The question is, why haven't we heard it?!
What makes sense, you ask? The French rioters are Muslim!
This is an attack on France! This is a Jihad! This is a reaction to several things that France has done and Europe (as well as the "let's sit down and talk to the terrorists" Americans) needs to learn a very valuable lesson from this!
How can this be true?! The media isn't saying this. They've only said it's a race issue, a class issue, it's about those teens who were electrocuted. Alright, but what about this:
Sidi Brahim was sentenced in Paris yesterday for his part in the riots. Who? Sidi Brahim? Is that French? Xavier, Pierre, Francios, Marc, Jean, Sidi... Hmmm, which one of these doesn't belong? Benoit, Fillion, Dubois, Croteaux, Brahim... Interesting.
How about this: The rioters are primarily "French citizens, the second and third generation offspring of North African immigrants who began pouring into France in the 1970s. (Cite)" North Africa is primarily Islamic.
The riots are in the suburbs of Paris, primarily in the area known as Bondy. If my evidence that most of the residents are from North Africa and North Africa is primarily Muslim wasn't enough to sway you, how about this demographic info: "In overwhelmingly Catholic France, about 70% of Bondy's residents are Muslim. (Cite)"
Alright, now we know, these rioters (who, as far as I understand it, have made no demands and have not offered any information in regards to what would persuade them to cease their destruction) are Mulsims and this activity is a bit extreme were it solely about the two unfortunate deaths. So, what can we learn?
Well, France has passed the law banning any and all religious symbols from their schools. This includes Stars of David, crosses, crucifixes, crescents, swastikas, turbans, pentagrams, and the like. Clearly moving towards a neo-secular society. For people as religious as most Muslims, this was probably not something they agreed with.
However, France as not only stayed out of the conflict in the middle east, they have actively denounced it. Wouldn't it make sense that these two actions would cancel each other out and people who follow the tenants of Islam would focus their aggression elsewhere? It would if you followed western logic.
The thing is, neither of these two things have anything to do with why extremist Muslims hate the west. Anyone know why? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Because we are not Muslim nations.
Even if France was bold enough to literally fight on behalf of the Muslims in Iraq (of course, that might make the conflict shorter.) it wouldn't matter if the French government remained secular.
Wanna see something scary? Check out this book!
So now we have riots in Paris, trains in Spain, buses and the underground in London, schools in Russia, buildings in New York City, shops and markets and buses in Jerusalem, road side bombs in Iraq, the Pentagon in Washington DC, a thwarted attempt in Australia, Hotels in Indonesia, Warships in Yemen, and Embassies all around the world! Does that seem like a movement that is only extremists or a campaign that will end if we sit down and talk to them, give them a little bit of what they want? We must not give in! I hope this occurrence ousts Chirac's administration and the French finally burn their white flags and elect a government that will not put up with such action and will join the rest of the world in fighting terrorism!
But, apart from the facts, all of this is just my opinion.
17 comments:
very interesting.
oh mah goodness
Hotels in Jordan now as well.
Well obviously, you already know I disagree with your analysis. I think it works more like this: these communities are stuck on the outskirts of French society because they're black and muslim, experiencing racial and religious prejudice. Left to the outskirts for the last three generations they have become increasingly angry as they lose out on jobs, education and happiness. Remember they probably fled Muslim states, I doubt they wish to recreate what they fled in the first place. The reason you hear know message being given is that these are teenagers rioting, probably guys who are hoping to get laid after they burn another 100 cars. What started as a protest has probably become part protest and part mayhem, something we humans are fantastically capable of once our sin natures perceive that punishment won't follow. But that's just my opinion.
The one thing we are definitely not hearing, but I'm starting to wonder is: Where will all these kids make out with their girlfriends if they burn all the cars?!! O! Short-sighted youth!
Marc, you have made two completely preposterious claims.
You said: "What makes sense, you ask? The French rioters are Muslim! This is an attack on France! This is a Jihad!"
The conclusion of this statement = all muslims are terrorists. And this is indeed a ridiculous assumption!
