the population of a city running amok because they're thoroughly pissed off with their government's behaviour is definitely civil disobedience. Or was the Boston tea party just thuggery?

It certainly wasn't civil disobedience.

We're operating under different definitions of civil disobedience, then.

Here you go.

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/civ.dis.html

Now there can be no confusion.

Just wanted to know when you guys think france will surrender to the rioters. "Surrender" being defined as giving concessions to the rioters such as, "positive discrimination" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) or giving the muslim areas political autonomy (please don't pretend the rioters are not muslim).

This poll is stupid, i suspect it reflects that creative talent behind it...

the reasons there are riots is because the police went in and shot people.


Um no, it started because two darwin award semifinalists and their slightly less idiotic compatriot ducked into a power substation(apparently to hide from police which may or may not have been looking for them, depending on who you get the story from i.e. the kid who didn't kill himself or the police) and managed to electrocute themselves.

Here you go.

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/civ.dis.html

Now there can be no confusion.
I'm not an American. Find a definition from the OED that rules out rioting.

I'm not an American. Find a definition from the OED that rules out rioting.
All this means is that when someone visiting Europe, they can burn down a building with everyone in it and claim I was just doing civil disobedience.

Something that you would probably get shot for trying in the US.

All this means is that when someone visiting Europe, they can burn down a building with everyone in it and claim I was just doing civil disobedience.

Something that you would probably get shot for trying in the US.
If you're talking about a situation in Europe, insisting that American definitions are the only ones that apply is both pointless and offensive.

If you're talking about a situation in Europe, insisting that American definitions are the only ones that apply is both pointless and offensive.
No, I'm pointing out that the two places have two definitions.

Just remember your definitions if you visit the US and are planning to attend one of those World Bank riots.

The French will find some way to resolve this, just not the way that Team America would do it...
http://www.npr.org/dvd/2005/may/team_america/paris2.jpg

No, I'm pointing out that the two places have two definitions.

Just remember your definitions if you visit the US and are planning to attend one of those World Bank riots.
Piffle. You're backpedalling after spending time insisting that American definitions apply elsewhere.

Piffle. You're backpedalling after spending time insisting that American definitions apply elsewhere.

Piffle Piffle.

You were insisting that your definition apply everywhere.
:fluffle:

The French will find some way to resolve this, just not the way that Team America would do it...
http://www.npr.org/dvd/2005/may/team_america/paris2.jpg


America-FUCK YEAH!!

America-FUCK YEAH!!You know that song was ironic, right? :p

You know that song was ironic, right? :p
Ironic, and fun.

Ironic, and fun.Yup. :D

Yup. :D

I think that hitting the Eiffel Tower with an anti-tank missile, and watching it topple over, and then saying, "My bad! I did that!"

would be too fun for words.

I'm not an American. Find a definition from the OED that rules out rioting.

Don't be ridiculous. It's an American term. If you don't like what it means, stop using it. (On the other hand, you could try reading the fucking essay, from whence the term sprang.)

For that matter, I am willing to bet that the OED defines it along the lines of: refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government; which would actually exclude rioting. But I can't be arsed to look it up.

I think that hitting the Eiffel Tower with an anti-tank missile, and watching it topple over, and then saying, "My bad! I did that!"

would be too fun for words.

Yet when a dozen or so Saudis took a pair of jets and crashed them into the World Trade Center and people watched them topple over it was a crime.

:rolleyes:

You know that song was ironic, right? :p

Its so catchy, I'm living it.;)

Snuff-snorting, wine-swilling, cheese-eating, moustache growing effeminate surrender monkeys all of them! The Dissident Frogman's visual synopsis of the French response to "civil unrest."

http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/common/wallpapers/frdiplomacy_800.jpg

Lonely Rock's quick and easy solution to all this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c9/Nuclear_fireball.jpg/250px-Nuclear_fireball.jpg

Yet when a dozen or so Saudis took a pair of jets and crashed them into the World Trade Center and people watched them topple over it was a crime.

