NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: In this highly controversial article, the author makes the point that appeasement and "accomodation" only serve to embolden the Jihadists, and that France is the perfect example. Your thoughts on this? And please, do try to approch the topic relatively rationally rather than "OMG! T3h n30-c0ns are t3h sux0rz!!!!111ONE11!!!"


French Appeasment Spreads (http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,81211,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl)


H. Thomas Hayden | November 23, 2005
Appeasement has become a national tradition with France and is beginning to spread its destabilizing and destructive tentacles to other parts of Europe. The Islamic-led riots in France may be confusing to some Americans but the learned say it has been a long time coming.

In recent times appeasement silenced Europe when genocide was common in Kosovo. Even with TV news reports providing absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, Europeans debated what they should do until the US took decisive action and came into Europe for the first time since World War II to do the Europeans' work for them.

Europe ignored nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam Hussein's torture and murder and -- motivated by self-righteousness, even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq -- France made illicit billions in the U.N. Oil-for-Food program.

Paul Belien just wrote in the Brussels Journal : “Perhaps what we are witnessing in Europe, but what the politicians and the media dare not say aloud, is the implosion of the (welfare) state…The socialist welfare state is no longer able to maintain law and order and is abandoning entire neighborhoods to anarchy.”

He went on to write this about the French social-democratic welfare model: “It feeds on its own fiascos and will continue to do so until it collapses -- implodes -- under its own weight. Consequently it is an indestructible model. The only way out is for the implosion to come soon. If it does, then national disintegration may perhaps still be avoided. If it does not, the social fabric of the nation will be damaged beyond repair.”

While appeasement fails and riots ensue, the response is to try to buy, or legislate harmony. Invariably the cry arises that government hasn't done enough for the foreign arrivals. Many say that they must spend more money on welfare, or schools, or special programs to raise the consciousness of the poor foreign born.

France is now considering a National Islamic History Week. The French think that patience and appeasement will solve everything. Instead the problem gets worse. The majority population becomes angrier, but the Socialist government cannot anger their political base. The immigrant Muslims can loot and burn with impunity. According to the Socialist government, punishing misbehavior would engender more violence, which the government wants to avoid at any cost.

A failed civilization, Islamic countries send their unemployed and uneducated to Europe. Naturally they gravitate to slums because they have nowhere else to go. Through Islamic radical leadership, cohesive, angry, European Muslims, with no loyalty to their new home, do not assimilate into the society that hosts them. Resentment grows and the cities burn.

How could France let the rampage, destruction and lawlessness go on for so long?

I think David Horowitz, in a most common sense, but politically incorrect newsletter, has some insight on the recent events. He wrote on NewsMax.com: “The Muslim riots in France -- orchestrated by cell phones and a political directorate that has spread the violence not only across France but also across Europe -- is an obvious escalation of the Islamic jihad that seeks to conquer the infidel world for the Muslim faith. It would be unkind to say that the French deserve it, but they do. This is the country that has done more to sabotage the war on Islamic terror and Muslim imperialism than any other. It has relentlessly preached appeasement of the enemy and condemnation of us as the chief obstacle to Islamic despotism."

Horowitz went on to write: “The French were Saddam's and Islam's closest allies in the West. Yet France is now the target of an Islamic jihad that is destroying the fabric of French society. The lesson for slow-witted liberals is this: The Islamic imperialists don't give a fig for what you do or what you say or what you believe about them. They are holy warriors. You are infidels. You will convert or die.

“History will judge harshly the saboteurs of George Bush's war to defend the West against radical Islam. As a result of Bush's offensive, Osama Bin Laden and his henchmen are already effectively dead. That is the only reason 300 million Americans have been safe from attack since 9/11.”

The radical Islamic jihad is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century -- a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by “tolerance” and “accommodation” but is actually spurred on by such gestures of appeasement. This has proven to be the case in France. The radical Islamists will always take good faith gestures as signs of weakness.

Islamic hostility toward the United States is often attributed to American support of Israel. There may be some truth in this. However, it does not explain the riots in Paris, the violence in other European countries, and the Islamic terrorism in Russia, Indonesia, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, or Jordan.

Many Americans must be asking questions about the future of Europe, particularly France, with its tradition of appeasement. As Neville Chamberlain learned with Germany in 1939, appeasement only emboldens the aggressors.

T3h n30-c0ns are t3h sux0rz!!!!111ONE11!!

