I wonder why....

[Tone Capone]

Two french dudes were kidnapped in Iraq with threats to execute them?

[bilbo]

What's your point, besides banal French bashing? :confused:

[Bob]

i thought the terrorists loved the french! what the fuck!

[Jasonik]

Well that's one more reason for the French to detest the USA. It's totally Bush's fault because he went in there all cowboy and shit....

[ron989]

They were protesting the fact that Muslims aren't allowed to wear head-coverings in French schools. They threatened to murder the French journalists if the rule wasn't changed.

[Tone Capone]

They were protesting the fact that Muslims aren't allowed to wear head-coverings in French schools. They threatened to murder the French journalists if the rule wasn't changed.

oh...

[Tone Capone]

What's your point, besides banal French bashing? :confused:
I don't answer any of your questions until you answer me about Iran... you should know that.

[Tone Capone]

They were protesting the fact that Muslims aren't allowed to wear head-coverings in French schools. They threatened to murder the French journalists if the rule wasn't changed.

Why are terrorists so concerned about what's going on in france?

[Ace42]

These crazy terrorists. Everyone knows real terrorists only exact reprisals for injustices done upon their people in America!

[Tone Capone]

These crazy terrorists. Everyone knows real terrorists only exact reprisals for injustices done upon their people in America!

what are you blabbing about this time?

[Tone Capone]

It's like the terrorists aren't just happy trying to push their extremist form of Islam in their "holy places" anymore.

[Ace42]

It's like the terrorists aren't just happy trying to push their extremist form of Islam in their "holy places" anymore.

They are making a fair point. Banning a muslim girl from wearing a head-scarf would be like banning hissidic jews from having long curly hair, or wearing skull-caps, etc, etc. If Christians weren't allowed to wear crucifixes there would be a riot.

In the UK (and I am pretty sure in the US too) there are laws to prevent religious intolerrance. For example, Sikhs do not need to wear helmets on motorcycles (legally required here) because of the turban. France is being backwards, and they are getting a nasty shock for it - everywhere else has had their religious / ethnic riots (or do you not remember the Black Panthers, etc?) and it seems the Frenchies need to be reminded of the lesson that only such lack of sympathy can bring.

Yeah the terrorists are over-reacting, but then, I'd say that about many 60s activists who secured the liberties we both now enjoy.

[Tone Capone]

They are making a fair point. Banning a muslim girl from wearing a head-scarf would be like banning hissidic jews from having long curly hair, or wearing skull-caps, etc, etc. If Christians weren't allowed to wear crucifixes there would be a riot.

In the UK (and I am pretty sure in the US too) there are laws to prevent religious intolerrance. For example, Sikhs do not need to wear helmets on motorcycles (legally required here) because of the turban. France is being backwards, and they are getting a nasty shock for it - everywhere else has had their religious / ethnic riots (or do you not remember the Black Panthers, etc?) and it seems the Frenchies need to be reminded of the lesson that only such lack of sympathy can bring.

Yeah the terrorists are over-reacting, but then, I'd say that about many 60s activists who secured the liberties we both now enjoy.


Don't compare these idiot terrorists to the Black Panthers thanks.

I sort of see your point though.

[DroppinScience]

Hey, I think I'm gonna kidnap a couple of Iranian journalists here in Canada because Iran deems homosexuality illegal! They gotta legalize homosexuality!

Honestly, these previous hostage cases in Iraq were unconscionable, but their aims actually were logical (withdraw [whatever "coalition" nation]'s troops from Iraq or I kill this dude). Here, they're kidnapping two Frenchman (and France has no involvement in Iraq) to get France to change their internal religious laws.

I don't agree with the law, but this is just plain retarded. Like I said above, I better hold some Iranians hostage so the anti-homosexual law will be changed. :rolleyes:

[bilbo]

I don't answer any of your questions

That's because you can't, ain't that right Einstein?
:rolleyes:

[Tone Capone]

That's because you can't, ain't that right Einstein?
:rolleyes:

WAY TO GO BILBO!!! Damn... I'm totally screwed now!

[Ace42]

Don't compare these idiot terrorists to the Black Panthers thanks.

The head of the FBI, Edgar J Hoover, called the BPP "the greatest threat to the internal security of the country."

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/black_panthers.htm

Sounds familiar to what the phedz and the prez said about Al Qaeda doesn't it?

