# More good news from France



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Analysis: Gallic intifada
By ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE
UPI Editor at Large
BRUSSELS, Oct. 13 (UPI) -- Turf conscious bloggers in Paris' rundown, mostly Muslim, suburban immigrant housing estates rival in violent messages that threaten to beat senseless and even kill any intruder caught in "our ghetto." Almost every word is misspelled, in both argot slang and pidgin French. And these are not empty threats. An average of 14 policemen a day are injured in bloody clashes with jobless youngsters. 

France's Interior Ministry said 2,500 police officers had been "wounded" this year. The head of the hard-line trade union "Action Police" Michel Thooris wrote to Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy to describe conditions in housing developments turned slums as "intifada." Police cruisers are pelted daily with stones and "Molotov cocktails" (gasoline-filled bottles with burning wicks that explode on impact) and Thooris said cops assigned to what was rapidly degenerating into "free fire zones" should be protected in armored vehicles. Entire tall buildings empty into the streets to chase policemen and free an arrested comrade. 

Read the rest here:


----------



## oktagon (Mar 9, 2005)

The french police should have used heavy machine guns to calm down the arab riots in the suburbs. As a matter of fact they might have gained some benefit even out of carpet bombing the suburbs in questions, since it was pretty much arab populated enemy territory.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Oktagon,

The more interesting point in the article is that Le Pen's National Front has capitulated on the issue of immigration and is now seeking common cause with the Islamists against America and those "nefarious" Jews. But collaboration with the enemies of liberal democracy has a recent history in France. 

Karl


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

De Borchgrave hasn't had honest work since Newsweek fired him in 1980. He's a biased hack who has spent 22 years working on Rev. Moon's propaganda machines: The Washington Times, Insight magazine and now UPI.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Crs,

Have you any insight on the subject matter? And good to know that you now decide what constitutes honest work, feel free to post your resume as well.

Karl


----------



## oktagon (Mar 9, 2005)

Well France has a recent history of capitulating just about to any regime or ideology which looked scarry enough. 

As Dr. Goebbels once said " The French are afraid or rifles and Germans, but particularly of Germans with rifles" 
French are afraid of just about enybody. It is an iteresting country, which started many wars, but won none


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Karl, I think a lot of people see UPI and remember only its former life as a mainstream news agency and give it that credibility. They may not know it has been owned by the Rev. Moon since 2000, and I can't think of a major newspaper that still subscribes to UPI. Same as some people on this forum will advise others that Bass shoes are no longer made in Maine, I am advising people that the UPI of today isn't the UPI they remember. I think anything coming from today's UPI warrants a disclaimer: Let the reader beware.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Crs,

I am no fan of the Rev. Moon as he has been far too chummy with the DPRK but it was my understanding that in the cases of the Washington Times and UPI he did not excercise editorial control. In the case of the Washington Times I think it it viewed as a solid second tier paper but I don't claim to know or understand all the inside baseball on journalism.

I do however think that this article can be substantiated by several other credible sources (though bc journalism has become so partisan credible seems to depend more on whether the source subscribes to one's point of view rather than the facts.) I would be happy indeed if De Borchgrave was incorrect as I take little delight in the demographic collapse of liberal France and Europe.

Karl


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I understand you don't know the "inside baseball." That's why I post, so some might understand backstory and how things work. I certainly don't post in order to engage in ridiculous arguments with people who are so biased themselves that they incorrectly accuse honest news organizations of bias.

In the case of Moon's Washington Times, I've worked with several alumni, and I do know that the founding editor, James Whelan, and executive editor, Smith Hempstone, resigned in the mid-1980s over the Unification Church allegedly reneging on its promise to not interfere with the newsroom. Mr. De Borchgrave apparently was not bothered by that and succeeded Whelan.

I had a mail subscription to The Washington Times at the time of this upheaval, and I promptly canceled it but continued to receive it gratis for some time. I was working on a right-wing newspaper at the time, but there is a difference between point of view and outright propaganda.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

oktagon said:


> Well France has a recent history of capitulating just about to any regime or ideology which looked scarry enough.


Wow. I acutually thought for a minute that it would be useful to discuss the subject at hand. But that contribution reminds me just how pervasive francophobia is, in conservative America and on this forum. That saves me quite a lot of time since it is now obvious it is pointless to try and discuss.

One thing I never got on those francophobic stereotypes: why exactly do they use time and again the same false historical points? You would think our beloved American francophobes would have read a little on the subject by now. You would think also that it would be easy for them to find accurate and recent points without having to rely on false ones from ages ago. Beats me.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

oktagon said:


> Well France has a recent history of capitulating just about to any regime or ideology which looked scarry enough.
> 
> As Dr. Goebbels once said " The French are afraid or rifles and Germans, but particularly of Germans with rifles"
> French are afraid of just about enybody. It is an iteresting country, which started many wars, but won none


Interesting choice of authority to quote on the character of the French. You find "Dr." Goebbels' maxim compelling? Fascinating. The Nazi Propaganda Minister also had much to say about the United States:

https://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb5.htm

Should we accept the good doctor's evaluation in this instance as well?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Étienne said:


> Wow. I acutually thought for a minute that it would be useful to discuss the subject at hand. But that contribution reminds me just how pervasive francophobia is, in conservative America and on this forum. That saves me quite a lot of time since it is now obvious it is pointless to try and discuss.
> 
> One thing I never got on those francophobic stereotypes: why exactly do they use time and again the same false historical points? You would think our beloved American francophobes would have read a little on the subject by now. You would think also that it would be easy for them to find accurate and recent points without having to rely on false ones from ages ago. Beats me.


Great point! Since the French sold out Colin Powell and notably capitulated to islamic terrorists in both 2004 and 2005, I have no idea why anyone would need to drag out WWII either. I mean really! What's the point of that?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Lushington said:


> Interesting choice of authority to quote on the character of the French. You find "Dr." Goebbels' maxim compelling? Fascinating. The Nazi Propaganda Minister also had much to say about the United States:
> 
> https://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb5.htm
> 
> Should we accept the good doctor's evaluation in this instance as well?


I nominate this as the post of the year! Well played, Lushington.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Étienne said:


> Wow. I acutually thought for a minute that it would be useful to discuss the subject at hand. But that contribution reminds me just how pervasive francophobia is, in conservative America and on this forum. That saves me quite a lot of time since it is now obvious it is pointless to try and discuss.
> 
> One thing I never got on those francophobic stereotypes: why exactly do they use time and again the same false historical points? You would think our beloved American francophobes would have read a little on the subject by now. You would think also that it would be easy for them to find accurate and recent points without having to rely on false ones from ages ago. Beats me.



