NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Is France heading toward the sort of internal conflict that's just short of civil war?


Torture and Death of Jew Deepen Fears in France (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/international/europe/05france.html?th&emc=th)


By CRAIG S. SMITH
Published: March 5, 2006
BAGNEUX, France, March 3 — Two strips of red-and-white police tape bar the entrance to the low-ceilinged pump room where a young Jewish man, Ilan Halimi, spent the last weeks of his life, tormented and tortured by his captors and eventually splashed with acid in an attempt to erase any traces of their DNA.

The floor of the concrete room, in the cellar of 4, rue Serge-Prokofiev, is bare except for a few packets of rat poison, a slowly drying wet mark and a dozen small circles drawn and numbered in white chalk, presumably marking the spots where the police retrieved evidence of Mr. Halimi's ordeal.

Mr. Halimi, 23, died Feb. 13, shortly after he was found near a train station 15 miles away by passers-by, after crawling out of the wooded area where he was dumped. He was naked and bleeding from at least four stab wounds to his throat, his hands bound and adhesive tape covering his mouth and eyes. According to the initial autopsy report, burns, apparently from the acid, covered 60 percent of his body.

"I knew they had someone down there," said a young French-Arab man, loitering in the doorway of a building adjacent to the one where Mr. Halimi was held. He claimed to live upstairs from the makeshift dungeon but would not give his name or say whether he knew then that the man was a Jew. "I didn't know they were torturing him," he said. "Otherwise, I would have called the police."

But it is clear that plenty of people did know, both that Mr. Halimi was being tortured and that he was Jewish. The police, according to lawyers with access to the investigation files, think at least 20 people participated in his abduction and the subsequent, amateurish negotiations for ransom. His captors told his family that if they did not have the money, they should "go and get it from your synagogue," and later contacted a rabbi, telling him, "We have a Jew."

The horrifying death has stunned France, which has Europe's largest Muslim and largest Jewish populations. Last weekend, tens of thousands of people marched against racism and anti-Semitism in Paris, joined by the interior minister, Nicholas Sarkozy, and smaller marches took place in several other French cities, including Marseille.

In the wake of the riots that broke out in the immigrant-heavy Paris suburbs last fall, the case seems to embody the social problems of immigration, race and class that France has been facing with so much uncertainty. The emerging details raise deep fears of virulent anti-Semitism within the hardening underclass, and point to the decaying social fabric in which that underclass lives.

Those that the police say kidnapped and killed Mr. Halimi called themselves the Barbarians, and included people of different backgrounds: the children of blacks from sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean, of Arabs from North Africa, of at least one Persian from Iran, and of whites from Portugal and France.

The gang's leader was a tall, charismatic young man named Youssouf Fofana, 25, one of five children born in Paris to at least nominally Muslim immigrants from Ivory Coast. When he was a teenager, the family moved to the bleak neighborhood of 12-story concrete apartment blocks where Mr. Halimi was held.

Trouble started early. He studied plumbing at a local vocational school but by the age of 16 had already begun a series of run-ins with the police, eventually racking up 13 arrests for everything from theft to fencing stolen goods. In 1999, at the age of 19, he stole a car, beating the Portuguese owner who tried to intervene. He was arrested and sentenced to his only jail term, serving two years in prisons in Nanterre and Fleury-Mérogis, neither far from Paris.

He returned to his mother's apartment and used his prison credentials to assume the role of senior tough among younger, idle men and women, people in the neighborhood say. Lawyers familiar with the case suggest that this is when the seeds of the Barbarians were sown.

By 2004, the police say, he tried extortion, aiming at prominent French Jews. When that failed, the gang apparently turned to kidnapping, using young women as bait.

The Barbarians are thought to have been behind six attempted abductions, four of Jewish men, before succeeding with Mr. Halimi.

[ This article is three pages long. To read the rest of the article, go here (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/international/europe/05france.html?pagewanted=2&th&emc=th). ]

Based on this article concerning one criminal gang? I wouldn't say so, no.

No.

One murder does not make a civil war.