:rolleyes:

Obviously, you didn't think so.

Obviously, you didn't think so.

Like the good little Bushevik you are Sierra, you miss the point of the comment. Which in this case was "Would it be so hilarious and fun if it was your national monument that got toppled and people died in the process?"

Like the good little Bushevik you are Sierra, you miss the point of the comment. Which in this case was "Would it be so hilarious and fun if it was your national monument that got toppled and people died in the process?"
I don't know who Sierra is. I am not a Bushevik.

I don't know who Sierra is. I am not a Bushevik.

Funny...

Obviously, you didn't think so.

Quick to accuse me of celebrating 9-11 when I point out the offensive nature of your comment. Quite a Bushevik habit too, accusing critics of "Unpatriotism" or even outright terrorism.

Quite a Bushevik habit too, accusing critics of "Unpatriotism" or even outright terrorism.

????

I accused you of what?

????

I accused you of what?

Wow, you really have sunk to an all time low which is saying something. You you toss the snide comment about me not thinking 9-11 was a crime and now you're having selective memory. Geeze, there's more coherence in the Nixon Tapes.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Wow, you really have sunk to an all time low which is saying something. You you toss the snide comment about me not thinking 9-11 was a crime and now you're having selective memory. Geeze, there's more coherence in the Nixon Tapes.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

How is that "unpatriotism" or "being a terrorist".

Quite a stretch, if you ask me. There are those in the world who could care less that the World Trade Center was destroyed, and you could be one of them.

Did I say that made you "unpatriotic"? No. Did I say that made you a terrorist? Nope.

You're imagining things - and imagining someone else.

Yes, but they have been faced with American style Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Tolerance everywhere.American style tolerance?

:D :D :p :D

American style tolerance?

:D :D :p :D

Speaking to quite a few immigrants at the office today, and since all of them lived for a while in Sweden and France before coming over, they find America a far more tolerant place - at all levels.

So, yes, American style tolerance.

When will France surrender?
In less than a week.
In less than a month.
In less than a year.
Never! The French will be just as ruthless as they were with Hitler!

Just wanted to know when you guys think france will surrender to the rioters. "Surrender" being defined as giving concessions to the rioters such as, "positive discrimination" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) or giving the muslim areas political autonomy (please don't pretend the rioters are not muslim).Your Poll is flawed and....your thinking is Flawed.

Speaking to quite a few immigrants at the office today, and since all of them lived for a while in Sweden and France before coming over, they find America a far more tolerant place - at all levels.

So, yes, American style tolerance.Really????...

Muslim Arabs find the US more tolerant?

Let me give some of my backround...I have LIVED in Sweden and France...and I am from the US...

Your office?...where do you work?

please don't pretend the rioters are not muslimYour Poll is flawed and....your thinking is Flawed.But No...I am not going to Pretend that the rioters are not Arabs and Blacks(mostly)...as long as you do not pretend that they are Not Poor and being discriminated.

FYI The Rich French Arabs/Blacks are not Rioting.
They will never riot.

do not expect to see any FFF Team Members rioting.

Like the good little Bushevik you are Sierra, you miss the point of the comment. Which in this case was "Would it be so hilarious and fun if it was your national monument that got toppled and people died in the process?"
In team america I don't think there were actually any french casualties, and if someone did that to the washington monument w/o civvie casualties, I would be annoyed, but not really pissed off. In fact, if it snapped at a 1/4 up the structure and fell into the reflecting pool, I'd probably laugh my ass off.

I'll give em till Christmas:)

Plaguerised text
PLAGUERISM ALERT! (http://www.north-sea.net/2005/11/08/a-question-of-integration)

Why do you all not listen? Why? Why?

The sole means of reasserting control upon the streets is military presence, and the capacity to summarily execute rioters or imprison them, subsequent to which political negotiations may begin.

Yet again, try setting fire to an armoured vehicle....:p