Sorry, you asked for it. :D

Anyway, this article looks a little...shall we say, skewed. Not exactly the most balencet peice of reporting, if you ask this humble homo sapien.

Snip
Wow... I don't know where to begin deconstructing that article. If I had more time I would. But bottom line- its ALL wrong.

T3h n30-c0ns are t3h sux0rz!!!!111ONE11!!

Sorry, you asked for it. :D
Bite me! :p LOL!


Anyway, this article looks a little...shall we say, skewed. Not exactly the most balencet peice of reporting, if you ask this humble homo sapien.
Yes, which is why I referred to it as "controversial," which I realize is a considerable understatement, but hey ... that's me: master of the classic understatement! ROFLMAO! :D

The rioters in France were not radical Jihadists. They were second or third generation unemployed youth with nothing better to do and no hope of ever being accepted as white French.

The riots in France have more to do with the racism of the white French, the color blind policies of the French government, and the very bad idea of concentrating the poor in massive housing blocks.

As for the idea that socialism is the problem, it's not. It's how they implemented their social welfare policies. Socialism, like any other large government, suffers from scaling problems in the bureaucracy - scaling problems that have little or nothing to do with the philosophy.

You have major sections of the US government that don't know one thing from another - the State Department has no idea that troops are using WP - the Defense Department (the civilian bureaucracy) is busy accusing Saddam of using WP, and the actual military (The Marines and Army) publish the fact that they use it - all without anyone cross-checking to see what the troops are actually doing, and how it might affect public perception.

Turning a large bureaucracy is like turning the Titanic.

Wow... I don't know where to begin deconstructing that article. If I had more time I would. But bottom line- its ALL wrong.
Oh, thank you for that marvelous refutation! :rolleyes:

In recent times appeasement silenced Europe when genocide was common in Kosovo. Even with TV news reports providing absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, Europeans debated what they should do until the US took decisive action and came into Europe for the first time since World War II to do the Europeans' work for them.
"We saved your worthless eurotrash asses from Hitler" isn't any more balanced than "T3h n30-c0ns are t3h sux0rz!!!!111ONE11!!" to tell the truth.

The rioters in France were not radical Jihadists. They were second or third generation unemployed youth with nothing better to do and no hope of ever being accepted as white French.

The riots in France have more to do with the racism of the white French, the color blind policies of the French government, and the very bad idea of concentrating the poor in massive housing blocks.

As for the idea that socialism is the problem, it's not. It's how they implemented their social welfare policies. Socialism, like any other large government, suffers from scaling problems in the bureaucracy - scaling problems that have little or nothing to do with the philosophy.
I tend to agree that the rioters themselves weren't "radical Jihadists," but they either did become, or could become in the future, tools of the radical Jihadists. So whose fault is that?

In addition, it seems to me that socialism is ultimately unsupportable, a never-ending series of "bread and circuses" followed closely by a never-ending series of taxation increases. This use to be called "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs."


Turning a large bureaucracy is like turning the Titanic.
This is true, IMHO. Makes a good argument for "less is better" where goverment is concerned. :)

"We saved your worthless eurotrash asses from Hitler" isn't any more balanced than "T3h n30-c0ns are t3h sux0rz!!!!111ONE11!!" to tell the truth.
Uh ... the author was refrring to Kosovo, not Germany. :rolleyes:

Appeasement will end very soon. The French are fed up with their weak government's foolish policies. Why would the driving force of the EU say No to the Constitution? Because of its dumb government. Many of these rioters fail to integrate adequately into French society, BOTH because of their own unwillingness to accept French culture and because of the French casting them out as pariah (of course this results from their actions in many cases). Fair enough. They have countries they can return to. The fact that Islamic fundamentalists are allowed to exist in Europe leaves me dumbfounded.

Uh ... the author was refrring to Kosovo, not Germany. :rolleyes:
and came into Europe for the first time since World War II to do the Europeans' work for them
He didn't say this then? I'm not even going to start on his insinuation that objecting to the invasion of Iraq is morally equivalent to collborating with the Nazis.

I tend to agree that the rioters themselves weren't "radical Jihadists," but they either did become, or could become in the future, tools of the radical Jihadists. So whose fault is that?

Highly unlikely. These people want to be accepted as French, and most are fairly secular.

In addition, it seems to me that socialism is ultimately unsupportable, a never-ending series of "bread and circuses" followed closely by a never-ending series of taxation increases. This use to be called "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs."