Etienne! It's great to see you on the Interchange again, though I'm sorry under these circumstances.

Karl, what is your point? That France has brave police officers?


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Great point! Since the French sold out Colin Powell and notably capitulated to islamic terrorists in both 2004 and 2005


Wow, you're a francophobic troll too? I had the vague impression that I had seen you conducting a valid discussion, I must have been mistaken.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Étienne said:


> Wow, you're a francophobic troll too? I had the vague impression that I had seen you conducting a valid discussion, I must have been mistaken.


Facts are facts. It's not 'francophobic' to note them. And it's not trolling to agree with you. You said there were plenty of recent events and I agree they are valid for discussion.

On a personal level France is irrelevant to me, I couldn't 'hate' France if it was my full-time job.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

JLPWCXIII,

The point of posting the link was to generate discussion about an interesting political development in France. If the National Front, a notoriously anti-Semtic, anti-American and anti- Muslim immigrant party in France is now trying to make common cause with French Islamists then this is a new and serious development. Also I am shocked by the level of violence still continuing in France. 

Now perhaps the article is incorrect but I noticed that no one so far has questioned the the factual basis of the article or offered a different opinion. I don't claim the article as Gospel but from other sources, my own recent experience in Europe and from people I know who are intimately involved in foreign affairs, the article seems plausible. Bandying about the Francophobe label while not challenging the article seems a tad defensive. Its not as if I have written an anti-French tract entitled "The Horrifying Fraud" and a million people bought it. 

Now, can we return to the content of the article?

Karl


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

See what a French police union has to say:



Karl


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Facts are facts.


Indeed. What you said (claiming that France capitulated in front of islamism), though, is about as much "fact" as Saddam's nuclear weapons in 2003. I'll take your word you don't hate France, then just give me a break and stop writing that kind of hateful bullshit.



Karl89 said:


> Also I am shocked by the level of violence still continuing in France.


We all have our shocks. I am personally shocked by the level of francophobia any discussion about France stirs up here. And the fact that many members consider that normal makes me question my posting here again.



> Bandying about the Francophobe label while not challenging the article seems a tad defensive.


Nobody has accused you of francophobia. The label was attributed to two other posters (namely oktagon and ksinc). Well, nobody had accused you before you found interesting to post that huge list of "quotations" (some of them are known to be bogus BTW).



> Now, can we return to the content of the article?


Frankly the attitude you display is disgusting. If you really wanted to discuss something, joining oktagon and ksinc in their false, insulting and offensive behaviour might not have been the path to go.

Good riddance, sir.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Etienne,

And maybe a million of your fellow countrymen can stop buying hateful BS like l'Effroyable Imposture. 

Karl


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> And maybe a million of your fellow countrymen can stop buying hateful BS like l'Effroyable Imposture.


The difference between us is that I don't go around insulting the US. I am not asking you to apologize for every stupid US person out there.

BTW, you might want to check your sources. The Police union "Action police" is now considered very close to the National Front since it got a new leader in 2004.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

I agree that the Francophobia is over the top. The list of anti-France quotations is offencive to our French friends and in no way serves to move the discussion forward with civility.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Etienne,

Well the article that I originally posted stated that there was a division in the National Front over the new rapprochment with French Islamists. I have no set opinion on the matter other than I fear that demographically liberal Europe is in deep trouble Coverage of European politics is terrible in the American media so I don't claim to have the total picture. Is the article factually incorrect, and if so what is your analysis of the situation?

Karl


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Is the article factually incorrect, and if so what is your analysis of the situation?


It seems you did not read carefully my posts. Let me rephrase that: I won't take part in a discussion where participants seem to relish solely in posting fancophobic bullshit.

After a little more than a year here I am aware that France is considered a fair target. Any reference to France in a discussion elicits a dozen insulting posts. I would actually accept if people always criticized France. But the posts are usually just off-topic, just repetition of the same false and stupid insults so pervasive in America in some circles.

I don't know any other country suffering of the same status here. The only other country that attracts the same criticism is Israel, the difference being that the majority of posters then defend it.

Such a general mood does not make one feel welcome.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Etienne,

I only posted those quotes to point out what truly constitues Francophobia. Everytime someone has any issue with France you seem to cry Francophobe! to the point where if someone doesn't bow down before the altar of the Fifth Republic they are some uncultured rube. But to make you feel more welcome I will delete the offending quotes from my previous post.

Karl


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> I only posted those quotes to point out what truly constitues Francophobia.


So your position is that sentences like "France has a recent history of capitulating just about to any regime or ideology which looked scarry enough" are not examples of francophobia. And that it is okay for you to post a gazillion more quotes to show that one can find worse.

Wonderful way to encourage a debate, Karl.



> Everytime someone has any issue with France you seem to cry Francophobe!


The fact of the matter is that this forum is prone to francophobia.

When somebody challenges, say, the foreign policy of France, I gladly enter the debate with no name calling (I won't say I "defend" it since I am opposed to the current French government and often don't agree with it). But most of the time what we have here is of the intellectual level of the (often bogus) quotes you reproduced. In front of that kind of insults, what's left to discuss? I have seen everything here from inappopriate jokes to people making fun of the 1.4 millions French soldiers who died in WWI (around the time where we commemorate the war, no less).

As I said earlier, what makes the matter worse is that many, if not most, members seem to think nothing of that. The only other nation that gets about that level of flak here is Israel, and many members jump to its defence and mention when they think it is inappropriate. I see little of that kind when France is getting the insults (thanks JLPWCXIII, though).


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Étienne said:


> It seems you did not read carefully my posts. Let me rephrase that: I won't take part in a discussion where participants seem to relish solely in posting fancophobic bullshit.
> 
> After a little more than a year here I am aware that France is considered a fair target. Any reference to France in a discussion elicits a dozen insulting posts. I would actually accept if people always criticized France. But the posts are usually just off-topic, just repetition of the same false and stupid insults so pervasive in America in some circles.
> 
> ...


I've read through this thread and please accept my apologies to you on behalf of many American's who feel otherwise. I will grant that I am not a fan of the French governments policies over the years however I am of the Kissinger school of foreign policy and therefore a student of raison d'etat. I don't take what the French government does personally. I take it as the actions of a Government concerned with its own interests. Frankly I wish sometimes we would admit to the same instead of trying to be boy scouts.