Even by the standards of the media, that is some hyperbole. Try spending some time there before starting up that.

One murder does not make a civil war.
It does in "We hate France" land.

We don't have to worry about a French civil war, since one side would surrender immediately before any fighting went on.

/cliched obligatory french-surrender joke

If it's the looming threat of a civil war you're searching for, look to your own backyard for the rumbling of discontent.

We don't have to worry about a French civil war, since one side would surrender immediately before any fighting went on.

/cliched obligatory french-surrender joke
You win this thread. :p

Based on this article concerning one criminal gang? I wouldn't say so, no.
Vive la France. :)

We don't have to worry about a French civil war, since one side would surrender immediately before any fighting went on.

/cliched obligatory french-surrender joke
No, then they would have a series of bloody civil wars about who surrendered first and thus who lost.

Vive la France. :)
C'est joli, n'est-ce pas?
Mmmm... France :fluffle:

C'est joli, n'est-ce pas?
Mmmm... France :fluffle:
L'imperatrice du Monde ;)

Last weekend, tens of thousands of people marched against racism and anti-Semitism in Paris, joined by the interior minister, Nicholas Sarkozy, and smaller marches took place in several other French cities, including Marseille.
Interesting that you would try and make this little bit disappear in a giant heap of text, isn't it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4753348.stm

As for civil war...that's silly.

But if you speak German, or you don't mind reading the mangled results of a babelfish translation, here is the best article I have ever read about modern France. And it doesn't pull any punches.
http://www.zeit.de/2005/52/Frankreich?page=all

Quelle question imbecile, Eutrusca.

I'm betting on Sixth Republic.

an, or you don't mind reading the mangled results of a babelfish translation, here is the best article I have ever read about modern France. And it doesn't pull any punches.
http://www.zeit.de/2005/52/Frankreich?page=all

Hmm...

Of France large self fraud

The roads in flames, and even the cooks emigrate: Of France star sinks, because the former weltmacht holds to its heroischen illusions. A lampoon  Von Benjamin grain

It was a no like a gong impact, when in the evening 29 of May 2005 the voices in France were counted out. The Frenchmen had shifted the European constitution the mortal blow.

Hmm...
Hmm...

Well, I suppose it's off to school with you. :p

But if you speak German, or you don't mind reading the mangled results of a babelfish translation, here is the best article I have ever read about modern France. And it doesn't pull any punches.
http://www.zeit.de/2005/52/Frankreich?page=all
It's the same result we would have had in Germany. If they let them vote. Which of course they didn't cause they knew what the answer would be.

It's the same result we would have had in Germany. If they let them vote. Which of course they didn't cause they knew what the answer would be.
You're supposed to read further than just the intro paragraph. The constitution is not the topic of the article. The state of France as a nation is.

As for the vote, of course it would have been. Not only was the constitution not particularly well done, nor was it properly explained for anyone but things that had actually nothing to do with it came into people's minds for some reason.
At times I have even heard people condemn the constitution using the very same phenomena it was meant to fix.

You're supposed to read further than just the intro paragraph. The constitution is not the topic of the article. The state of France as a nation is.

As for the vote, of course it would have been. Not only was the constitution not particularly well done, nor was it properly explained for anyone but things that had actually nothing to do with it came into people's minds for some reason.
At times I have even heard people condemn the constitution using the very same phenomena it was meant to fix.
Has Austria made any propositions yet on how to rectify it?

You're supposed to read further than just the intro paragraph. The constitution is not the topic of the article. The state of France as a nation is.
If you had read beyond the title you would have noticed that the problems in France are largely identical with the once Germany has. Camembert stuff aside.

At times I have even heard people condemn the constitution using the very same phenomena it was meant to fix.
I for one am glad it got rejected by the French and the Dutch. I could never support a constitution which names NATO as the basis for our common defence policy.
Smash NATO!!!