Black Panther point #8@

# WE WANT AN IMMEDIATE END TO ALL WARS OF AGGRESSION.
We believe that the various conflicts which exist around the world stem directly from the aggressive desire of the United States ruling circle and government to force its domination upon the oppressed people of the world. We believe that if the United States government or its lackeys do not cease these aggressive wars it is the right of the people to defend themselves by any means necessary against their aggressors.

http://www.blackpanther.org/TenPoint.htm

terrorist
adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon);

ter·ror·ism Audio pronunciation of "terrorism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

The full expression of this was the violent protest to the brutal police beating of a black man in Watts (Los Angeles), California in the 1965 rebellion that shocked America and set off other such responses to oppression.

http://www.blackpanther.org/legacynew.htm

So let's see... They have similar views to current Islamic terrorists, they used violence to effect political change, and they broke the law.

I'm not saying they were wrong, but they certainly fit the same bill as these terrorists.

[Tone Capone]

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/black_panthers.htm

Sounds familiar to what the phedz and the prez said about Al Qaeda doesn't it?

Black Panther point #8@



http://www.blackpanther.org/TenPoint.htm

terrorist
adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon);

ter·ror·ism Audio pronunciation of "terrorism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.



http://www.blackpanther.org/legacynew.htm

So let's see... They have similar views to current Islamic terrorists, they used violence to effect political change, and they broke the law.

I'm not saying they were wrong, but they certainly fit the same bill as these terrorists.

That's interesting...

[bilbo]

WAY TO GO BILBO!!!


Settle down partner (http://www.dotcode.com/photos/capslockgone.jpg) :rolleyes:

[ron989]

This is similar to the train wrecks in Spain a few months ago. Apparently the country was being punished for supporting a government that sent troups into Iraq. So, people blamed the U.S.-supporting government for the death of about 250 people, they voted out this government, and the Spanish troups were pulled out of Iraq. What does this show? Terrorism works. :(

[Ace42]

Ah, but does it? Terrorism is *supposed* to force people into doing what you want. In effect (and I am sure a lot of terrorists view it like this) it highlights the fact that dispossessed people who are not necessarily heard still can make themselves heard if powerful people try to ignore them.

Terrorism is often just highlighting / drawing attention to an issue in a world where stuff going on hundreds of miles away, or thousands of miles away, or even on your doorstep, might not exist for all that "ordinary" people care. Did the US care about the Kurds when it didn't want a war? Nope. Lots of people still don't care about the Palestinians suffering for decades. Do you think that if Palestinian terrorists *weren't* blowing up chunks of Israel we'd even know about what happens to their countrymen?

Urm... I'm losing my point somewhat. And I am not conding terrorism, it is pretty shitty. But then, ignoring inustices just because they aren't happening to you is quite possibly equally shitty..

[Funkaloyd]

these previous hostage cases in Iraq were unconscionable, but their aims actually were logical (withdraw [whatever "coalition" nation]'s troops from Iraq or I kill this dude). Here, they're kidnapping two Frenchman (and France has no involvement in Iraq) to get France to change their internal religious laws.

It's a law that restricts the liberty of everyone in France, religious dumbasses in particular. I don't see how using terrorism to end those laws is any more retarded than using terrorism to end the occupation.

[DroppinScience]

It's a law that restricts the liberty of everyone in France, religious dumbasses in particular. I don't see how using terrorism to end those laws is any more retarded than using terrorism to end the occupation.

Even then, why Iraq? Couldn't any terrorist groups have done the same thing within France?

And again, if I want Iran to legalize homosexuality, would kidnapping Iranians in foreign soil be the answer?

[Loppfessor]

Well that's one more reason for the French to detest the USA. It's totally Bush's fault because he went in there all cowboy and shit....

It couldn't possibly be anything the French did...that would just be insanity.

[Funkaloyd]

why Iraq

I think it's likely that the kidnappers didn't even know that they were abducting Frenchmen. When they found out and realized that they couldn't demand the immediate withdrawal of all French forces from Iraq, they came up with this demand.

Dumbass monotheists.

[Tone Capone]

And what do these terrorists think they will accomplish with this????
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/08/31/iraq.main/index.html

[mcaismyhero]

If Al Qaeda walked into France with sticks and stones, france would give in.