If you'll note these French riots have a very close resemblence to many of the other race riots in history's past. The LA riots, the Hough (near Cleveland) riots of '68 and the Cincinnati riots of 2001. All of which were started when one or multiple african american persons were unjustly dealt with in some manner. Were the African Americans in all of these riot instances terrorists?
Also you said: "The thing is, neither of these two things have anything to do with why extremist Muslims hate the west. Anyone know why?...Because we are not Muslim nations."
Sorry, the Muslim's hatred of the West stems from our love of black gold.
The history:
1953 - The United States participates in their first ever overthrow of a foreign leader, namely the democratically elected Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran. Mossadegh argued that Iran should be profiting from its vast oil reserves which were controlled exclusively by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, a company later known as British Petroleum (BP).
The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in the early twentieth century struck the largest oil well found to date in the world. For the next 50 years it pumped out millions of dollars worth of oil from Iran giving Iran only a small protion of the profits - roughly 16 percent or so. On the day Mossadegh was elected prime minister, the Iranian Parliament unanimously agreed to proceed with nationalizing Iran's oil and taking back some of the profits for themselves.
BP wouldn't have this and with the help of the US under Eisenhower (and Teddy Roosevelt's grandson) pulled off an overthrow of Mossadegh while at the same time installing a militant dictator. The US and UK have been over in the middle east ever since, ensuring we can drive our cars everyday at the use of cheap oil.
If the roles were reversed, you can imagine how many "white male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40" would be pulling off terror heists as a means of saying "Get off our land!"
This is why Muslims hate the west. The want us the hell out. Kind of sounds like the American revoultion doesn't it? A bunch of foriegners standing around trying to regulate our commerce and tell us how to live?
just my historical two cents...
loves...
Mudflaps,
I'm not saying that their poverty has nothing to do with it. But I think it is merely one factor. And what do you think of this: If you were a person who wanted France to be a muslim state, wouldn't this group of disillutioned teens be the easiest group to incite?
Dr. James:
Yes, the participators in the riots in LA, Cinci, and Cleveland were terrorists in the purest sense of the word. If one is commiting an action that causes me to fear to leave my home, or even to fear while in my home, then, yes, that person is a terrorist. Simply because they are not trying to forward an Islamic viewpoint doesn't make them a non-terrorist.
I hear what you are saying in regards to our love of black gold, but you missed a historical step. Followers of Islam clearly hated the west before humans even knew of oil. If not for Charles "The Hammer" Martel, the Frank who stopped the Islamic invation at Tours in 732AD we might not be having the issues we are having now. Then there might be some bad blood over the 10 Crusades that were undertaken by "Christians" (or as many Muslims see it, "the west").
So to say that it is all about oil seems to belittle the Muslims goal as I see it. It goes a lot deeper than just money, oil, or territory. It's about religion!
Almost all wars are about religion, or deeply held beliefs that have taken the place of religion: Catholisism vs Protestantism, Communism vs Democracy, Islam vs Greed.
oh, yeah... another response:
I'm not saying that all Musilms are terrorists. However, if Muslims are burning cars and rioting, then those Muslims are terrorists.
Well, by your reasoning then everyone is a terrorist, and Christians chief among them. We have Robertson to thank for the call to assassination Hugo Chavez, we have Falwell to thank for his "kill the muslims in the name of Jesus" campaign, and we have Bush to thank for pre-emptively attacking a third world nation who didn't have the destructive capabilities He purported they harbored. If the few represent the whole, as you are suggesting with the Muslims in France, then so it is applicable with our faith as well. You and I are both terrorists.
Yes, there is a long history of violence between the Muslim and Christian religions. I'm willing to wager though, that if one were able to undertake the daunting task of surveying every member of the muslim faith, most would be willing to let the past be left in the past. I think most would be willing to say that US intervention in the middle east is their primary source of anger (and i'm not saying this is all about oil. 1953 was a major US entry point into the Middle east, and since then we've been involved in varying events, not just oil.). Let's be realistic here. Would you like it if Iran started patrolling the globe like we do?