Has Austria made any propositions yet on how to rectify it?
Hey, you're the one in Europe. :D

That being said, a quick search of the BBC tells me:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4594022.stm

If you had read beyond the title you would noticed that the problems in France are largely identical with the once Germany has. Camembert stuff aside.
Some of the issues, others not so much. The thing is that in Germany, it seems like both the public and the politicians are much more willing to confront what is wrong and to criticise.
France on the other hand seems to be caught with a bit of senseless nationalism and can't get itself to face the crises it has. I have hopes that things change when Chirac leaves.

I for one am glad it got rejected by the French and the Dutch. I could never support a constitution which names NATO as the basis for our common defence policy.
Smash NATO!!!
Well, it also talks about seperate European defence arrangements. Nonetheless, NATO is what makes the EU a military power. Without NATO, it wouldn't be. It's that simple.

Hey, you're the one in Europe. :D

That being said, a quick search of the BBC tells me:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4594022.stm
Heh, so nothing until June. Oh well, it pays to be patient I guess.

I'd like to know how strong French laws are. These people need to be sent to jail for a LONG time. Prefrably for good.

Some of the issues, others not so much. The thing is that in Germany, it seems like both the public and the politicians are much more willing to confront what is wrong and to criticise.
France on the other hand seems to be caught with a bit of senseless nationalism and can't get itself to face the crises it has. I have hopes that things change when Chirac leaves.
Oh please. I know you live in Australia. But if you realy believe that German politicians are much more willing to confront what is wrong. Haha. Yes. they criticise alot. Unfortunatly that usualy as far as they go. As for the public. Well, they can criticise as much as they like. It's not like any politician will listen to them. Even less act upon it. Maybe under Merkel that will change. But thats still to early to tell.

Well, it also talks about seperate European defence arrangements.
Yes. There has been talks about that since the 1950's.

Nonetheless, NATO is what makes the EU a military power. Without NATO, it wouldn't be. It's that simple.
Pulease.:rolleyes: The EU is not a military power because of NATO. The EU is not a military power at all. It lacks something critical. A military. And NATO is like an American timesharing firm for military personell. Like a US foreign legion.

Maybe under Merkel that will change. But thats still to early to tell.
That's what I'm counting on.

Yes. There has been talks about that since the 1950's.
But it actually does exist though. The various corps and divisions are around and largely operational.

Pulease.:rolleyes: The EU is not a military power because of NATO. The EU is not a military power at all. It lacks something critical. A military.
You see, the point is that the EU (as in, the European members of NATO) have their say in the most powerful military alliance on the planet. And given that the populations of Europe are not exactly thrilled at the idea of spending a lot of their tax money on guns, that is a pretty ideal arrangement.

And NATO is like an American timesharing firm for military personell. Like a US foreign legion.
If you think so, feel free to argue your point of view. I'm not convinced.

But it actually does exist though. The various corps and divisions are around and largely operational.

Please don't tell me your talking about the Eurocorps. Which is firmly entangled in the NATO webs.

You see, the point is that the EU (as in, the European members of NATO) have their say in the most powerful military alliance on the planet. And given that the populations of Europe are not exactly thrilled at the idea of spending a lot of their tax money on guns, that is a pretty ideal arrangement.
Theres nothing ideal about it. As long as we have to spend billions on NATO facilities so that the US can benefit.
Now there was this point in the constitution that did appeal to me. The one about increasing defence expenditure.


If you think so, feel free to argue your point of view. I'm not convinced.
The increased number of European troops that got send to Afghanistan once the US figured out where Iraq was located.

Please don't tell me your talking about the Eurocorps. Which is firmly entangled in the NATO webs.
Not only that. Task Forces, Rapid Reaction Force and that sort of thing as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Security_and_Defence_Policy

Theres nothing ideal about it. As long as we have to spend billions on NATO facilities so that the US can benefit.
And they spend billions so that we can benefit. Germany has full access to an AWACS network. It even controls it, together with an American counterpart.
Do you have any idea what it would cost the German taxpayer to get that kind of capability on its own?

Now there was this point in the constitution that did appeal to me. The one about increasing defence expenditure.
Well, as I said, not everyone is a 19th century nationalist who feels that money spent on guns isn't money wasted. At the moment, it seems like the consensus in Germany is that there are much more serious things to be done than worry about the military.

