|
Post by Wadaad on Oct 15, 2005 11:53:20 GMT -5
What are you on crack? France snuggled up to the Germans, and were an example of willing occupation under Viche government. They cooperatively exported Jews, and increased their GDP to aid the Nazi war effort. France bailed out of NATO, when it was all the other NATO members that fought to liberate France. And NATO was set in motion to ensure countries like France wouldn't face future military aggression. ...They begged the United States to help them in Vietnam, and then promptly left the country. They have the political will of a jellyfish. They go whichever way the wind blows. ...Including snuggling up to Islamo-Fascists. There's whole books written about the dubious and double-crossing nature of France. Check out Our Oldest Enemy : A History of America's Disastrous Relationship with France. France's looking out for France Its definitely just you guys, you have been pushing France around since early colonial days. Notice how the American public has a really positive attitude about France the country, its culture, the language, the wine, etc etc. US/France relations may be bad but economically nothing's changed except the strong Euroe may have put a damper on French exports, in any case American tourists still flock there, etc. All the French bashing comes from three places: 1) Capitol Hill 2) The New York Times/Fox 3) Hollywood in general Zionist lobby, anyone? I like France btw, they are quite liberal to Muslims and I consider them less hypocritical than USA, and UK. And also due to their firm stand against USA/UK war on Iraq... Now, every unfound weapon of mass destruction, every unfounded intelligence claim, every American casualty, only adds to this view that the French are most similar to mine And Igu (dhimmi wannabe), the future of Islam is in Europe whether you like it or not
|
|
|
Post by Ewig Berter on Oct 15, 2005 12:14:12 GMT -5
And Igu ( dhimmi wannabe), the future of Islam is in Europe whether you like it or not LOL! ;D
|
|
|
Post by atlantis on Oct 15, 2005 20:33:29 GMT -5
I like France btw, they are quite liberal to Muslims and I consider them less hypocritical than USA, and UK. You've never been to France, have you? France is anything but liberal to muslims. It is one of the few countries in the world which actually has a headscarf ban in public buildings. In the South of France it is forbidden to built any mosque and in the North it's very difficult to get a permission to built one. As a result, religious gatherings are being held in improvised "mosques" usually garages. I can go on with subject for a long time but I think you get my point. (in Britain public servants are allowed to were the headscarf even police officers) Don't fool yourself Wadaad, France's stand on the Iraq war was not one out of love for Iraq. But because of self interests (greed). Read on France's colonial history in Algeria and Indo-China. I don't mind the despot Saddam Hussain being deposed by the Americans: (very graphic link!) images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=halabja&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&fr=FP-tab-img-t&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8
|
|
|
Post by CooCooCachoo on Oct 16, 2005 0:23:21 GMT -5
What are you on crack? France snuggled up to the Germans, and were an example of willing occupation under Viche government. They cooperatively exported Jews, and increased their GDP to aid the Nazi war effort. France bailed out of NATO, when it was all the other NATO members that fought to liberate France. And NATO was set in motion to ensure countries like France wouldn't face future military aggression. ...They begged the United States to help them in Vietnam, and then promptly left the country. They have the political will of a jellyfish. They go whichever way the wind blows. ...Including snuggling up to Islamo-Fascists. There's whole books written about the dubious and double-crossing nature of France. Check out Our Oldest Enemy : A History of America's Disastrous Relationship with France. France's looking out for France ...France losing a friend.