As for the Goebbels quote and the notion that France simply rolled over for the Nazi's please remember that France following WWI was the sole voice for toughening sanctions against Germany and crushing them. They were ostensibly sold out by none other than the U.S. and Great Britain as economic interests trumped those of security.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Etienne,

I suppose one could can view the quote you post as Francophobic but in light of Vichy and percentage of French who did collaborate with the Nazis, you could could also make the argument that the quote is accurate. Considering that then Stalinist French Communist Party regularly received double digit support during the height of the Cold War and that Le Pen, hardly a cosmopolitan figure, received nearly 20% of the vote in 2002, it does seem that a sizable portion of the French electorate supports dubious ideologies. Not that America is immune from excesses but the leftist Ted Kennedy never called for a purge when the Democrats would take power as
did the leader of the French Communist Party during the 60's nor did Trent Lott from the Right call the Holocaust a mere detail of history like Jean Marie Le Pen did (good thing Le Pen has remained silent on the Armenian genocide. I guess Istanbul isn't paying him off.)

I removed the quotes you found so offensive, so Etienne how about a little less form and a lot more substance. Will you ever discuss the details of the article I posted or do wish to play the martyr and remain eternally offended?

Karl


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> I've read through this thread and please accept my apologies to you on behalf of many American's who feel otherwise.


Thank you.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> you could could also make the argument that the quote is accurate.


You could and you would be wrong.

You speak of WII. First of all, that's forgetting that in the 1930's France was actually the most firm diplomatic opponent ot Germany. Second, that seems a rather ill-informed generalization of collaboration in France under Vichy. Let me sum up what would need a lengthy historical development in one sentence: the Vichy government attracted the overwhelming support of the French population, not its collaborationist policies, which became progressively unpopular as they became more extreme. By the way, Any occupied country has its share of collaboration. Even the Japanese had an "allied" Chinese government in their part of China (see also what happened in the Netherlands or Sloavakia, to name a few).

You speak then of the Cold War. Indeed, the Communist Party had a lot of support in a few Western european countries, mainly Italy and France. I don't see how that constitutes a "capitulation" in front of a "scary ideology".



> I removed the quotes you found so offensive, so Etienne how about a little less form and a lot more substance. Will you ever discuss the details of the article I posted or do wish to play the martyr and remain eternally offended?


For the record, it's not so much those uncalled-for bogus quotes that I resented, but the fact that, confronted to the fact that I was taking offence at some insults by others, your reaction was to add more.

But now you are being so polite and constructive about it. Indeed, how could I refuse?

I will discuss the matter, in spite of your attitude, since other members have proved more amicable.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Will you ever discuss the details of the article I posted or do wish to play the martyr and remain eternally offended?


The article is an odd collection of seemingly unrelated facts.

First it focuses on violence against policemen in French suburbs. That theme is indeed widely discussed in the wake of three recent incidents in which two policement were wounded.

Then we shift to the National Front. It is the first time I hear about the purported change of strategy of the National Front. The article does not give any source. All I can say is that I just checked the FN's website and the anti-immigration stance is as present as ever.

The rest of the article shifts wildly from antisemitic incidents in France (oddly portrayed as on the rise, when as far as I know they are on the decline) to the discredited Meyssan to a comic called Dieudonné. I actualy smiled when the author claimed that antisemitic incidents are never reported on in the US, when you know the press campaign made on that subject in the US 2 or 3 years ago. I fail to see the connection between these and the rest of the article, or actually the point the author is trying to make. The author does not clearly say.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

double post


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Étienne said:


> When somebody challenges, say, the foreign policy of France, I gladly enter the debate with no name calling


Etienne, that is quite simply a lie.

In point of fact, I responded to your post where you were saying there were more recent events and mentioned some and you called me a "francophobe" "writing hateful bullshit". That's resorting to name calling in any language.

What I said was France betrayed Colin Powell (it's clear they did).
I also said France had capitulated to islamic terrorists in 2004 and 2005.

Neither of which is 'hateful'.

I would point you to the following articles and descriptions of events that seem to support my view. I would gladly invite and consider your view if you can keep your word.

If not, c'est la vie ;-)

https://www.danielpipes.org/article/2076

https://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1232


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Etienne, that is quite simply a lie.


Yes, I love you too.

Let's sum up your attitude. There is a discussion about some points in France as exposed by an article. You take this opportunity to make a strong criticism. That criticism is broad, off-topic, and you give no argument, not a single one. I call that an insult. Now you act all self-righteous and claim I refuse debate? It's a little late in the day to try and pretend to be civil now.

_Still, you gave links to three artices that you claim prove your original point. Let's see.

https://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1232 : an article about the French government giving funds to build more housing in suburbs, largely populated by muslims. The article claims that is evidence of France's "islamization". The title then somehow claims there is a link to the Vichy government in WWII, a claim not supported in any way in the article itself. In a word: complete bullshit.

: an article about the abduction of Western citizens in Iraq. The auhtor contrasts the attitude of different countries. Let me quote: "The French did not comply with the kidnappers' terms." It then proceeds to criticize France anyway. How you can see that as proof of a capitulation is, again, beyond me.

Third article: server down at the moment, but in view of the first two I suppose there is nothing of interest there either._

Well now that you have finally given some arguments, that gave me the opportunity to debunk them. I answered your post so that you cannot claim I refuse debate. Now, given your insulting behaviour earlier, I have no intention of pursuing the discussion. Feel free to post more links if you will. Have a nice day, sir.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Étienne said:


> You take this opportunity to make a strong criticism. That criticism is broad, off-topic, and you give no argument, not a single one. I call that an insult. Now you act all self-righteous and claim I refuse debate? It's a little late in the day to try and pretend to be civil now.


No, it wasn't broad or off-topic. It was in direct reply to your post demanding more recent events. I gave three within the last four years.

No, I said your first response was to simply resort to name calling and later called you on it when you claimed you don't.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

I think this thread needs its own version of the Entente Cordial :icon_smile:


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

ksinc said:


> No, it wasn't broad or off-topic.


I never "demanded" recent events. I merely laughed that francophobic name-calling always resorts to historical misinformation. I certainly was not calling for a single sentence, with no reference or argument, saying that France "capitulated in 2004 and 2005". Yet that's what you felt necessary to provide.

I still don't know what you were referring to, and you don't call that "broad". It has no link to the original discussion Karl was trying to conduct, and yet comehow you claim it was not "off-topic". Christ, give me a break.

Now, you did provide arguments this time, in the form of three links. These arguments are completely bullshit, as I explained in my previous post and as you don't deny. But at least that is a discussion. Nevertheless, given your behaviour earlier in the thread, as I mentioned before, I have no interest in pursuing that discussion any further.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wow, you sure are rude.