Ok, once again, I am not saying that all Muslims are terrorists because some chose to partake in terrorist activities. The ones blowing up hotels, ships, cars, and shoppers are.
Nor does an announced attack make one a terrorist. So you can scratch the current administration off of your list. I do not pretend to defend Robertson or Falwell. Though they claim to, they do not speak for me!
You and I are not terrorists as we have never personally participated in such activities. I could see your arguement were I claiming that the Muslims in France were terrorists even though they were peaceful and not destroying cities. Thier current choice of actions, however, makes is so that I can not give them the "benifit of the doubt."
Is it your contention that if the US were out of the middle east it would be a more peaceful place? With the different fractions of Muslims, the Jews, the PLO, and the like? Do you think Israel would be around if we were out?
Iran is a bad example. Would I mind if Kuwait had their nose in everything like we do? Probably not.
I find it interesting: it seems to me that dems and liberals like to say they all about equality and fairness. Yet here is a place in the world where those words may not even be in their language. Reps and conservatives like to ask, "When did the US become world cop" and yet they are the ones backing these actions. Role reversal anyone? How would we feel if Clinton had gone in to get Osama in the 90s? Would the libs be for and the cons against? So interesting!
Granted, I am only providing statements which are the logical outworking of the many statements you have presented here. When you said that rioters are terrorists in the purest sense of the word, and that anyone who promotes fear is a terrorist this is inclusive of everyone. Ever been in a fight? Then you're a terrorist.
Obviously I don't believe this. But the logical outworking of some of your statements leads to this. And like it our not "announced attacks" are a great promotion of fear, thereby making their announcers terrorists (by your reasoning of course).
Also, based upon the outworking of your thoughts we cannot allow you to exempt Falwell and Robertson from speaking for you. The main premise of your post is that all muslim rioter are terrorists. You're lumping them all into one large and broad sweeping category -> Terrorists are Muslims; Muslims are rioting; rioting equals terrorism; all muslims are terrorists, etc...I am only doing the same to demonstrate the absurdity of such logic. If one can lump all Muslims into a terrorist category, then one can do the same for the Christian extremists.
Is it my contention that if the US were out of the middle east it would be a more peaceful place? A complicated question. The fact that there were already pre-exisiting tensions between the Muslims and Jews might convolute that a bit. But generally speaking it would be a step toward a more peaceful existence, and perhpas even moreso if land wasn't taken from the Palestinians and given to the Jews in 1945. (See Rousseau's "Origin of Inequality").
Why is Iran a bad example? Because they're predominantly Muslim and you don't want Muslims patrolling the globe?
Great reflections by the way on the US being a global cop. These are great questions.
And for the record Clinton was hunting Osama in the late 90's. The cruise missle strike in 1998 that everyone accused him of wagging the dog regarding the Lewiski thing? They missed Osama by about 40 minutes. They almost had him in late 2000 as well, and were it not for the election fiasco, the Delta force may well have had him...more on this later....
After a personal conversation with the Dr. I'd like to clearify a few things:
"What makes sense, you ask? The French rioters are Muslim! This is an attack on France! This is a Jihad!" This was not intended to say that all Muslims are terrorists simply because they are Muslim. But rather that Muslims who participate in violent actions are terrorists. Just as any Christian who acts in a violent manner would be. Nor does it implicate anyone of a similar mindset as the terrorists as being such simply because they have the same principles (Not all pro-lifers are doctor killers) I also don't feel that violent rhetoric makes one a terrorist until that rhetoric is founded in action.
And to bulster my position that it is more than oil and even more than occupation (as our presence in the Middle East is often incorrectly viewed) I read this today. A quote translated from an Al-Qaeda video issued after the July 7th London bombings: Queen Elizabeth is "one of the severest enemies of Islam."
i linked through dr j's blog. i have a story that i think applies to this post.
one time, i was walking out to the parking lot of a grocery store late at night, and this guy came up and asked me for directions. i gave him the directions, and then he gestured to shake my hand. when i started shaking his hand, he proceeded to kick me, aiming at my groin, which he luckily missed. i thought i was about to be mugged, but then saw the guy running away to a truck where there was another dude videotaping it.
ever since that day, i've made it my #1 priority to stop terrorism in all its forms. that's why i now carry a concealed handgun with me 24/7. see, you can never know when there's a terrorist lurking around the corner, in the local grocery store parking lot, or even teaching at your kid's school! that's why vigilance is mandatory! and i'm definitely with you on the whole fighting terrorism as opposed to trying to "understand" them. that's why if i ever get another terrorist attack happening to me like that one day in the parking lot, i'm going to shoot that motherf***er in the back and make him wish he'd thought twice about his jihad!
word...