No. No. No. It's possible, because you create a bureaucracy to do these things, to have it run amok, running your life at an individual level and taking all your earnings - but it's also possible to have a moderate view of things, try and minimize the bureaucracy, and see that the policies you implement are actually going to work.

France made the same mistake in the 1970s that the US made in the 1960s with the US Great Society program. House welfare recipients in massive housing blocks isolated from other neighborhoods. Cheap, easy to implement - and fatally flawed. People in ghettos will never be assimilated, never be accepted, and their children will grow up in institutionalized dependency. Crime and drugs will be rampant.

The US changed its policies in the mid-1990s, and tore down the projects. Now, the poor are scattered among the rest of us - the degree of scattering depends on the policies of the individual US state - but the projects are gone. It makes a big, big difference.

Still spending money on social welfare - just making sure it works is the important part.

French Appeasment Spreads (http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,81211,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl)
This makes so little sense I don't know where to begin. How can a country that ban Muslims from wearing the religious dress in school be accused of appeasement? How can they be accused of being soft on rioters when Sarkozy calls the rioters 'scum' and orders the immediate deportation of any non-French-nationals involved?

Perhaps then we should reject multiculturalism within Europe. Its failing in every regard.

He didn't say this then? I'm not even going to start on his insinuation that objecting to the invasion of Iraq is morally equivalent to collborating with the Nazis.
Key phrase: "since WWII." Past tense, by way of emphasis.

Nevermind. :rolleyes:

Perhaps then we should reject multiculturalism within Europe. Its failing in every regard.

You might as well reject the sun rising and setting everyday, unless you plan on deporting everyone.

France made the same mistake in the 1970s that the US made in the 1960s with the US Great Society program. House welfare recipients in massive housing blocks isolated from other neighborhoods. Cheap, easy to implement - and fatally flawed. People in ghettos will never be assimilated, never be accepted, and their children will grow up in institutionalized dependency. Crime and drugs will be rampant.

The US changed its policies in the mid-1990s, and tore down the projects. Now, the poor are scattered among the rest of us - the degree of scattering depends on the policies of the individual US state - but the projects are gone. It makes a big, big difference.
Ok. I tend to agree with this. :)

The alternative being the formation of ghettos and the eventual rise of bastions of radical Islam, with right wing nationalism forming as a counter to it? Hmm...that would make many neo-Nazis in Europe very happy. We should only allow those suitable to fill sorely needed positions to enter Europe, and only if they have a sizable wealth so as to be able to integrate well into society. THEN multiculturalism might work. Poor immigrants are not doing us any favours. We are hardly the melting pot the USA is.

Key phrase: "since WWII." Past tense, by way of emphasis.
Actually, this struck me as the key phrase in that sentence: "do the Europeans' work for them".

Funny, as Russia was the one who contributed most heavily to WW 2.

Actually, this struck me as the key phrase in that sentence: "do the Europeans' work for them".
Actually, if no one minded being part of the Soviet Union, the US probably didn't have to get involved in Europe at all.

Might have taken six months to a year longer, but the USSR was probably capable of reducing Germany and Italy.

We are hardly the melting pot the USA is.
Very true. The almost limitless expanse of the North American continent gave immigrants room to expand and hope for the future. I seriously doubt we will ever see its equivalent again. :(

Fine then. :rolleyes:



H. Thomas Hayden | November 23, 2005
Appeasement has become a national tradition with France (Nice generalisation. Basic anti-French speak which gives little creedence to the overall article)and is beginning to spread its destabilizing and destructive tentacles to other parts of Europe(Oh, where?). The Islamic-led riots in France may be confusing to some Americans but the learned say it has been a long time coming. (The riots were NOT Islamic led. Msulims were involved in them but that does not mean they were a tool or AQ/OBL/whatever conspiracy you want to throw at them. A nice misunderstanding of how and why they started.)

In recent times appeasement silenced Europe when genocide was common in Kosovo. Even with TV news reports providing absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, Europeans debated what they should do until the US took decisive action and came into Europe for the first time since World War II to do the Europeans' work for them. (Ugh, the old "We saved your asses in WWII" argument again.)

Europe ignored nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam Hussein's torture and murder and -- motivated by self-righteousness, even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq -- France made illicit billions in the U.N. Oil-for-Food program. (Nice sidestep of the US backed Mr. Hussien throwout his reign of terror. Nice absolution there.)