|
|
|
Post by Digenes on Oct 16, 2005 15:01:36 GMT -5
I see... To you, Igu, the media coverage of an incident that took place three years ago is enough to let you draw conclusions on french policies and give your thread some nice pompous title, while the nation`s constant decision to defend the strictly secular character of the public space, is not. But I guess that the needs of a berber nationalist attitude -and every nationalist attitude- hardly ever comply with the requirements of objectivity. Blabla bla, leftist propaganda of a happy world where muslims are are not harmful, blablabbla. while the nation`s constant decision to defend the strictly secular character of the public space, is not. -Yes, trying to change the constitution in order to build mosques is very secular! -Organizing a muslim lobby by the help and initiative of the french government is also secular. -The most powerful media (a newspaper) of france: "le monde" is leftist and promotes the ridiculous concpt of "islamophobia". -When a french commits an anti-semite act, he is anti-semite, but when it's a muslim it's an act of "delinquency". My point here is not to criticize french, My point is to prove that the french are NOT pro-Berbers as some leftists and islamophiles affirm. I don't care about france, I never cared, for me it's just a future islamic colony that needs to be neutralized. VIVE USA, VIVE ISRAEL. Islam is not by definition harmful or harmless, it is just incompatible to a great extent with all those ideas and principles upon which the "West" is founded (such as the rights of the individual, secularism, separation of powers etc.). The flow of immigration from islamic countries into Europe will inevitably go on to some degree and the challenge for Europe is, for those who won`t be assimilated, to let them live and prosper but not to allow them to carry their religious identity out of the private sphere. France is well aware of this, maybe not at the proper time but nonetheless earlier than other europeans. As extremism begins to infect the islamic communities of Europe as well, this process can only be made more difficult and additional measures will need to be taken but i`m afraid there`s no alternative for Europe. As for what you call the "muslim lobby" initiated by the french, France is a former colonial power and as such they have a great interest in preserving their own international circle of influence, as UK does. I don`t see anything wrong with this, even from your berber-narrowed point of view; on the contrary, i think the closer Maghreb is being attached -in any way- to Europe, the better for your people, as such a prospect might generate processes similar to those we expect to see in Turkey. But you are really pathetic if you hope that USA and Israel bashing the Arabs would relieve your people in any way; this could not but result in islamic extremism and arabic nationalism growing more aggressive and finally putting out the last sparks of berber consciousness in Maghreb and diaspora.
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Oct 16, 2005 15:46:46 GMT -5
As for what you call the "muslim lobby" initiated by the french, France is a former colonial power and as such they have a great interest in preserving their own international circle of influence, as Britain does. Do you have any idea about what the "the muslim lobby" is? It's a sort of clergy, it gathers all ideological tendencies of french muslims, from islamists to secular muslims, it allows them to speak with one voice. guess who gets most of the seats? the islamists (Pro islamic law in muslim countries, Pro-hamas, women do not shake hands with men ...etc.), tell me now how does that preserves the interests of France over North Africa? No, you are wrong, since USA invaded Iraq: -Iraqi Kurds are free. -Syria does not support the Hamas and has pulled back its troops from lebanon. -Qaddafi has shut up and does not speak the way he did before, he even allowed UN inspections. -All arab countries are not as arrogant as they were. -Islamists are tracked down everywhere in europe, imams with subversive speeches are expelled from their host countries. Islamists are not acting freely. -No miltary bases in Afghanistan. Now, many countries (with important resources like Algeria) piss in their pants, they avoid giving pretexts for being invaded... imagine if there is a genocie against Berbers, do you think the USA will not use that pretext to invade rich countries like Algeria? the Algerian system is well aware of that, they won't do anything, thanks to the US.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Oct 16, 2005 18:42:47 GMT -5
As for what you call the "muslim lobby" initiated by the french, France is a former colonial power and as such they have a great interest in preserving their own international circle of influence, as Britain does. Do you have any idea about what the "the muslim lobby" is? It's a sort of clergy, it gathers all ideological tendencies of french muslims, from islamists to secular muslims, it allows them to speak with one voice. guess who gets most of the seats? the islamists (Pro islamic law in muslim countries, Pro-hamas, women do not shake hands with men ...etc.), tell me now how does that preserves the interests of France over North Africa? No, you are wrong, since USA invaded Iraq: -Iraqi Kurds are free. They were de facto independent since the No-Fly Zones. A disastrous fusion of the Kurds and Iraq may have happened because of the US invasion.
|
|
|
Post by CooCooCachoo on Oct 16, 2005 19:23:18 GMT -5
Islam is not by definition harmful or harmless, it is just incompatible to a great extent with all those ideas and principles upon which the "West" is founded (such as the rights of the individual, secularism, separation of powers etc.). The flow of immigration from islamic countries into Europe will inevitably go on to some degree and the challenge for Europe is, for those who won`t be assimilated, to let them live and prosper but not to allow them to carry their religious identity out of the private sphere. France is well aware of this, maybe not at the proper time but nonetheless earlier than other europeans. As extremism begins to infect the islamic communities of Europe as well, this process can only be made more difficult and additional measures will need to be taken but i`m afraid there`s no alternative for Europe. As for what you call the "muslim lobby" initiated by the french, France is a former colonial power and as such they have a great interest in preserving their own international circle of influence, as UK does. I don`t see anything wrong with this, even from your berber-narrowed point of view; on the contrary, i think the closer Maghreb is being attached -in any way- to Europe, the better for your people, as such a prospect might generate processes similar to those we expect to see in Turkey. But you are really pathetic if you hope that USA and Israel bashing the Arabs would relieve your people in any way; this could not but result in islamic extremism and arabic nationalism growing more aggressive and finally putting out the last sparks of berber consciousness in Maghreb and diaspora. Why is it that Islam is the only culture that seems to be unaware of genocide? Islamic-Extremism is not the end-all be-all result. Too much of it will result in genocide.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Oct 16, 2005 20:19:09 GMT -5
I keep thinking that in the near future muslim fanatics will do something really really "bad", which will piss off the whole world, and that USA, Russia, India and China will simultaniously punish them.