I'm happy to stand by the actual events. It was actually you that went off on the "American francophobe" rant/tangent. I was only agreeing with you! LOL



Étienne said:


> Wow. I acutually thought for a minute that it would be useful to discuss the subject at hand. But that contribution reminds me just how pervasive francophobia is, in conservative America and on this forum. That saves me quite a lot of time since it is now obvious it is pointless to try and discuss.
> 
> One thing I never got on those francophobic stereotypes: why exactly do they use time and again the same false historical points? You would think our beloved American francophobes would have read a little on the subject by now. You would think also that it would be easy for them to find accurate and recent points without having to rely on false ones from ages ago. Beats me.





ksinc said:


> Great point! Since the French sold out Colin Powell and notably capitulated to islamic terrorists in both 2004 and 2005, I have no idea why anyone would need to drag out WWII either. I mean really! What's the point of that?


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Wow, you sure are rude.


More so that somebody that says France "capitulated" while giving no argument? I guess everything is relative. And I cannot help but notice that once you did give your three links and I debunked them you had nothing to answer.

Well, I have seen worse on that forum. I particularly remember the time people were making fun of the French soldiers who died in WWI (around the day of WWI anniversary no less). I have seen worse, then, but not that often.



> I was only agreeing with you!


Thinly veiled insults are the kind of agreement I can do without. Call me rude if you will.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Étienne said:


> More so that somebody that says France "capitulated" while giving no argument? I guess everything is relative. And I cannot help but notice that once you did give your three links and I debunked them you had nothing to answer.
> 
> Well, I have seen worse on that forum. I particularly remember the time people were making fun of the French soldiers who died in WWI (around the day of WWI anniversary no less). I have seen worse, then, but not that often.
> 
> Thinly veiled insults are the kind of agreement I can do without. Call me rude if you will.


So, you can't discern the difference between an insult and pointing out the extreme irony in your indignant, name calling rant that people reference more recent events as though there were none at hand?

France has betrayed Colin Powell and America. France has capitulated to islamic terrorists in 2004 and 2005. They are matters of fact. You can say you debunked them by reading only parts of articles and none of others, but the insult is yours and it is to common sense.

When you engage in an indignant, name calling rant ...

Etienne said, "You would think our beloved American francophobes would have read a little on the subject by now. You would think also that it would be easy for them to find accurate and recent points without having to rely on false ones from ages ago. Beats me."

... you need to be prepared for people to call you out with the raw truth. Yes, some "beloved Americans" have read a little on the Dhimmi subject and it is very easy to find accurate and recent points. It's blunt, yes. And, you appear to have not liked drinking your own tea. "Tra la la"


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

ksinc said:


> France has betrayed Colin Powell and America. France has capitulated to islamic terrorists in 2004 and 2005. They are matters of fact.


You got that right. It's a matter of fact and the fact is these statements are false.

You still seem not to get why I was offended by your behaviour. Let me reexplain. I was confronted to a thread hijack by Oktagon. It consisted in yet another France-bashing based on historical misinformation. All very usual for any Frenchman confronted to certain sectors of the American society in the past few years, but still not something very agreeable. My reaction was to tell him that if he wanted to insult France he would be more effective by using misinformation on recent events, at least. Then you come and add more thread-hijack. Let me be cristal-clear since you seem not to want to understand. If you had provided a substantial criticism (not a one-liner like you did), if you had done so in a thread where that is somehow the topic, I would have answered by thoughtful debate. *A broad and unsubstantiated one-liner is, in my opinion, nothing but an insult.*

Still, after 2 or 3 posts you did provide some substance in the form of three links. Those were articles that I found of a very poor quality. I explained why I thought those were completely inaccurate and false (in a word "bullshit"). To the date, those links are the only contribution you made to the discussion and apparently you don't have anything to answer to my debunking them. Proof enough for me.

Well, you can continue calling me rude if you will, but your general behaviour on this thread, starting with the insulting one-liner and continuing with your acting as offended, is not something I find palatable in a discussion.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Étienne said:


> You got that right. It's a matter of fact and the fact is these statements are false. .


No. They are not false.



Étienne said:


> You still seem not to get why I was offended by your behaviour. Let me reexplain. I was confronted to a thread hijack by Oktagon. It consisted in yet another France-bashing based on historical misinformation. All very usual for any Frenchman confronted to certain sectors of the American society in the past few years, but still not something very agreeable. My reaction was to tell him that if he wanted to insult France he would be more effective by using misinformation on recent events, at least. Then you come and add more thread-hijack. Let me be cristal-clear since you seem not to want to understand. If you had provided a substantial criticism (not a one-liner like you did), if you had done so in a thread where that is somehow the topic, I would have answered by thoughtful debate. *A broad and unsubstantiated one-liner is, in my opinion, nothing but an insult.*
> 
> Still, after 2 or 3 posts you did provide some substance in the form of three links. Those were articles that I found of a very poor quality. I explained why I thought those were completely inaccurate and false (in a word "bullshit"). To the date, those links are the only contribution you made to the discussion and apparently you don't have anything to answer to my debunking them. Proof enough for me.
> 
> Well, you can continue calling me rude if you will, but your general behaviour on this thread, starting with the insulting one-liner and continuing with your acting as offended, is not something I find palatable in a discussion


I'm not the least bit interested in whether you were or why you were offended by Oktagon. He's not my responsibility and I'm not your Mother.

Nor am I offended or acting offended. I simply said you lied when you claimed you did not resort to name calling. Another fact.

If you have a justification for why you resorted to name calling and then lied about it based on Oktagon wronging you, that's your own issue with him and the truth, not me. In my experience, some are habitually prone to such justifications and moral relativisms.

Further, your basic argument is hollow. You can't decide if you were offended by my un-substantiated view or disagree with the substantiation. You didn't debunk anything. Get over yourself.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

ksinc said:


> You didn't debunk anything.


Still haven't got the hang of that whole "using arguments" thing, uh? Call me back when you have something meaningful to say. You might want to start by answering to my points in #34 which prove that the three links you posted were bullshit.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Étienne said:


> Still haven't got the hang of that whole "using arguments" thing, uh? Call me back when you have something meaningful to say. You might want to start by answering to my points in #34 which prove that the three links you posted were bullshit.