Paul Belien just wrote in the Brussels Journal : “Perhaps what we are witnessing in Europe, but what the politicians and the media dare not say aloud, is the implosion of the (welfare) state…The socialist welfare state is no longer able to maintain law and order and is abandoning entire neighborhoods to anarchy.” (Crock...of...%&*. If that we true then the entire continent would have erupted in widespread anarchy, looting and general destruction... ain't so.)

He went on to write this about the French social-democratic welfare model: “It feeds on its own fiascos and will continue to do so until it collapses -- implodes -- under its own weight. Consequently it is an indestructible model. The only way out is for the implosion to come soon. If it does, then national disintegration may perhaps still be avoided. If it does not, the social fabric of the nation will be damaged beyond repair.”

While appeasement fails and riots ensue, the response is to try to buy, or legislate harmony. Invariably the cry arises that government hasn't done enough for the foreign arrivals. Many say that they must spend more money on welfare, or schools, or special programs to raise the consciousness of the poor foreign born. (Wow... inclusion. What a crap policy:rolleyes: )

France is now considering a National Islamic History Week. The French think that patience and appeasement will solve everything. Instead the problem gets worse. The majority population becomes angrier, but the Socialist government cannot anger their political base. The immigrant Muslims can loot and burn with impunity.(Nice skewing of the facts.) According to the Socialist government, punishing misbehavior would engender more violence, which the government wants to avoid at any cost.(And after a curfew was
imposed the violence dropped dramatically. With the loss of only one life. I would generally call that a success)

A failed civilization, Islamic countries send their unemployed and uneducated to Europe.(Absolute %^& again. No country 'sends' their people. They leave for their own good, to improve their own life) Naturally they gravitate to slums because they have nowhere else to go. Through Islamic radical leadership, cohesive, angry, European Muslims, with no loyalty to their new home, do not assimilate into the society that hosts them. Resentment grows and the cities burn. (Actaully, only half true. Its more that poor people in general rebel becuase they are pissed off at the inadequate policies of a supposed Socialist govt. Some happen to be of the Islamic faith)

How could France let the rampage, destruction and lawlessness go on for so long? (Yeah, lets just shoot them all and let God sort them out)

I think David Horowitz, in a most common sense, but politically incorrect newsletter, has some insight on the recent events. He wrote on NewsMax.com: “The Muslim riots(Again, not Muslim riots. Misrepresentation of the facts) in France -- orchestrated by cell phones and a political directorate that has spread the violence not only across France but also across Europe -- is an obvious escalation of the Islamic jihad that seeks to conquer the infidel world for the Muslim faith(OR, it could just be rioters use tech to their own gain. See Seattle, and any other WTO protest or even Mayday protests). It would be unkind to say that the French deserve it, but they do. This is the country that has done more to sabotage the war on Islamic terror and Muslim imperialism(say what?) than any other. It has relentlessly preached appeasement of the enemy(what enemy? Islam in general? Nice) and condemnation of us as the chief obstacle to Islamic despotism."

Horowitz went on to write: “The French were Saddam's and Islam's closest allies in the West.(AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!) Yet France is now the target of an Islamic jihad that is destroying the fabric of French society. The lesson for slow-witted liberals is this(Blammo, there we go: Blame the liberals, or whatever that mean in the US these days): The Islamic imperialists don't give a fig for what you do or what you say or what you believe about them. They are holy warriors. You are infidels. You will convert or die.

“History will judge harshly the saboteurs of George Bush's war to defend the West against radical Islam. As a result of Bush's offensive, Osama Bin Laden and his henchmen are already effectively dead. That is the only reason 300 million Americans have been safe from attack since 9/11.”

The radical Islamic jihad is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century -- a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by “tolerance” and “accommodation” but is actually spurred on by such gestures of appeasement. This has proven to be the case in France. The radical Islamists will always take good faith gestures as signs of weakness.(Well duh. All radicals do that)

Islamic hostility toward the United States is often attributed to American support of Israel. There may be some truth in this. However, it does not explain the riots in Paris, the violence in other European countries,(Well, gee, maybe thats because the riots had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism or appeasement.. Hmm?) and the Islamic terrorism in Russia, Indonesia, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, or Jordan.

Many Americans must be asking questions about the future of Europe, particularly France,(Again, basis for that lies where? Oh right, "we saved your asses in WWII again") with its tradition of appeasement. As Neville Chamberlain learned with Germany in 1939, appeasement only emboldens the aggressors.(Tell that to Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Instead of confrontation... guess what? Another solution was found. People say that was appeasement)

The Empire wouldn't stand for it. That would be a clash of titans. The Empire and Nazi Germany against the USSR.

