Rebirth of Reason

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 9:31pmSanction this postReply
I have enormous respect for Daniel Pipes, but I believe he's cherry-picking the best of the French approach.  The terrorists there have less rights because the people have less rights.  It's even against the law to boo their national anthem.  Also, they have so much experience with Muslim terrorists because so many Muslim terrorists have set up shop in France.  I agree that the UK has a poor record, but French appeasement has undermined both US & UK attempts to create a united front against terrorism.  Yes, they did outlaw the hijab in schools, but when the two French journalists were kidnapped in Iraq, it's widely understood that they paid off the ransomers, and had all the Arab diplomats helping secure their release (but they don't encourage that same help for us).

The French also built a huge immigration centre right on their side of the Chunnel, practically encouraging illegal immigrants to head to the UK.  Their desire to keep their socialist culture has made them bring in so many North African Muslim immigrants that don't assimilate.  There are Muslim sections of Paris that the police will not go. I've even heard French journalists say that fear of their Muslim population was the real reason that they had to oppose the Iraq War.  They are a society largely based on envy of us and a desire to bring us down, even if it hurts them.  I don't even trust that they're sharing all intelligence with us.

Fuque the French! 

(Edited by Scott Schiff on 7/12, 9:44pm)

Post 1

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 10:27pmSanction this postReply
Thanks for posting this article, Barbara. The great thing about Mr. Pipes is that he tells it like it is. No B.S. frills, just the cold hard facts. Excellent reporter.

Post 2

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 11:21pmSanction this postReply

Scott, thank you for the information. I appreciate it.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 12:44amSanction this postReply

The French army and police forces can be very ruthless. This was very clear in Algeria. But bad luck for the French, the Algerians where even more ruthless.


France had some experience with terrorists in the past and may be better prepared.


There is a cultural difference between French and British. I already mentioned this in another thread. In some ways France is closer to the US then Great Britain. There is a feeling of being French, of belonging to a strong free country and the ideals it stands for. The French government thinks in terms of French citizens with different personalities and religions. British think in terms of community, Hindus, Sikhs etc. They try to meet every community’s needs. In France, public safety comes first and they are not afraid to ruffle some feathers with some “community”. In France, a lot of Muslims consider themselves French Muslim: a French citizen who happens to be Muslim, exerting his right of freedom of religion. They are more loyal to France.


I’ve read in my Belgian newspaper that  the French police is worried by the growing number of conversions to radical Islam. Apparently many “born again” Muslim are linked to terrorist organisations. The scenario seems almost classic: young high-school dropout with no employment is “saved” by his faith and becomes a militant Muslim. According to the article there are two main movements proselytising in France, Tabligh a strict orthodox form of Islam and Salafi, which considers Western culture as immoral.


The cause of terrorism is truly with us. We leave young people without means to find out what is right and moral and no future to look out to. When somebody shows up who claims to have all the answers they are easily turned into murderers.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 3:37amSanction this postReply

The French have a very mixed record – better in some ways and worse in others – but they definitely go their own way. France had to deal with Islamic terrorism first given their large Muslim population. The French learned from the subway bombings in Paris in the 1980s. You can also say 9/11 was tried first in France when terrorists attempted to fly a plane into the Eiffel Tower but they couldn’t get the pilot to cooperate. From that terrorists realized that you have to be able to fly the plane yourself.


However, France falls far behind due to the suppression of free speech – in particular, outlawing criticism of the root cause of terrorism: Islam. Without the ability to critically discuss beliefs, the possibility of change and improvement is severely curtailed. Instead, there will be an unarticulated backlash perhaps exploited by a fascist demagogue some time in the future. It’s a very unhealthy situation. One that we should avoid at all costs.

(Edited by Jason Pappas on 7/13, 4:12am)

Post 5

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 7:02amSanction this postReply
Talk show host Michael Savage can rant on and on but he has it right when he says that the British 'stiff upper lip' is a joke — they're in denial.