Is it a coincidence that whenever an islamic country/region limits with a non islamic country/region, (christians, jews, hindus, secular liberals, communist atheists, whatever), from the Philippines to Nigeria, there are problems?
Someone, Huntington if I recall correctly, said that Islam has bloody borders, I think he was right.
|
|
|
Post by Digenes on Oct 17, 2005 20:12:14 GMT -5
Do you have any idea about what the "the muslim lobby" is? It's a sort of clergy, it gathers all ideological tendencies of french muslims, from islamists to secular muslims, it allows them to speak with one voice. guess who gets most of the seats? the islamists (Pro islamic law in muslim countries, Pro-hamas, women do not shake hands with men ...etc.), tell me now how does that preserves the interests of France over North Africa? Thanks for the explanation, it seems i was mistaken on the meaning of the word, while inadequately informed on french affairs. The idea of creating a channel of communication with the religious representatives of the muslim community is not at all bad, nor it is incompatible with secular state, provided that they are limited to a strictly consultative role. Now, if extremists are taking on seats, this is certainly not good news but in any case i don`t think the french would let things go out of control. Now, many countries (with important resources like Algeria) piss in their pants, they avoid giving pretexts for being invaded... imagine if there is a genocie against Berbers, do you think the USA will not use that pretext to invade rich countries like Algeria? the Algerian system is well aware of that, they won't do anything, thanks to the US. When i wrote about "sparks of berber consciousness being put out", i did not mean of course that someone would take action to bring down the last berber (together with his self-consciousness ;D) in a pool of blood... Something like a genocide would not be necessary at all, as the process of "arabization" of the berbers would be accelerated, with more and more feeling to be directly offended in their muslim faith, while some weak berber identity would matter less and for less individuals, until extinction, the language and culture following soon. This process is already in motion, whether you admit it or not. Weren`t Arabs and Berbers protesting together (probably with your exception ;D) in the streets of Europe against the war, or am i wrong again? And since you mentioned the Kurds, i think the various berber speaking populations are in general less self-conscious than the Kurds (who have a centuries-old reputation for being extremely warlike, rebel-minded and freedom-loving). Unless i `m wrong again. So, you expect the american superman to bring you freedom... I doubt strongly whether the US are really interested in "bringing freedom" to N Africa. They will be for a long time yet quite busy in the middle east and central Asia, wherein their more crucial interests and priorities. Since you mentioned it, in the case of a genocide i would support any immediate action on whoever responsible. However, something pretty close to a genocide has been taking place in your neighborhood (in Sudan) until recently and the muslim and arab-influenced ruling class of the country was indicated as responsible by almost everyone, the american government using the term "genocide"... I guess you `ll be aware of the fact that Sudan has been long considered by the US as one of the "pariahs" of the international community, being accused of promoting terrorism etc. And yet, nothing happened so far. Now, if you hope the americans would be attracted enough by the resources of Algeria to distract themselves from their current plans and arrive in your salvation, i really doubt about it, as i already said. Anyway, i support too freedom for berbers. What i definitely do not support is single-minded views and misleading conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by Digenes on Oct 17, 2005 20:25:31 GMT -5
Why is it that Islam is the only culture that seems to be unaware of genocide? Islamic-Extremism is not the end-all be-all result. Too much of it will result in genocide. Someone, Huntington if I recall correctly, said that Islam has bloody borders, I think he was right. Christian world has also been aggressive and responsible for genocides and atrocities of every kind during the greatest part of its history. In my opinion, violence is innate in every claim that there is one and only truth. Then, as everyone tries to unite the world in his own "truth", the result is inevitably conflict. If some part of Islam is acting violently nowadays, it`s in my opinion because they feel like being pushed to the wall, as the increasing world-wide influence of the "western civilization" scatters around its "dangerous seeds" that might grow enough to irreparably crack their perception of an ideal, collectivist, unitive-oriented community they wish to apply. Their claim of a Christianity vs Islam conflict is imo just an easy way to explain things, in order to connect the current situation to the great conflicts of the middle ages... Europe (or the West in general) no more represents Christianity. Political precedents in international relations (such as american imperialism, depression of the Palestinians or the Chechens etc.) do much of the job and the same with social factors like overpopulation, poverty etc. As i believe that people prefer to live in freedom and prosperity rather than blowing themselves up, i think a great deal of extremist action can be prevented. However, the experience of losing vital space that i pointed above as being the very core of islamic extremism, will always be pushing some to violent reaction and thus we may never get rid completely of islamic terrorism.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Oct 17, 2005 20:35:13 GMT -5