The increased number of European troops that got send to Afghanistan once the US figured out where Iraq was located.
They are there for a UN Peacekeeping mission. NATO is the operational framework, not the reason they are there.

If it's the looming threat of a civil war you're searching for, look to your own backyard for the rumbling of discontent.
LOL! Somehow I just knew at least one twit would say this! Thanks for not disappointing me. :D

LOL! Somehow I just knew at least one twit would say this! Thanks for not disappointing me. :D

Ceci n'est pas une réfutation.

Ceci n'est pas une réfutation.

Quelle surprise.

Not only that. Task Forces, Rapid Reaction Force and that sort of thing as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Security_and_Defence_Policy
Have you even read the articel?

The ESDI was to create a European 'pillar' within NATO, partly to allow European countries to act militarily where NATO wished not to, and partly to alleviate the United States' financial burden of maintaining the military bases which it had had in Europe since the Cold War.


The European Security Strategy strikingly overlaps with NATO's mission. Yet, their body of members is not identical and there are some unresoveld issues between members, e.g. Cyprus and Turkey. Furthermore, concerns were voiced that an independent European security pillar might result in a deciling importance of NATO as a transatlantic forum. In resposne to St. Malo, the former US-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright put forth the three famous D’s which outline American expectations towards ESDP to this day: no duplication of what was done effectively under NATO, no decoupling from the US and NATO, and no discrimination against non-EU members such as Turkey.

The policy of the Union in accordance with this article shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain member states, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, under the North Atlantic Treaty, and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework. (Art. 1-41 2)





And they spend billions so that we can benefit. Germany has full access to an AWACS network. It even controls it, together with an American counterpart.
Do you have any idea what it would cost the German taxpayer to get that kind of capability on its own?
Do you have any idea how much the enemy forces (US) costs the German taxpayer now?


Well, as I said, not everyone is a 19th century nationalist who feels that money spent on guns isn't money wasted. At the moment, it seems like the consensus in Germany is that there are much more serious things to be done than worry about the military.
What the Germans feel is more important is another topic all together.


They are there for a UN Peacekeeping mission. NATO is the operational framework, not the reason they are there.
They are there to relieve the US so they could invade Iraq.

Quelle surprise.

Telle est son habitude, mais, pourtant, il faut toujours la remarquer.

Telle est son habitude, mais, pourtant, il faut toujours la remarquer.

Mais Eutrusca ne peut pas comprendre français.

(et je ne peu pas aussi :()

Mais Eutrusca ne peut pas comprendre français.

(et je ne peu pas aussi :()
Malhereusement pour vous.

Malhereusement pour vous.

Je sais, je sais.


(I am trying to learn though. But I currently have to shelve it for the time being)

Malhereusement pour vous.

On dirait "tant pis."

Mais Eutrusca ne peut pas comprendre français.

(et je ne peu pas aussi :()

J'ai essayé d'écrire un français assez proche des termes franco-anglais pour qu'il n'ait pas trop de difficulté de les faire traduire en ligne.

J'ai essayé d'écrire un français assez proche des termes franco-anglais pour qu'il n'ait trop de difficulté de les faire traduire en ligne.

I'm generally ok with translating into english, though for specific words I tend to use a dictionary. But I have to admit "Malhereusement" threw me, so I just guessed (correctly as it turns out :D)

Pourquoi sommes-nous écrivant en français ? Est-ce que j'ai manqué quelque chose d'importance ?

C'est un grande werke d'art conceptuel!!!

(Wish the relevant Steve Bell cartoon was online)

Pourquoi sommes-nous écrivant en français ? Est-ce que j'ai manqué quelque chose d'importance ?

Haha. Did you use an online translator for that? "Sommes-nous écrivant." Heh. "Are we writing" directly translated, and yet so wrong...

Haha. Did you use an online translator for that? "Sommes-nous écrivant." Heh. "Are we writing" directly translated, and yet so wrong...

Yep. ;)

I know the damn translator is limited so I didn't want to use typing or posting. Still why are we not posting in English? It is irritating.