You didn't make any points in #34 except to prove:
1) you didn't read the entire articles
2) you didn't understand the arguments made in the article
3) you were flippantly selective with how you represented the article
4) you are rude, continuing to say "bullshit" on a public forum

I made whole arguments. You made uninformed, dishonest, rude, circular, declarative statements about them. What about that would be worth responding too exactly?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Example:



Étienne said:


> : an article about the abduction of Western citizens in Iraq. The auhtor contrasts the attitude of different countries. Let me quote: "The French did not comply with the kidnappers' terms." It then proceeds to criticize France anyway. How you can see that as proof of a capitulation is, again, beyond me.


You are correct the first line says "The French did not comply with the kidnappers' terms." Did you actually read the rest? It describes the dhimmitude reaction of France in 2004.

_
The French did not comply with the kidnappers' terms. French President Jacques Chirac decided to use all of France's diplomatic clout in the Muslim and Arab world to try to secure the release of the hostages. He sent his Foreign Minister, Michel Barnier, on a whistle stop tour of the Middle East. Barnier met the Secretary General of the Arab League, the Egyptian foreign minister, the King of Jordan, the Jordanian foreign minister and the foreign minister of Qatar. These diplomatic steps seemed to have a reaction. Newspaper editorials in Egypt, Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates called for the release of the French journalists. "France deserves better treatment" said the UAE's al-Bayan newspaper (31.08.04). "There is no doubt that France and other Western countries played a crucial role in discrediting the U.S. attack on Iraq and exposing its illegitimacy. The only honorable course for this Iraqi group is to free the journalists immediately" declared Egypt's al-Akhbar newspaper (31.08.04).

France's actions and the reactions they received seemed to expose deep misconceptions about the abductions in Iraq. First, the outcry against the abduction of French journalists seemed to suggest that company workers and soldiers from coalition countries who are re-building and policing Iraq are justified targets in the militants' struggle. Second, there seemed to be a deep misunderstanding regarding who these abductors are. The claim that 'the French deserve better' may have made more sense if the abductors were Iraqi nationalists fighting a conquering force in order to achieve independence. This, however, is not the case. Just by listening to the abductors' demand - the repeal of a law in France - it is clear that the abductors have more than Iraq on their minds.

The abductors in most cases belong to extreme fundamentalist Sunni Muslim groups that believe their fundamentalist 'pure' version of Islam is the only true religion and must ultimately be accepted by all of humanity. Humanity is thus divided into two: believers and infidels. The world is also separated into two: dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb. Dar al-Islam, the house of Islam, is the region under true Muslim rule. Dar al-Harb, the house of war, are lands ruled by infidels or heretic secular Muslim leaders. These lands are viewed as lands that are yet to be conquered and it is a Muslim duty to wage a holy war, jihad, in order to make these lands part of the house of Islam. Extremist Islamists believe that jihad is a personal obligation for all Muslims. These Muslims also regard Shiite Muslims as heretics. In a speech released on September 12 on Islamists websites, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of Jihad waTawhid group said of the Shiites: "The third [enemy] are the Shiites... represented by the army of treachery... the Party of Satan". To these extremists, who come from different parts of the Muslim world, Iraq is just a front line in a greater battle against non-Muslims.

A leader who had a different response to a hostage crisis was Australian Prime Minister John Howard. On September 13 a group called the Horror Brigades of the Islamic Secret Army issued a statement claiming it had abducted two Australian security guards and two East Asians on a road between Baghdad and Mosul. "We do not negotiate with terrorists," Howard said when the news came out, "We are unhappy about what happened... [in relation to] the Philippines. You do not buy immunity from conduct of this kind by giving in." _


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

this link continues to work
https://www.danielpipes.org/article/2076

as does this one which you claimed to have read, but obviously didn't review thoroughly.
https://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1232


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Francophobe - that doesn't seem to be the right word. 

It's not fear of the French that Étienne is asserting- it's dislike. Someone with a working knowledge of Latin should help witha more accurate word - what's the antonym for "philo" in Latin?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Francophobe - that doesn't seem to be the right word.
> 
> It's not fear of the French that Étienne is asserting- it's dislike. Someone with a working knowledge of Latin should help witha more accurate word - what's the antonym for "philo" in Latin?


philo- and -phobia are of Greek origin


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Lushington said:


> philo- and -phobia are of Greek origin


:icon_smile: Ah, yes, well......that's rather embarrassing...ahem. Just testing you, really. Good catch!


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> this link continues to work
> https://www.danielpipes.org/article/207


Is the article linked to above intended to provide evidence of French "capitulat[ion] to Islamic terrorists"?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> France has betrayed Colin Powell and America.


 Explain, please?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> Is the article linked to above intended to provide evidence of French "capitulat[ion] to Islamic terrorists"?


Yep. Apparently, the link might be broken for some. The article compares two different responses to kidnapping. The first is about Nepal and the 'barbaric' response, the later half is about France and the 'sophisticated' response.

I bolded the start of the part about France's response.

_
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
September 14, 2004

Two terrorist dramas began in Iraq on the same day, Aug. 19, 2004, when jihadists separately seized 12 Nepalese workers and 2 French reporters. Although their fates may end differently - the former were murdered and the latter remain alive in captivity - it is striking how similarly impotent both victim populations felt and how differently they responded.

In the Nepalese case, a group of cooks, janitors, laundry attendants, and other laborers had just crossed the border from Jordan into Iraq when it was kidnapped by Ansar al-Sunna, a violent Islamist group. On Aug. 31, an Islamist website showed a four-minute video of their executions.

Nepalese responded to this atrocity by venting their anger by assaulting the Muslim minority in Nepal. Hundreds of infuriated young men surrounded Katmandu's one mosque on Aug. 31 and heaved rocks at it. Violence escalated the next day, with five thousand demonstrators taking to the street, yelling slogans like "We want revenge," "Punish the Muslims," and "Down with Islam." Some attacked the mosque, broke into it, ransacked it, and set fire to it. Hundreds of Korans were thrown onto the street, and some were burned.

Rioters also looted other identifiably Muslim targets in the capital city, including embassies and airline bureaus belonging to Muslim-majority countries. A Muslim-owned television station and the homes of individual Muslims came under attack. Mobs even sacked the agencies that recruit Nepalese to work in the Middle East.

The violence ended when armored cars and army trucks enforced a shoot-on-sight curfew, leaving two protesters dead and 50 injured, plus 33 police, and doing an estimated US$20 million in property damage.

Thus did a frustrated, enraged, and powerless people overwhelm their authorities and target close-by innocents.