I keep thinking that in the near future muslim fanatics will do something really really "bad", which will piss off the whole world, and that USA, Russia, India and China will simultaniously punish them. I think the only way that could happen is if Russian, India or China gave them a nuke.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Oct 17, 2005 20:56:07 GMT -5
Maybe they could steal it, in Argentina we have quite advanced nuclear technology, we sold reactors to Australia and Egypt ( the only high tech stuff we have, the rest is wheat, soy and cows), the americans last month made a deal with our government, they are going to take our nuclear waste which could be used for creating a "dirty atomic bomb" to the USA, because they feel it is safer in the USA than in a third world country like Argentina, that was great for us, we got rid of a problem, and they gave us money too.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Oct 17, 2005 21:01:06 GMT -5
Why is it that Islam is the only culture that seems to be unaware of genocide? Islamic-Extremism is not the end-all be-all result. Too much of it will result in genocide. Someone, Huntington if I recall correctly, said that Islam has bloody borders, I think he was right. Christian world has also been aggressive and responsible for genocides and atrocities of every kind during the greatest part of its history. In my opinion, violence is innate in every claim that there is one and only truth. Then, as everyone tries to unite the world in his own "truth", the result is inevitably conflict. If some part of Islam is acting violently nowadays, it`s in my opinion because they feel like being pushed to the wall, as the increasing world-wide influence of the "western civilization" scatters around its "dangerous seeds" that might grow enough to irreparably crack their perception of an ideal, collectivist, unitive-oriented community they wish to apply. Their claim of a Christianity vs Islam conflict is imo just an easy way to explain things, in order to connect the current situation to the great conflicts of the middle ages... Europe (or the West in general) no more represents Christianity. Political precedents in international relations (such as american imperialism, depression of the Palestinians or the Chechens etc.) do much of the job and the same with social factors like overpopulation, poverty etc. As i believe that people prefer to live in freedom and prosperity rather than blowing themselves up, i think a great deal of extremist action can be prevented. However, the experience of losing vital space that i pointed above as being the very core of islamic extremism, will always be pushing some to violent reaction and thus we may never get rid completely of islamic terrorism. No one said it is an islam vs christianity issue, hindus, jews, secular european liberals, and communist atheists seem to have the same problems.
|
|
|
Post by CooCooCachoo on Oct 17, 2005 23:15:28 GMT -5
Why is it that Islam is the only culture that seems to be unaware of genocide? Islamic-Extremism is not the end-all be-all result. Too much of it will result in genocide. Someone, Huntington if I recall correctly, said that Islam has bloody borders, I think he was right. Christian world has also been aggressive and responsible for genocides and atrocities of every kind during the greatest part of its history. In my opinion, violence is innate in every claim that there is one and only truth. Then, as everyone tries to unite the world in his own "truth", the result is inevitably conflict. If some part of Islam is acting violently nowadays, it`s in my opinion because they feel like being pushed to the wall, as the increasing world-wide influence of the "western civilization" scatters around its "dangerous seeds" that might grow enough to irreparably crack their perception of an ideal, collectivist, unitive-oriented community they wish to apply. Their claim of a Christianity vs Islam conflict is imo just an easy way to explain things, in order to connect the current situation to the great conflicts of the middle ages... Europe (or the West in general) no more represents Christianity. Political precedents in international relations (such as american imperialism, depression of the Palestinians or the Chechens etc.) do much of the job and the same with social factors like overpopulation, poverty etc. As i believe that people prefer to live in freedom and prosperity rather than blowing themselves up, i think a great deal of extremist action can be prevented. However, the experience of losing vital space that i pointed above as being the very core of islamic extremism, will always be pushing some to violent reaction and thus we may never get rid completely of islamic terrorism. Pushed to the wall? ...They've been babied. Their conflicts with Jews, Hindus, other Muslims, Communist Atheists, and Christian nations show a consistant problem in their culture. It's ignorance that makes them perceive the world as against them. It really may take a catastrophe to make the Muslim world accountable for it's behavior.
|
|