Very true. The almost limitless expanse of the North American continent gave immigrants room to expand and hope for the future. I seriously doubt we will ever see its equivalent again. :(
Plus in Europe we are faced with nearly 25 different cultures, perhaps with several common denominators, yet still somewhat different. We are now trying to add ones with foreign religions and values. This is just not going to work. We first need to converge the European nations, then begin to consider non-european immigrants. Otherwise, what we are looking at is a meltdown, not a melting pot (something Europe never aimed to be anyway).

Fine then. :rolleyes:
Well, at least you took the time comment. Thanks. :)

Eutrusca, I find it funny as well that people don't think that the situation in France reflects badly on socialism. That's like saying that the Bush administration doesn't reflect badly on the GOP! :p (I had to say that.)

There's another great article on the subject from Reason Magazine (http://www.reason.com) that compares the situation to A Clockwork Orange, one of my fave books and movies of all time.
Check it out here (http://www.reason.com/links/links111405.shtml).

So you've got underemployed but well fed kids with plenty of time on their hands, the depraved indifference of a welfare state that usurps the role of parents but provides no useful structure for the youth, a housing-project culture that sees itself (not without reason) as a defenseless ward of the state, politicians who veer between mealy-mouthed coddling of sociopaths and vicious denunciation of people with legitimate grievances, and kids who react to it all with theatrical violence. Clearly, the last century's great prophetic novel was not George Orwell's 1984 but Anthony Burgess' A Clockwork Orange.

Actually, if no one minded being part of the Soviet Union, the US probably didn't have to get involved in Europe at all.

Might have taken six months to a year longer, but the USSR was probably capable of reducing Germany and Italy.
The Soviet Union isn't mentioned anywhere in that article, though. The author seems to believe that America came in and saved Europe from Hitler singlehanded.

Would you honestly consider France to be socialist though? Its more like a form of welfare capitalism.

Well, at least you took the time comment. Thanks. :)
Well, its only a half assed attempt. If I had more time, I would have been more thorough and more... eloquent :p

Now, back to work for me :D

The Soviet Union isn't mentioned anywhere in that article, though. The author seems to believe that America came in and saved Europe from Hitler singlehanded.
Hardly the case. The USSR was the one which carried the greater burden of the war. I dispute the fact, though, that it could overpower Germany on its own, without the aid of the other Allies. Germany caused 20 million deaths I believe to the USSR, and the USSR caused barely half that to Germany. In addition, Britain's vehemently anti-communist predisposition would be a factor which may, in such a situation, have caused it to side with the Nazi German state as an alternative to Soviet rule.

Hardly the case. The USSR was the one which carried the greater burden of the war. I dispute the fact, though, that it could overpower Germany on its own, without the aid of the other Allies. Germany caused 20 million deaths I believe to the USSR, and the USSR caused barely half that to Germany. In addition, Britain's vehemently anti-communist predisposition would be a factor which may, in such a situation, have caused it to side with the Nazi German state as an alternative to Soviet rule.

IMHO, it probably could not without allied Heavy Bombing of German industry. The USSR could have probably taken germany and italy without the invation of Europe, however.

Plus in Europe we are faced with nearly 25 different cultures, perhaps with several common denominators, yet still somewhat different. We are now trying to add ones with foreign religions and values. This is just not going to work. We first need to converge the European nations, then begin to consider non-european immigrants. Otherwise, what we are looking at is a meltdown, not a melting pot (something Europe never aimed to be anyway).
I tend to agree. Multiple languages, multiple cultures, multiple religions, with nowhere to place some distance between them is often a prescription for, as you put it, "meltdown," especially when the government has few clues as to what to do about it. :(

Imagine Mormons and Southern Baptists yards from each other! GROAN!

IMHO, it probably could not without allied Heavy Bombing of German industry. The USSR could have probably taken germany and italy without the invation of Europe, however.
Its an even match I guess. I would have liked to see such a conflict play out. However, if it died, who knows what might have been today's world order? :confused: Something a lot scarier than it already is.

*snip*

Its hard to approach good points made in an article like that. I mean, between the rabid neocon rhetoric, the france bashing, and the immediate focus on radical islam, its kind of hard to take this guy seriously when he does get it right. Time and again I saw the author zeroing in on real problems, then attributing odd motivations.