-kp
Kp
It is not my intention to laugh at your misfortune (though I'm pretty sure I am). I learned from the good doctor that your story is true and not made up to prove a point. Also, I see your point regarding my current definition of terrorism and I will attempt to alter my def.
One question: Does your sarcasm extend to your sentence: "as opposed to trying to "understand" them."? Do you think it is posible or benificial to understand them? Do you think that our secular society would be able to understand their highly regligious motives? If the US entirely removed itself from the Middle East, do you think there would be no more terrorism?
thanks, marc. and yes, my sarcasm did extend to the line about "understanding" them.
i think it's very dangerous when we demonize other people to the point that we stop considering whether or not they have cognitive reasoning abilities. the fact is that the members of al qaeda all have reasons for carrying out the acts they commit. of course, these reasons are largely based on false presumptions and an inherent selfishness. but, to make the statement that the *only* way to combat terrorism is to fight it is, in my opinion, a mark of ignorance as to the true underlying problem. not only that, but such an attitude also promotes violence, as it offers violence as the *only* solution to the problem.
at this point, i'd also like to bring up the fact that, given our current military situation, both in iraq and the larger 'war of terror', we need to also keep in mind that the US at one time or another has supported both hussein's regime in iraq, and osama bin laden. our military provided training for bin laden and his lackies in the late 80s, when they were fighting against Russia, and we've also supplied iraq with support in the 70s during their combat with iran. so, i think the picture you paint about muslims just wanting to destroy us is completely shortsighted. how can your statements about terrorists be true when, at one time, our very own government has found itself allies with these groups?
as long as we demonize the enemy, and presume that our reasoning is completely infallible, we will always run the risk of falling back into our own mistakes. in order to make true progress ahead, we must start to understand the WHY behind the enemies motives, as well as ours. then, hopefully we can make moves that will indicate progress out of these harmful midsets, instead of just cycling back through them. in many ways, our previous military actions (the alliances we formed with iraq and bin laden in the past) have only served to facilitate the current crisis we find ourselves in. the picture is never as simple as "we are right, they are wrong."
KP,
My reason for dismissing attempting to understand their reasons was not simply a superiority complex or a disregarding of their 'cognative reasoning abilities'. It was more of a recognition (and understanding?) that our religions and realities are so different that my 'western logic' probably wouldn't be able to comprehend their reasons. I am not discounting their reasoning abilities, simply saying they are massively different.
The purpose for attempting to understand them is so that we can come to a compromise. But if I recognize (based on previous 'understanding') that I won't be able to compromise, I see no purpose in a discussion.
In regards to our support of these 'regimes': We've all heard that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. In this case we helped them so we wouldn't have to get boots on the ground. I don't think there was ever a friendship between either the US and Iraq or the US and Afganistan. But if we had an ideology dispute with France, but Mexico was invading, I think we'd accept France's weapons to repel Mexico and deal with France again once our land was secure.
It's hard not to demonize people who indescriminantly and purposefully target civilians. It's hard not to combat violence with violence. If the Mulims had a peaceful protest going and we attacked them, that'd be one thing. That isn't the case. How about this: They stop killing people, and we'll talk.
then think about this: who has killed more people in this war, the terrorists, or US troops? Please keep in mind that some of the most recent estimates of Iraq civilian casualties puts it above 100,000.
have you ever stopped to think that maybe the US has helped create this very problem in the ways that we've supported these regimes in the past? it seems to me that your view of the US in the current crisis is that we're completely innocent. do you believe that's true?
Post a Comment