*The French response* could not have been more different. Threats to murder the two reporters met with a massive governmental effort to save their lives, not by targeting French Muslims but by cultivating them. Paris strenuously pushed local Islamists to condemn the kidnappings, hoping that their voice would convince the terrorists to release the two men.
In the process, Islamic organizations effectively took charge of the country's foreign policy, issuing statements and acting as though they represented the national population. Bertrand Badie of l'Institut d'études politiques in Paris complains that French Muslims became "a sort of substitute for the French foreign ministry."

Likewise on the international level, Paris called in chits for having stood with the Arabs against Israel and with Saddam Hussein against the U.S.-led coalition. French diplomats openly sought the support of terrorist groups such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

*These efforts culminated thirty years of French appeasement and, in the scathing analysis of Norbert Lipszyc, "constituted a major victory for Islamists and terrorists." Lipszyc sees France acting like a dhimmi (a Christian or Jew who accepts Muslim sovereignty and in return is tolerated and protected). "France has publicly confirmed that its dhimmi status, its readiness to submit to Islamist overlords. In return, these have declared that France, dhimmi that it is, deserves protection from terrorist acts."*

If the hostages are released, the policy of appeasement at home and abroad will seemingly have been vindicated. But at what a price! As Tony Parkinson writes in Melbourne's Age newspaper, "No democracy should have to jump through these hoops to keep innocent people alive." And jumping those hoops has deep implications.

The historian Bat Ye'or, the first person to comprehend the gradual process of Europe accepting the dhimmi status, observes that this fundamental shift began with the Arab-Israeli war of 1973, when the continent began moving "into the Arab-Islamic sphere of influence, thus breaking the traditional trans-Atlantic solidarity."

Bat Ye'or points to Euro-Arab collaboration now being near-ubiquitous; it is "political, economic, religious and in the transfer of technologies, education, universities, radio, television, press, publishers, and writers unions." She envisions this shift ending in "Eurabia," or Europe under the thumb of Arabia.

Returning to recent events: the abhorrent Nepalese violence reflected an instinct for self-preservation - hit me and I will hit you back. In contrast, the sophisticated French reaction was supine - hit me and I will beg you to stop. If history is a guide, the Nepalese thereby made a repetition of atrocities against themselves less likely. And the French made such a repetition more likely._


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Yep. Apparently, the link might be broken for some. The article compares two different responses to kidnapping. The first is about Nepal and the 'barbaric' response, the later half is about France and the 'sophisticated' response.
> 
> I bolded the start of the part about France's response.
> 
> . . . . .


The link worked fine. I read the article. It is most unconvincing. The two French journalists referred to in the article, Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot, were released, unharmed, four months after they were kidnaped. In what manner does this episode reveal that the French have submitted to "Islamic overlords" or have "capitulated" to terrorists?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Returning to recent events: the abhorrent Nepalese violence reflected an instinct for self-preservation - hit me and I will hit you back. In contrast, the sophisticated French reaction was supine - hit me and I will beg you to stop. If history is a guide, the Nepalese thereby made a repetition of atrocities against themselves less likely. And the French made such a repetition more likely.[/i]


What a gutless piece of writing. On the one hand, Pipes calls the Nepalese violence "abhorrent," on the other hand he appears to be criticizing the French for handling the problem with diplomacy rather than justice-by-mob as some of the Nepalese did. He can't have it both ways. He appears to be urging mob mentality but is too cowardly to say so directly.

No wonder Pipes is finding progressively fewer mainstream venues for his one-trick-pony rants and is forced to publish largely in the New York Sun, a money-losing conservative boutique that is so small it doesn't have its circulation audited like a real newspaper.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Crs,

Yes French diplomacy has had some stunning successes in the past 75 years. Just ask people of a ceratin age in Prague what they think of French diplomacy. Maybe Hanoi? Or Algiers? Or how about the raging success story that is Francophone Africa? Perhaps you could point to De Gaulle's PAF? France's first strike nuclear policy of "force de frappe"? The DGSE sinking of a Greenpeace ship? Mitterand's refusal of overflight rights when the Americans struck Libya in 1986, after the Libyans killed an American serviceman in a Berlin disco in 1986? Chirac's threatening of the new EU member states over the European constitution or his decision to resume nuclear testing in 1995? The success the French led EU-3 have had in persuading Iran to stop enriching uranium? Ah yes, the Quai D'Orsay, the Wrigley Field of diplomacy. Well, the Cubs did win the Series in 1908.

I will give credit to Mitterand for his urging of the Bundestag to support deployment of the Pershings in 1983. French diplomacy did enjoy one fine moment in my lifetime.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> The link worked fine. I read the article. It is most unconvincing. The two French journalists referred to in the article, Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot, were released, unharmed, four months after they were kidnapped. It what manner does this episode reveal that the French have submitted to "Islamic overlords" or have "capitulated" to terrorists?





crs said:


> What a gutless piece of writing. On the one hand, Pipes calls the Nepalese violence "abhorrent," on the other hand he appears to be criticizing the French for handling the problem with diplomacy rather than justice-by-mob as some of the Nepalese did. He can't have it both ways. He appears to be urging mob mentality but is too cowardly to say so directly.
> 
> No wonder Pipes is finding progressively fewer mainstream venues for his one-trick-pony rants and is forced to publish largely in the New York Sun, a money-losing conservative boutique that is so small it doesn't have its circulation audited like a real newspaper.


Well, what do you think the terrorists agreeing France deserves protection from them means? Don't you think EVERYONE deserves protection from terrorists? Ask yourself why the terrorists don't agree with that?

It wasn't 'real diplomacy'. It was giving in. Which seems to be synomous with French diplomacy - Appeasement and capitulation. Begging, on your knees for the lives of two men. Do you really think it will end there? They will be back. As all exploiters come back. Do you not understand what Dhimmi means?

There might be an argument for living like that, but at least call it what it is.

It's the question few will answer, "Would you rather be a dead lion or a live rat?"

Still your view is your view, my view is my view. We don't have to agree. Thanks for at least bothering to read the article and comment on the content.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Riiiiiight, it would be so much better to have mobs attacking Muslim residents at random. 

I'm not saying the French should serve as a model for the free world, but the writer you link to is obviously insane. He could make a valid point about dealing with terrorists without invoking lawless mobs as an alternative. Good grief, I find it hard to believe you can't find a conservative commentator who isn't completely off his rocker. I know a few exist, they're not all lunatics.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

crs said:


> Riiiiiight, it would be so much better to have mobs attacking Muslim residents at random.
> 
> I'm not saying the French should serve as a model for the free world, but the writer you link to is obviously insane. He could make a valid point about dealing with terrorists without invoking lawless mobs as an alternative. Good grief, I find it hard to believe you can't find a conservative commentator who isn't completely off his rocker. I know a few exist, they're not all lunatics.