Take abandoning neighborhoods to anarchy. Its a big problem, but I fail to see how it is a symptom of the "implosion of the (welfare) state." The US had similar problems with unintegrated populations even into the 80s and 90s (ever walked through the housing projects in Chicago or New York before the mid 90s?). Similar problems were seen in metro areas where immigrants formed their own communities during the turn of the century. Here, the problem in Europe isn't the welfare state, but being unused to large immigrant populations.

The author makes some good points about problems with appeasement in Europe. Then he makes a right turn and starts talking about genocide in Kosovo and gaming the Oil for Food program in Iraq. Appeasement is a problem in some parts of Europe, and the riots in France lasted as long as they did largely because the French didn't go in with tear gas, trunceons, horses, APVs, and pain. Sure, there were Islamist Radicals there, but they were no more the driving force than Black Radicals were the driving force behind the race riots in Chicago in the 60s. Those elements were there, but mass anarchy is about rage and greed.

The problem with this article is that its a classic case of bait and switch. Even when I agree with parts of the author's conclusions (mainly that Islamofascists need to be faced with strength) I'm still disgusted with the piece because it feels like the political equivilent of a used car salesman. Its slimey and dishonest.

Hardly the case. The USSR was the one which carried the greater burden of the war. I dispute the fact, though, that it could overpower Germany on its own, without the aid of the other Allies. Germany caused 20 million deaths I believe to the USSR, and the USSR caused barely half that to Germany. In addition, Britain's vehemently anti-communist predisposition would be a factor which may, in such a situation, have caused it to side with the Nazi German state as an alternative to Soviet rule.
And this is referred to in the article Eutrusca's posted where? The second world war is mentioned purely in order to stress that the cheese eating surrender monkeys are appeasing the jihad with all the zeal they once used to appease Hitler.

Unless I've been grossly misinformed about my WWI&WWII history... If we consider that France didn't give citizenship to the people who they forced to rebuild their country after the war, because those people were African/Muslim and France didn't want them there... I think that France got what they had coming. This was just an eventuality; if your policy is driven by unabashed racism (after a war where one of the major aspects was curtailing arbitrary hate) people are going to notice the hypocracy and it's going to bite you in the ass. If they had treated the Algerians and other colonists that they shipped over as people rather than sub-human, I really doubt that the descendants of these people (as well as others who have come in and been rejected by institutionalized racism) would have any reason whatsoever to just start rioting. They should be appeased, so long as by appeased you mean 'being entitled to the same rights as everyone else that they were denied before'. Should the rioters be punished? I think so, but not without making sure they have their citizenship ensured, making sure that they aren't being shat on by society, ammending government policy, etc. I don't want to say France should pretend this never happened, but if they want to avoid problems they definitely shouldn't ignore the needs and entitlements of these people any longer.

Indeed. Yet, those who fail to integrate into French society and give into extremism will not be welcomed in Europe. There is rising tension, and to say the least, these riots are going to cause huge problems for foreigners who fail to accept the host nation's culture. Furthermore, many of these protestors are recent immigrants, and are therefore owed no such duty.

And this is referred to in the article Eutrusca's posted where? The second world war is mentioned purely in order to stress that the cheese eating surrender monkeys are appeasing the jihad with all the zeal they once used to appease Hitler.
This is your perception of the French? How illuminating :rolleyes:

H. Thomas Hayden | November 23, 2005
Appeasement has become a national tradition with France and is beginning to spread its destabilizing and destructive tentacles to other parts of Europe. The Islamic-led riots in France may be confusing to some Americans but the learned say it has been a long time coming.


Yada yada yada, not much is said here, just cliche's. Especially when you consider that there was no such thing as "Islamic" leadership in those riots, just a bunch of dissafected youths, either right on their protests against racism and discrimination or simply eager to burn stuff going around togheter, with de-centralized organization. In a nutshell, this article is bulshit from the start.


In recent times appeasement silenced Europe when genocide was common in Kosovo. Even with TV news reports providing absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, Europeans debated what they should do until the US took decisive action and came into Europe for the first time since World War II to do the Europeans' work for them.


Yea yea, there were no Europeans in that bombing. My country hasn't men stationed on Kosovo. The luftwaffe didn't flew combat missions for the first time in 50 years, and so on. America is so narcissistic it is getting blind. And if you do a bit of research, you will find that "genocide" was a bit of an overstatement. So this article is based on bullshit, narcissism and ignorance.