(okay it's not that bad) But they did give in too fast in WWII.

They got fucking taken over. They didn't "give in."

[DroppinScience]

They got fucking taken over. They didn't "give in."

And they only got taken over because of geography anyways. If Britain neighboured Germany, they'd likely have fallen too. The English Channel saved their ass.

[Bob]

mmm, there's a little more to it than that, france could have done a LOT more than they did. there were units who fought valiantly (mostly colonials, which i find strange) but alot didn't do much at all, they were just overhwhelmed and panicky. i've been drinking so i forget the details exactly, but i read the berlin diaries by shirer, it's a diary he kept as a (american) correspondent in europe during the war, and as he was touring the french countryside after the blitz (of course, at the discretion of the germans), he noticed there weren't the signs of resistance and battle that he saw in places like belgium and the netherlands (like blown out buildings or shell craters in the road), it's like some people didn't even try. allied forces actually outnumbered the germans, they just got outstrategeried.

i'm really pissed at hitler for this, by the way, because after WWI was probably the best chance the world had for pacifism to catch on. but today, when you say "give peace a chance", they say "WE GAVE PEACE A CHANCE WITH HITLER LOOK WHAT HAPPENED!" in fact, let's go back further, fuck the allies too for being vengeful with the treaty of versailles. this shit really fucked the world over big time. we had a chance to give up war, and in 20 years it all got ruined. thanks guys

[seamus129]

The world has been dealing with hardship of how Islam like any other religion taken to extremes is dangerous but if idealogy mix with religion then we must take a stand and tell every nation who wants allow one single religion hold you hostage of fear intidation they that threat must be deal with.

[Tone Capone]

The world has been dealing with hardship of how Islam like any other religion taken to extremes is dangerous but if idealogy mix with religion then we must take a stand and tell every nation who wants allow one single religion hold you hostage of fear intidation they that threat must be deal with.

don't say anything about anyone being "dealt with" it makes bilbo cry.

[Bob]

i think religions and ideologies are kind of inseperable...religions being ideologies and all

[infidel]

Ever stop to think the "terrorists" holding the French are on bush's payroll?
It would fit in perfectly with his agenda.

[infidel]

You are an inch whipper. You just toss crapout of your mouth with no facts to back it up. It shinks in here inch whipper.Sounds just like you except my unsubstantiated facts are much more plausible than yours.
Think you had better go back to cut and paste, your vocabulary and spelling make you look extremely idiototical.

[Tone Capone]

The law forbids conspicuous religious signs or apparel in public schools, including Jewish skull caps and large Christian crosses.

so should jews and christians start kidnapping the french too?

[Ace42]

The Jews have already been told to move to Israel.

[Tone Capone]

So should they start kidnapping or what?

[saz]

Yeah...so I guess there was no such thing called the French Resistance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Resistance), who liberated Paris (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3596776.stm).

And incidently, for all you gung-ho France bashers out there....France surrendered to Nazi Germany because they got their asses kicked by the Blitzkrieg war machine, which also nearly defeated Stalin's Soviet Union and Great Britain.

[Tone Capone]

I think you're right.

Totally unrelated to Bush's agenda: Europe fought to resist Hitler, whereas the French surrendered and created the Vichy government. It's morbidly funny to think of them defending anything when they won't even defend their own people.

interesting!!!!! (y)

[saz]

idiots (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3590542.stm)

[Tone Capone]

idiots (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3590542.stm)

that's not very interesting.

[Ace42]

It's not that the French surrendered, it's that they did so without much of a fight (rolled over!)

Except they did put up a fight. The British expeditionary force and the French Marginot line were totally inadequet defences against the German panzer divisions (the Marginot line did not go far enough north, allowing them to be outflanked)

The English retreated at Dunkirk too, if you remember, and the US weren't even in the war at that point!

Liberty! Equality! Brotherhood! Not for Jews!

"All men are created equal in the eyes of God, except for blacks who'll we'll enslave for ages, and then segregate, and then treat like second class citizens right up until the very end of the 20th century, when some people will still think they are getting a rough deal!"

Typical US hypocrisy.

[saz]

What you're also neglecting is that French Generals were completely inept, and weren't in touch with the realities of modern warfare of that present time (the evolution of warfare from calvarymen to tanks). The Generals didn't place much stock in tank warfare or did not fully realize what they were up against, and for that they were defeated quite easily by the Nazis. The French military were just out to lunch...that's why they got smoked.