I'm not advocating for the Nepalese response. Where did you read that? Obviously killing innocents even muslims is not the answer, but killing terrorists? Sure.

The point is what the French chose. It's a foolish test for you to say they only had two choices what they did and the Nepal choice.

The fact that what Nepal did was more wrong, doesn't mean what France did wasn't dhimmi.

What does attacking the author buy you? Heck, I don't know the guy. So, maybe he is a lunatic.

Are you disputing the events or you just don't like the author? My point is about what France is doing in response to islamic terrorists. That was only one of three articles that Etienne claimed didn't work.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Well, what do you think the terrorists agreeing France deserves protection from them means? Don't you think EVERYONE deserves protection from terrorists? Ask yourself why the terrorists don't agree with that?
> 
> It wasn't 'real diplomacy'. It was giving in. Appeasement and capitulation. Begging, on your knees for the lives of two men. Do you really think it will end there? They will be back. As all exploiters come back. Do you not understand what Dhimmi means?
> 
> There might be an argument for living like that, but at least call it by what it is.


How did the French "give in"? Who went to his knees and begged for the lives of Chesnot and Malbrunot? The kidnappers demanded that the French Law on Secularity and Conspicuous Religious Symbols in Schools ("The Headscarf Ban") be repealed. It was not, and is still in force. Yet the journalists were released, unharmed. From what I understand of the case it was Chesnot's fluent Arabic, as much as anything, that contributed to his and Malbrunot's release. Have other French journalists since been kidnaped in Iraq by militant organizations demanding the repeal of the headscarf ban? Is it your position that anyone who negotiates with violent Islamic organizations is a dhimmi, who accepts Muslim "overlordship"?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> How did the French "give in"? Who went to his knees and begged for the lives of Chesnot and Malbrunot? The kidnappers demanded that the French Law on Secularity and Conspicuous Religious Symbols in Schools ("The Headscarf Ban") be repealed. It was not, and is still in force. Yet the journalists were released, unharmed. From what I understand of the case it was Chesnot's fluent Arabic, as much as anything, that contributed to his and Malbrunot's release. Have other French journalists since been kidnaped in Iraq by militant organizations demanding the repeal of the headscarf ban?


I would say France argued that they deserved protection from islamic terrorists. First, why would anyone need islamic terrorists to offer them protection? what would someone have to do to deserve it? and why would anyone accept? That makes that person an accomplice or at least an enabler, in my view. The fact that other French journalists have NOT been kidnapped is proof that terrorists accepted the argument.

I'm firmly in the "ask for no quarter, give no quarter" camp on islamic terrorists.



Lushington said:


> Is it your position that anyone who negotiates with violent Islamic organizations is a dhimmi, who accepts Muslim "overlordship"?


Yes. Absolutely. It was far more than negotiating. It was either a) begging for mercy or b) reminding them France is their friend and not a threat to them.

My position: Terrorists are a threat to me and I'm a threat to terrorists. 
I believe in 'Peace through superior firepower'. Hunt them all down, and kill them all. Every person they kill of ours is a tragedy. Every person that assists them, tolerates them, or supports them in any way has no place in society.

If by negotiation one means "sending a representative of the gov't to explain if they don't immediately return their citizens they are all going to die". I support that type of diplomacy and I would if I was the victim/hostage as well.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Yes. Absolutely.
> 
> I would say France argued that they deserved protection from islamic terrorists. First, why would anyone need islamic terrorists to offer them protection? what would someone have to do to deserve it? and why would anyone accept? That makes that person an accomplice or at least an enabler, in my view.
> 
> I'm firmly in the "ask for no quarter, give no quarter" camp on islamic terrorists.


So when the Israelis engage in prisoner exchanges with Hizbullah they are reverting to dhimmi status and acknowledging their Muslim overlords?


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Did you actually read the rest? It describes the dhimmitude reaction of France in 2004.


I did. No claim of any "capitulation" there. It says that the French President tried any means short of actually negociating with the terrorists to obtain their liberation. I fail to see how that can be seen as inappropriate response. It then proceeds to criticize the French motivation as understood by the author. Still no claim of "capitulation".

You might want to stop embarassing yourself about now.

By the way Rocker, indeed the -phobe root has strayed a little from its etymological sense. It has come to mean "hatred, hostility" rather than fear in a fair number of instances (as in homophobia, xenophobia, francophobia...). Infortunate perhaps, but it would be illusory to try and rectify comon usage.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> So when the Israelis engage in prisoner exchanges with Hizbullah they are reverting to dhimmi status and acknowledging their Muslim overlords?


IMHO, yes. Prisoner exchanges are not working and are a poor tactic, a sign of weakness. True that weakness has mostly been forced on Israel by the world community. France could take some of the blame for that. I support Israel TAKING their hostages back 100%.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I would say France argued that they deserved protection from islamic terrorists.


Any source for that bullshit?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Étienne said:


> Any source for that bullshit?


it's in BOLD in the article and in many others. do some reading. and stop cursing - speaking of embarassing yourslef.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

ksinc said:


> it's in BOLD in the article.


It is unsupported in the article. I referred to that previously as "the French motivation as viewed by the author". Again: any credible source? A French statement somewhere maybe? Try to conduct the discussion rationally, it would help.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Yes French diplomacy has had some stunning successes in the past 75 years.


How exactly does your list relate to discussing the specific claim at hand ("France capitulated in 2004 and 2005 and betrayed Colin Powell and America")?

I am beginning to think your posting of those inappropriate French-bashing quotations earlier in the thread was actually reflective of your personal opinion, in spite of your feeble claims to the contrary.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Etienne,

I won't tell you to stop cursing but do youhave to do so in English? No more bullshit, from now on please use merde. What would the Académie Française say? Now go rendezvous with Jose Bove and protest a McDonalds....just kidding!

Karl


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> I won't tell you to stop cursing but do youhave to do so in English?


I am not under the impression that I insulted or cursed significantly in this thread. In my opinion I was insulted quite a lot, and the only "curse word" I used was "bullshit". That was not aimed at anybody in particular but at the content of three particularly feeble articles, and at one stupid argument.

I was under the impression that it was not considered that strong a word, but if people take offence, I will gladly replace it with "garbage".


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> IMHO, yes. Prisoner exchanges are not working and are a poor tactic, a sign of weakness.