Europe ignored nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam Hussein's torture and murder and -- motivated by self-righteousness, even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq -- France made illicit billions in the U.N. Oil-for-Food program.


Europe ignored Saddam when it was its best interest to ignore him. So did the US - Plus, france didn't made a dime out of the UN oil for food program, SOME french companies (And from a shitload of other countries) made money from it. So this article is biased, based on bullshit, narcissism, ignorance and deceit.


Paul Belien just wrote in the Brussels Journal : “Perhaps what we are witnessing in Europe, but what the politicians and the media dare not say aloud, is the implosion of the (welfare) state…The socialist welfare state is no longer able to maintain law and order and is abandoning entire neighborhoods to anarchy.”


Yea, like there weren't riots in the very capitalist US. Paul Belien is just another to use those riots as a weapon for idealogical war, instead of thinking why those riots occurred. He doesnt care, he just knows he can blame them on those he dislikes. So this article is biased, based on bullshit, narcissism, ignorance and deceit, and its also partizan.


He went on to write this about the French social-democratic welfare model: “It feeds on its own fiascos and will continue to do so until it collapses -- implodes -- under its own weight. Consequently it is an indestructible model. The only way out is for the implosion to come soon. If it does, then national disintegration may perhaps still be avoided. If it does not, the social fabric of the nation will be damaged beyond repair.”


More partizanship.


While appeasement fails and riots ensue, the response is to try to buy, or legislate harmony. Invariably the cry arises that government hasn't done enough for the foreign arrivals. Many say that they must spend more money on welfare, or schools, or special programs to raise the consciousness of the poor foreign born.


How many cars were burned in paris yesterday? Im sure many would have liked to see tanks roll in french streets, but i don't think they share the fascist culture of those who would.


France is now considering a National Islamic History Week. The French think that patience and appeasement will solve everything. Instead the problem gets worse. The majority population becomes angrier, but the Socialist government cannot anger their political base. The immigrant Muslims can loot and burn with impunity. According to the Socialist government, punishing misbehavior would engender more violence, which the government wants to avoid at any cost.


10% of their population is Muslim, they can make efforts to integrate them, correct? After all, what is the american "affirmative action" program but a huge integration program on its own? And if you read a bit, you will find that some looters are already being shipped out of france, or to jails.


A failed civilization, Islamic countries send their unemployed and uneducated to Europe. Naturally they gravitate to slums because they have nowhere else to go. Through Islamic radical leadership, cohesive, angry, European Muslims, with no loyalty to their new home, do not assimilate into the society that hosts them. Resentment grows and the cities burn.


A failed civilization? You call "failed" to their civilization and you expect them to like you? You catch flies with honey, not vinnegar. And i find it curious that the author seems to be against integration measures, but then cries when he acknowledges that the society that hosts them does not assimilate them.


How could France let the rampage, destruction and lawlessness go on for so long?


What, 20 days? Yea, french are tough rioting. Sure, because the goverment didn't went to the fascist wishes of seeing tanks roll on the streets, it wasnt effective on the short run, but hey, I think they did swell.



I think David Horowitz, in a most common sense, but politically incorrect newsletter, has some insight on the recent events. He wrote on NewsMax.com: “The Muslim riots in France -- orchestrated by cell phones and a political directorate that has spread the violence not only across France but also across Europe -- is an obvious escalation of the Islamic jihad that seeks to conquer the infidel world for the Muslim faith. It would be unkind to say that the French deserve it, but they do. This is the country that has done more to sabotage the war on Islamic terror and Muslim imperialism than any other. It has relentlessly preached appeasement of the enemy and condemnation of us as the chief obstacle to Islamic despotism."


Blablabla



Horowitz went on to write: “The French were Saddam's and Islam's closest allies in the West. Yet France is now the target of an Islamic jihad that is destroying the fabric of French society. The lesson for slow-witted liberals is this: The Islamic imperialists don't give a fig for what you do or what you say or what you believe about them. They are holy warriors. You are infidels. You will convert or die.


MMMMM... remind me, who keeps the Saud family in power? Who was a big supporter of the shah of Persia? Who was one of the guys (chirac did it too) that shaked hands with saddam? mmm Hey! In what country was the WTC attacks? I guess that the US isnt a target for the Islamic Jihad, it hasnt a shit load of islamic allies, etc.