[Tone Capone]

Except they did put up a fight. The British expeditionary force and the French Marginot line were totally inadequet defences against the German panzer divisions (the Marginot line did not go far enough north, allowing them to be outflanked)

The English retreated at Dunkirk too, if you remember, and the US weren't even in the war at that point!



"All men are created equal in the eyes of God, except for blacks who'll we'll enslave for ages, and then segregate, and then treat like second class citizens right up until the very end of the 20th century, when some people will still think they are getting a rough deal!"

Typical US hypocrisy.

so uh.... should christians and jews start kidnapping the french too because of the whole, religious clothing, jewelry thing or what? I mean, since you want to talk about hypocrisy and all.

[Ace42]

So should they start kidnapping or what?

No, they should start bombing - that's what the Catholic IRA does / did whenever they feel people of their denomination are being victimised because of their religion.

And of course Jews have never had paramilitary terrorists =/

The fact that this particular issue has only (so far) resulted in terrorist actions from one faction is beside the point.

[Tone Capone]

The fact that this particular issue has only (so far) resulted in terrorist actions from one faction is beside the point.

It's not beside the point at all. It IS the point.

[Ace42]

Apples and oranges. By the war's end France deported 70,000 Jews, who I assume were murdered. At that same time in the US the government didn't murder a single black man soley because he was black. You are right in that we discriminated against blacks, but we in no way organized genocide against them. How slavery in the US, which Lincoln ended in 1863, can be compared to the Holocaust is beyond me.

Of course you can't see the parrallel, because that would mean admitting gross national hypocrisy.

Are you implying that acts that happened before 1863 *don't count* ? Is there some sort of statute of limitations against acts of racial slaughter?

The Jews were put into *slave labour camps* before being executed. The black slaves were forced to labour in the fields before being tortured, or killed.

After 1863, lynchings were common and occured through to this century.

How many black people were lynched, died of heat exaustion, were beaten to death, died in transit, were killed in capture, etc in the history of the US?

So the vichy puppet government deported 70,000 Jews to the Germans because they were forced to. No-one forced or even asked the US to go aorund capturing black people to use as slaves.

Furthermore, racism was (and still is in many southern states) endemic. Yes the Amancipation Proclamation might've stated that the blacks were free, but it is naive to suggest that was actually the case. I can't remember if it was Missouri or Mississippi, but one of them only got around to ratifying the proclamation in 1999! Yeah it's a legal oversight that was ignored, but it makes the point that on paper as well as covertly, the US was still failing to live up to the declaration that "All men are created equal" which predates Lincoln.

Blacks were lynched in the US "just because they were black" - and whether the government ordered it, or merely looked the other way, is irrelevant.

Or you implying that immediately before Lincoln, the American government and people "didn't know any better" and that "we have now evolved to the position where we can criticise a puppet government from the past"

"we in no way organised genocide against them" - Hah, slavery is as bad as genocide. "Give me freedom, or give me death" - the official US policy on the matter, considering most of the rhetoric at the time concurred with these sentiments.

Nevermind that slavery invariably resulted in death.

Just face it, yanks that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[Ace42]

It's not beside the point at all. It IS the point.

No, it is beside the point. As well as Jews, the Holocaust also targeted Gypsies and slavs. Have the gypsies been given their own country? Nuh-uh, they are still the victims of widespread racial hatred throughout the balkans, notably Romania. Does this mean that the Jews were being unreasonable "whining about the holocaust" just because the gypsies and slavs don't kick up as much of a fuss? No.

The fact that only one injured party is overtly vocal about an injustice does not mean the injustice is somehow "not that big a deal."

The law does not target Christians, as Christians are not religiously *required* to wear crucifixes, etc. Likewise, numerous Jewish sects are not required to wear skullcaps (although some of the smaller denominations are required to wear religious 'uniforms') - many muslim girls *are* required to wear the headscarves, and believe not doing so would result in dire consequences.

Would it be ok to require students in school to eat pork sandwiches as part of school dinners? "But the rule is the same for everyone! You don't see any Christains complaining!"

Perhaps then you would find some Jewish terrorists come out of the woodwork, possibly capture some of the numerous french muslims that are wandering around Israeli suicide-bomb sites.