Post 6

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 7:07amSanction this postReply
I think Scott said all that needs to be said. 

IMO, Daniel Pipes is a facile thinker who rearranges facts to see the world as he wants to see it.

Post 7

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 8:50amSanction this postReply
I think that something more serious is at work, here. 

I agree, that many British are in denial.  The ones that I live with, and are related to, refuse to engage in knock down drag out arguments about anything.  As soon as one gets a bit too close to home,  out comes an ad hominem, or a dismissive closing remark, or an announcement of  tea-time; all with a smile.  Yes, big generalizations, but a widespread phenomenon.

The French have a reputation for diplomacy. Wasn't "detente" their invention?  They have run rough-shod over some human rights; but they aren't losing lives or killing the enemy,  or anyone else, in large numbers.

Human rights can be reinstated in a twinkling. Reincarnation is not so easy. Perhaps the French know how to keep the enemy talking long enough to keep their bridges from getting burnt entirely.  Could they be setting a new course?  
(Edited by Sharon Romagnoli Macdonald on 7/13, 8:55am)

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 1:19pmSanction this postReply
Barbara, thank you for posting this, and "introducing" me to Dr. Pipes.  He is an established and credible scholar.

The French are quite dug-in regarding preservation of their own culture, perhaps it has to do with the number of wars they lost (see below).  As a result, there seems to be a sociopathic je-ne-sais-quoi around the cultural "needs" of its citizens.  A person (or country) sensing its inability to affect its own prosperity in the world, usually sets off a rule-making extravaganza.  Dr. Pipes points out that, in some instances, this puts them in bed with freedom fighters. 

The French can be tough.  Last year, American bass player Kent Carter and his wife, the Danish dancer Michala Marcus suddenly found their home outside of Angoul raided and themselves handcuffed, interrogated, and abandoned on the streets of Paris.  They often rented out their home while they traveled, and had, accidentally, rented to a couple leaders of a separatist Basque terrorist organisation.  The French authorities?  Ils ne regrettes rien.
- Gallic Wars
- Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

- Hundred Years War
- Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."

- Italian Wars
- Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

- Wars of Religion
- France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

- Thirty Years War
- France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

- War of Revolution
- Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

- The Dutch War
- Tied

- War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War
- Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

- War of the Spanish Succession
- Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

- American Revolution
- In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

- French Revolution
- Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

- The Napoleonic Wars
- Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

- The Franco-Prussian War
- Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

- World War I
- Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

- World War II
- Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

- War in Indochina
- Lost. French forces plead sickness; take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu

- Algerian Rebellion
- Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

- War on Terrorism
- France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion" 


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 2:35pmSanction this postReply
Daniel Pipes is easily one of the ten or so smartest thinkers in the whole world when it comes to the Middle East. The problem is -- that's not very smart. Lacking almost all knowledge of some tolerably rational philosophy like Aristoteleanism or Objectivism, he's completely out to sea here. So much for the power of even the best of today's left and right intellectuals!
The fact is: The French are enemies of, and traitors to, Western Civilization in virtually every conceivable sense. As alternatives to, and enemies of, the relatively magnificent (if very flawed) dominant Anglo-Saxon culture, they are the darlings of the whole planet. They're really like cute little pets to all of us.
But they're also amoral and unprincipled to an unprecedented extent. The British are the opposite. Their personal integrity makes the British (and Americans, Jews, etc.) highly vulnerable as they stick to their false philosophical guns and go against all common sense, actual truth, and real virtue. Ultimately, today's version of Western liberalism is so compromised and corrupted by religion, self-sacrifice, welfarism, egalitarianism, moral equivalency, PC, etc. that it's effectively anti-Western and illiberal.
But the French-style abandonment of all ideals, nobility, principles, and morality is not how to win the military and culture wars between the West and Islam. We simply need to improve our ideals. France is hardly a beacon of liberal light on this planet; Britain is. The hope of the world still lies with the noble Anglo-Saxons of America and England.