Is it? A realist (or a cynic) might suggest that the Israelis keep a large supply of political prisoners at hand for the very purpose of exchanging some of them when the occasion arises. An article in the Miami Herald last summer cited sources indicating that in the last 30 years the Israelis had exchanged nearly 7,000 political prisoners for 19 Israeli hostages of various kinds, as well as for the remains of eight dead hostages.

This tells me that (1) the Israelis cared nothing at all for the 7000 prisoners they exchanged; and (2) they cared _a lot_ for the hostages they received in return. Sounds like a win/win to me, and much preferable to last summer's fiasco. _That_ was a display of weakness. "Massive retaliation" has a pleasant, old-fashioned Cold War ring to it, but doesn't appear to be any more successful than the far less costly, if less dramatic, policy of just talking things out.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> Is it? A realist (or a cynic) might suggest that the Israelis keep a large supply of political prisoners at hand for the very purpose of exchanging some of them when the occasion arises. An article in the Miami Herald last summer cited sources indicating that in the last 30 years the Israelis had exchanged nearly 7,000 political prisoners for 19 Israeli hostages of various kinds, as well as for the remains of eight dead hostages.
> 
> This tells me that (1) the Israelis cared nothing at all for the 7000 prisoners they exchanged; and (2) they cared _a lot_ for the hostages they received in return. Sounds like a win/win to me, and much preferable to last summer's fiasco. _That_ was a display of weakness. "Massive retaliation" has a pleasant, old-fashioned Cold War ring to it, but doesn't appear to be any more successful than the far less costly, if less dramatic, policy of just talking things out.


Going along to get along only works when your enemies want to live more than they want to kill you.

I think Israel should either take their hostages back or write them off. Not negotiate. Not make prisoner swaps. If Israel is taking prisoners because there are of some value that is wrong. They should only hold criminals and they should hold them because it is justice.

I don't believe in "retaliation". I never used that word. I don't think that serves any purpose except to perpetuate the same cycle.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Going along to get along only works when your enemies want to live more than they want to kill you.


Or when you don't want to kill them.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> Or when you don't want to kill them.


No. It has one major flaw in that instance. They still want to kill you more than they want to live even when you don't want to kill them.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

ksinc said:


> IMHO, yes. Prisoner exchanges are not working and are a poor tactic, a sign of weakness. True that weakness has mostly been forced on Israel by the world community. France could take some of the blame for that. I support Israel TAKING their hostages back 100%.


I've read an awful lot of ultra right-wing posts on the Interchange, but this one is a real winner. What ever happened to empathy?

Does everything have to happen to one personally before one understands how someone can be affected by it?

You obviously have never had a loved one kidnapped or taken prisoner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> I've read an awful lot of ultra right-wing posts on the Interchange, but this one is a real winner. What ever happened to empathy?
> 
> Does everything have to happen to one personally before one understands how someone can be affected by it?
> 
> ...


What part of my post is unempathetic? I think Israel should go get their people back. I have empathy. It's just with Israel.

So, you are saying if I had a loved one kidnapped you think I wouldn't want to take them back? That makes a lot of sense.

I can tell you if I was kidnapped I would hope my Gov't would either rescue me if possible or nuke the building if it wasn't. I would not want to be traded for anyone or anything. As previously said, you get into the value of a life. The prisoner swaps of 2,000 for 19 express the view that some are worth less than others. I prefer not to be forced into playing that game. All lives are equally valuable. I call that empathy. More than most have for their enemies.

Two questions:
1) Have you noticed not many people kidnap Russians or take them hostage? 
2) Have you ever met a Russian hostage 'negotiator'?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> No. It has one major flaw in that instance. They still want to kill you more than they want to live even when you don't want to kill them.


Not necessarily. It depends on the other party. I believe such instances to be rare.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

ksinc said:


> What part of my post is unempathetic? I think Israel should go get their people back. I have empathy. It's just with Israel.
> 
> So, you are saying if I had a loved one kidnapped you think I wouldn't want to take them back? That makes a lot of sense.
> 
> ...


Fascinating that you're so sure how you'd react if taken hostage. Reality very rarely tends to be so predictable.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> Fascinating that you're so sure how you'd react if taken hostage. Reality very rarely tends to be so predictable.


They're called values. My reactions are not dicated by the moment, but by my beliefs. "Liberty or Death!"

BTW, those squiggly things at the end of some sentences are called 'question marks'. I figure a member of the 'former Empire' would want to know ;-)


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> You obviously have never had a loved one kidnapped or taken prisoner.


Have you?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

ksinc said:


> They're called values. My reactions are not dicated by the moment, but by my beliefs. "Liberty or Death!"
> 
> BTW, those squiggly things at the end of some sentences are called 'question marks'. I figure a member of the 'former Empire' would want to know ;-)


It's one thing to parrot 'liberty or death' from the comfort of one's computer desk. It's quite another to say it whilst utterly alone, perhaps recovering from torture, and facing thoroughly sociopathic captors. It has broken stronger men than you.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Have you?


Yes. ...


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Two questions:
> 1) Have you noticed not many people kidnap Russians or take them hostage?
> 2) Have you ever met a Russian hostage 'negotiator'?


I've read that the Chechens run a fairly lucrative racket kidnapping Russians and ransoming them. Apparently the Russian government paid $7 million for the return of one of Yeltsin's aides in the late '90s. And just this year, Chechens kidnaped four Russians diplomats from the Russian Embassy in Baghdad and murdered them. Of course, under Putin it's often hard to tell who is kidnapping whom, but it is not unheard of for Russians to be snatched, and returned after ransom has been paid.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> It's one thing to parrot 'liberty or death' from the comfort of one's computer desk. It's quite another to say it whilst utterly alone, perhaps recovering from torture, and facing thoroughly sociopathic captors. It has broken stronger men than you.


Very true. And yet other men just like me, but of the same values forged my country with great resolve in spite of personal peril and millions more have stormed the fortresses of the world to free others from worse sociopaths. Individually any could be broken, but together unbreakable. Amazing what true belief in that common value is capable of achieving!

They once built an 'Empire' I hear tell. LOL


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> I've read that the Chechens run a fairly lucrative racket kidnapping Russians and ransoming them. Apparently the Russian government paid $7 million for the return of one of Yeltsin's aides in the late '90s. And just this year, Chechens kidnaped four Russians diplomats from the Russian Embassy in Baghdad and murdered them. Of course, under Putin it's often hard to tell who is kidnapping whom, but it is not unheard of for Russians to be snatched, and returned after ransom has been paid.


Well in the 'old' days it was extremely rare. But, you make a good point about Putin. Yeltsin was still around when I was there last.


----------