[sam i am]

Gosh.....here's another of ace's wonderful diatribes....replete with inaccuracies and gross hyperbole :

Of course you can't see the parrallel, because that would mean admitting gross national hypocrisy.

pot...kettle....kettle....pot - pleased to make your acquaintance.

Are you implying that acts that happened before 1863 *don't count* ? Is there some sort of statute of limitations against acts of racial slaughter?

Why would the US want to slaughter blacks when they could work them? At the time, in context, slavery was an economic system. The importation of blacks into the US ended long before the Civil War. Slaveholders had an economic interest in keeping blacks alive so that they could get the maximum amount of value for their investment. Again....look in CONTEXT, not with the jaded eye of modernism.

As for your strictly rhetorical query - no....there is no statute of limitations.

The Jews were put into *slave labour camps* before being executed. The black slaves were forced to labour in the fields before being tortured, or killed.

Manifestly untrue and unsupported by the facts. Liar.

Many Jews were never worked...women, children, and old people were nearly universally killed without ever working as slave labor during the Holocaust. Blacks were nearly universally worked before being emancipated, dying of old age, or, occasionally, being killed due to running off or gross insubordination.

Remember, contextually, that slaves were nothing more than property at that time, NOT full human beings in the eyes of the vast majority of society. This was a prevalent view throughout Europe and the rest of the world as well, NOT just the US.

After 1863, lynchings were common and occured through to this century.

Depends on your definition of "common." Although they occurred, no doubt, whether they were common or not is entirely debatable and not the exclusive truth as proclaimed by king ace.

How many black people were lynched, died of heat exaustion, were beaten to death, died in transit, were killed in capture, etc in the history of the US?

Why not answer your own query? Then compare it to the vast numbers killed off during Europeans importation of slaves into the US or South/Central America. Compare it to the wholesale slavery of Roman times or the continuing slavery of Arabs in North Africa and the Middle East. Come back and let's discuss.

So the vichy puppet government deported 70,000 Jews to the Germans because they were forced to. No-one forced or even asked the US to go aorund capturing black people to use as slaves.

Completely and utterly false.

First of all, many more than 70,000 Jews were rounded up in France and deported for execution during the Occupation (1940-1944). Secondly, the US NEVER captured black people to use as slaves. European traders (mainly English, French, Portugese, and Spanish) bought or captured slaves from Africa WITH THE HELP OF OTHER AFRICAN TRIBES.

Know some real history before you go around distorting it.

Furthermore, racism was (and still is in many southern states) endemic. Yes the Amancipation Proclamation might've stated that the blacks were free, but it is naive to suggest that was actually the case. I can't remember if it was Missouri or Mississippi, but one of them only got around to ratifying the proclamation in 1999! Yeah it's a legal oversight that was ignored, but it makes the point that on paper as well as covertly, the US was still failing to live up to the declaration that "All men are created equal" which predates Lincoln.

Racism is a worldwide phenomenon; not solely the purview of the US. "All men are created equal" did not view blacks, at the time it was written, in CONTEXT, as men. Blacks were specifically singled out as PROPERTY in the original Constitution. Of course, thousands of blacks were emancipated and lived full productive lives in the North PRIOR to the Emancipation Proclamation, but you assiduously failed to point out that kernel of truth, didn't you oh king ace?

Blacks were lynched in the US "just because they were black" - and whether the government ordered it, or merely looked the other way, is irrelevant.

No....it's not irrelevant. Idiots exist in every society and crimes occur despite the best efforts of every government throughout history. Lynching was and is illegal and immoral. The US government has never legally stood upon lynching as a legal remedy. Period.

Or you implying that immediately before Lincoln, the American government and people "didn't know any better" and that "we have now evolved to the position where we can criticise a puppet government from the past"

"we in no way organised genocide against them" - Hah, slavery is as bad as genocide. "Give me freedom, or give me death" - the official US policy on the matter, considering most of the rhetoric at the time concurred with these sentiments.

These two paragraphs are drivel and you know it. Since I already deconstructed your earlier fallacies that these assertions are predicated upon, they manifestly bear no germaneness to the discussion at hand.

Nevermind that slavery invariably resulted in death.

Invariably? Hardly. Look at the facts before you spout off.