Post 10

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 9:11pmSanction this postReply
"The French army and police forces can be very ruthless. This was very clear in Algeria. But bad luck for the French, the Algerians where even more ruthless."

I hope for the sake of western civilization we aren't more ruthless than the Iraqi resistance or whatever we should call them. Would the French had been more successful in Algeria had they been more ruthless?"

"Yes, they did outlaw the hijab in schools, but when the two French journalists were kidnapped in Iraq, it's widely understood that they paid off the ransomer..."

Actually the law bans religious symbolism in schools at the choosing of local administrators -- so a necklace of some dumb christian martyr like st. frances from xx00 years ago is most likely fine, hijabs, not so good. As an athiest this detests me -- we need religious freedom as a vital part of western society and an element, though one of many, in the battle against religious fundamentalism and state enforced morality and religion.

Post 11

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 12:43amSanction this postReply
Algeria was to the French what Vietnam was to the Americans. French have a lot of North-African immigrants and Algeria still in their memories, that's probably why they don't want to wage war in the middle east.

I don't know the exact history about the hijabs but I think it went something like this: There where problems that arose with girls wearing the hijab, things like wearing a hijab in gym-classes, not wanting to assist to some classes because they where unfit for a Muslima etc. These girls where fanatic, they wanted the curriculum to be adapted to their religious preferences. School boards turned to the ministry of education for help. The ministry checked up on everything written on dress code and the function of public secular education. They concluded to be very strict and to ban all ostentive religious symbols. The idea behind it is to protect the individual. In public schools everybody is equal, is treated in the same way and has the same rights to personal development and can believe whatever he wants. When in a school you got a majority of Muslima students wearing headscarfs, those not wearing (for example Objectivist Algerian girls) a hijab will be outcasts. Although the school board remains secular, the classroom becomes a small Islamic community, which is contrary to the goals of public education. The French government gives money to faith based schools, enroling in a faith based school cost hardly more than public education. So the problem is mainly a problem of dress-code in public schools. Don't blow it out of proportion.
When I was young everybody in school wanted to show his musical preferences trough his clothing. These where the days when punk, disco, hard-rock, heavy metal, reggea and new-wave where competing for the kids loyalty. Or school became a kind of carnival and the prefect issued a dress code. This was a violation of freedom of religion, to a lot of people in that era AC/DC where Gods. But we never got on national television!

The French are hoping for some kind of Islamic Enlightenment. They think Islamic intellectuals will criticise some points of their belief and propose a new, 21st century Islam. Apparently they don't understand logic and philosophy, even Islamic philosophy are wasted on terrorists.

(Edited by Guido Beelen on 7/15, 12:13am)

Post 12

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 12:54amSanction this postReply
Julia, you forgot the Battle of the Golden Spurs. The French knights (their elite corps) defeated by a bunch of flemish workers waving poles.

Post 13

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 9:16amSanction this postReply
Ignor my post above.  I was confusing Daniel Pipes with someone else.  Pipes is a good man, accomplished scholar, hardly facile.
(Edited by Robert Davison on 7/14, 9:17am)

Post 14

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 1:03pmSanction this postReply
Britain (I speak as an englishman) has perhaps erred on the side of caution in its dealings with "suspected terrorists". This is because a principle in our law is that it is better for a guilty man to go free than an innocent to be unjustly imprisoned.
I understand that many people (even soloists) do not agree with this principle.
I do.

I agree that much talk about "blitz spirit" is bollocks but people say these things to each other to build their confidence after a shock.

Four individuals committed this act just as the individuals attacked the U.S. on 9/11. The tragedy was they did not know they were individuals and therefore did not apply a value to their own lives.

 Parliament is currently enacting legislation that will make it easier to detain suspects, I remain unconvinced but may be proved wrong.

Britain acts in a "hard way" quite often. At least eight attacks have been intercepted recently. Mostly these things are not in the public realm.

Post to this thread

User ID Password or create a free account.