“History will judge harshly the saboteurs of George Bush's war to defend the West against radical Islam. As a result of Bush's offensive, Osama Bin Laden and his henchmen are already effectively dead. That is the only reason 300 million Americans have been safe from attack since 9/11.”


I smelled bush asskissing from the start! Yea yea, Osama is dead, there werent terrorist attacks in Casablanca, London, Bali, yea, put your head on the sand americans!


The radical Islamic jihad is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century -- a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by “tolerance” and “accommodation” but is actually spurred on by such gestures of appeasement. This has proven to be the case in France. The radical Islamists will always take good faith gestures as signs of weakness.


Yea yea every leader calls his war the greatest of them all. Its a good thing the british didn't think like americans, or the IRA would still be blowing up people.


Islamic hostility toward the United States is often attributed to American support of Israel. There may be some truth in this. However, it does not explain the riots in Paris, the violence in other European countries, and the Islamic terrorism in Russia, Indonesia, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, or Jordan.


Again, the author must mix the problem of islamic extremism with the riots, because he HAS to! Only that can justify is hatred of france independence (independence from the wishes of the US), and is own ideas about Europe, islamic extremism, etc. Perhaps he should understand that one thing is terrorism, other is rioting. One thing is the london bombings, other is people in Saudi arabia rioting because their US supported goverment is worse than the old taliban regime.


Many Americans must be asking questions about the future of Europe, particularly France, with its tradition of appeasement. As Neville Chamberlain learned with Germany in 1939, appeasement only emboldens the aggressors.

Many Europeans asked themselves questions about the future of the US. You are constantly making us despise you. Not hatred, that is your turf. The US is more and more alone in the world, and the more you hate others for not bowing down, the more the others will leave you, like spoiled childreen.

I think given the source of the article it should be taken with a serious grain of salt. Just my opinion, just like the article is opinion.

This guy doesn't writ for the Spectator does he?

http://www.spectator.co.uk/covers/2005-11-12.jpg

I am firstly compelled to lambast and deplore the introspetively bigoted and inerudite article, both for its ineloquence and somewhat risable stance. However, it contrives to highlight a somewhat piquant notion, that we are obliged, not to appease and reason with the demands greivances of minorities, but to suppress and pacify such insurgents, and impress upon those fellows our authority.

This is your perception of the French? How illuminating :rolleyes:
No, I was paraphrasing the tosspot who wrote this tirade of bilge in the first place.

Good :) Indeed, the article is found wanting of a more serious approach to the matter. Instead, it is a half baked collection of facts, presented in a manner reminiscent of trashy articles to be found in tabloids, which quite frankly, belong in gutters. :rolleyes:

Good :) Indeed, the article is found wanting of a more serious approach to the matter. Instead, it is a half baked collection of facts, presented in a manner reminiscent of trashy articles to be found in tabloids, which quite frankly, belong in gutters. :rolleyes:
You read Bild?

No, why?

Good :) Indeed, the article is found wanting of a more serious approach to the matter. Instead, it is a half baked collection of facts, presented in a manner reminiscent of trashy articles to be found in tabloids, which quite frankly, belong in gutters. :rolleyes:
I probably shouldn't have used that term, but for some reason it flitted through my head as I reread the claims that the French are bending backwards to accomodate evil jihadists out to destroy western civilisation. It's hard to shake the feeling that the columnist wanted to use it, but his editor wasn't having that.
(The thing I find offensive is the way it alternates between facts, opinions with some relationship to reality and opinions less credible than HP Lovecraft's fiction as though all deserve to be treated with the same gravity and respect. No they bleeding well don't.)

A good journalist knows how to make it known to their reader which arguments deserve more merit than others. Obviously, the author of the piece has no such ability.

A good journalist knows how to make it known to their reader which arguments deserve more merit than others. Obviously, the author of the piece has no such ability.
Either that or he feels that he knows what's right and presenting any more of the facts might lead to somebody having the poor manners to disagree with him.

Well he didn't succeed either way :p

Appeasement? The French demand that "You will beecome Fraynch, just like zee rest of us, and leeave your culture beehind."

If you are emigrating to a country, I believe the host country has the right to make such a demand. That, and that you should be able to contribute to its economy. Countries are not charities.

Your thoughts on this? And please, do try to approch the topic relatively rationally rather than "OMG! T3h n30-c0ns are t3h sux0rz!!!!111ONE11!!!"
Then don't make obviously biased topics intended to pit one side against the other, it is getting seriously tiring.