Yep. ;)

I know the damn translator is limited so I didn't want to use typing or posting. Still why are we not posting in English? It is irritating.

English itself is irritating, especially when it's the only thing on the table.

Je crois que le posteur originale est vraiment bête.

English itself is irritating, especially when it's the only thing on the table.

*Looks at table*

*Trys to change topic to Espanol*

Porque estamos hablando en French, cuando nosotros puedemos hablar en Espanol, la idioma bonita.

Opps, duh. lol/

Je crois que le posteur originale est vraiment bête.

N'y vas pas.

Je crois que le posteur originale est vraiment bête.

Oui, il est un oie bête :D

N'y vas pas.

Quoi? :confused:

Je suis confuse.

Quoi? :confused:

Je suis confuse.
"Don't go there".

Too late.

"Don't go there".

Too late.

Hop. Oops.

No! We can't stop here! This is bat country! *drives away in a fast car with no top*

J'ai essayé d'écrire un français assez proche des termes franco-anglais pour qu'il n'ait pas trop de difficulté de les faire traduire en ligne.

Combien des langues parlez vous? C'est une chose que j'admire des européens, c'est difficile à trouver des américains qui parle l'anglais bien, et c'est presque impossible à trouver des américains que parle les autres langues, moins que l'espagnol pres de la Mexique. Ma Français n'est pas le mieux, mais j'essaie.

Est-ce que possible? Une guerre civile? Dénué de tout fondement!!

I wish you'd speak some *known* language...
- Col. Johnny Race, Death on the Nile
:D

COMMENTARY: Is France heading toward the sort of internal conflict that's just short of civil war?

No. Despite what you may hope.

I'm betting on Sixth Republic.

I'm betting on Third Empire. Or is it Fourth?

I'm betting on Third Empire. Or is it Fourth?
*bets on the Third and a Half Reich*

Have you even read the articel?
So what do you expect? NATO is still the main pillar of defence and security policy for all European nations. Even though alternatives are being developed, there is no need to create artificial hostility by outright rejecting NATO, which is a very useful tool for all members, not just the US.

Do you have any idea how much the enemy forces (US) costs the German taxpayer now?
It's silly to call them "enemy forces". They've been good partners and normally well-behaved. For generations they trained together with the Bundeswehr, there was mutual understanding and help.
They are already getting ready to leave.

But to answer your question: No, I don't know, but I would bet that it is a lot less than it costs the US citizens, or even than the Bundeswehr costs the Germans.

They are there to relieve the US so they could invade Iraq.
Okay. So then have a look at how many international troops are there.
Then have a look how many US troops are there (which incidentally are not doing peacekeeping, but mainly combat against Taliban forces).

And then compare with the number of troops in Iraq, and tell me again that not having ISAF there would somehow mean that the US couldn't occupy Iraq.

One murder does not make a civil war.

Yes. It's not like that's how the First World War was kicked off, or anything. :rolleyes:

No! We can't stop here! This is bat country! *drives away in a fast car with no top*

*nods solemnly*

COMMENTARY: Is France heading toward the sort of internal conflict that's just short of civil war?
Oh look:
Homeless Man Set on Fire in Boston
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186872,00.html
(from http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=471848)
Gee! a couple of arsewipes in the states that need euthanising! Guess this means that the US is heading toward some sort of internal conflict that's just short of civil war.
Oh! I get to do a rollyeye smiley! :rolleyes: Just like Eutrusca. yay for me.

Yes. It's not like that's how the First World War was kicked off, or anything. :rolleyes:

Yes. Because the murder of Archduke Ferdinand was the sole cause of the First World War. Not the creation of empire blocs that radically opposed each other, a huge naval arms race, militant factions in the German army, political arena and an agressive Kaiser, and the British sticking their noses into the continent.:rolleyes:

Yes. It's not like that's how the First World War was kicked off, or anything. :rolleyes:Apart from the fact that you're missing the real reason's behind WWI, it wasn't a civil war ;)

an agressive Kaiser
The `agressive´ Kaiser was agressivley fishing of the coast of Norway when Austria declared war on Serbia.