I'm suprised no one commented on this yet... thoughts?
Wow, an anti-sematic Frenchman .... I too am amazed that it could be happening in Europe.
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/eu...ron/index.html
Printable View
I'm suprised no one commented on this yet... thoughts?
Wow, an anti-sematic Frenchman .... I too am amazed that it could be happening in Europe.
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/eu...ron/index.html
L'Affaire Dreyfus peut etre?
The French are anti-semitic, but pi$$ scared of the military power of the USA....and its support of Israel
"Force de frappe"...........total wankers
That is how it is
OH, for those of you who do not know................Dreyfus was a french army officer charged with treason...............Emile Zola wrote an article that was published on the front page of L'Aurore, entitled "j'accuse"...............it brought down the turd, or maybe fourth republic.............the only decent troops they have ever had were foreign legionnaires..........
Vichy isn't only water?
And the ROYAL NAVY sank their bloody quisling fleet in Oran
:cool:
That's kinda funny actually, since the reason Sharon isn't welcome in France is that Sharon accused the French of being anti-semitic :)Quote:
Wow, an anti-sematic Frenchman .... I too am amazed that it could be happening in Europe.
France, like many European countries, is making a lot of efforts to make the Jews feel "at home". If Sharon says that their only home is Israel, then what does that say about the French efforts? What does that say about European countries making neo-nazism illegal (for the only reason of pleasing the Jewish lobby), for example?
I wonder what would happen if the Iranian leader would accuse the US of muslim-bashing. Would he still be welcome in the US?
"What does that say about European countries making neo-nazism illegal (for the only reason of pleasing the Jewish lobby), for example?"
thats the only reason?
however, if we were to not welcome the Iranian leader, we wouldn't tell all the Iranian muslims to go back to Iran.
Again these are apples and oranges, but I thought it was out of line for Chirac to say what he did.
Welp... Sharon is the one who told all the Jews to come to Israel. I don't think Chirac ever told them to leave?
Nah... Just wanted to say that ;)Quote:
thats the only reason?
It's the most important reason, though.
The french make dog turds seem edible............
Hey in the '66 war the Israelis were flying mirages?................so were the bloody argies when america "helped us out"...............Falklands??
Get a conscience?
It's not only the French that are anti-semitic. The world has had 'problems' with the Jews since way before the [alleged] birth of Christ. [read the Old Testament, that's the only thing they talk about there :)] But things changed after WW2 with Eisenhower publicizing what happened in the German Camps. It's also after WW2 when the Jewish nation declared they will never again be passive victims. Of course, then they decided to take land from everybody around them, and since the US wouldn't've minded a strongpoint in the East, they decided to help them out.
I doubt, however, that anti-semitic actions are anything like those back in Hitler's time. Well, except for the odd organization [www.AmericanNaziParty.com] that has a 'thing' for minorities.
Actually seeing what Sharon said and what it implies I can totaly understand the French position. As far as I can tell Sharon is not welcome not because of the fact he is a jew but because of his comments. I cant see where that makes Chirac anti-semitic.
Nihil Actually if i remeber rightly the argies used mainly Skyhawk fighter bombers armed with Exocet missiles
armed forces argintine
ah, i was going to type a HUGE paragraph. Fudge it. One comment, Negative you make it sound like Europe is just a bunch of Nazi socialists waiting for a chance revoke post WW2 glory but this monstrosity is only held back by a few Jew lobbiests? The jews are holding back the might of the eternal Reich. :p
Road > It's not just a few Jewish lobbiest. The Jewish lobby, as Americans should know, is one of the most powerfull ones in the world. In Belgium for example, the entire diamond-industry (the biggest in the world) is run by Jews. That's not something you can ignore.
I don't know if the government incorporated the "no nazism"-law as a gesture towards this community, or if it was pushed by the lobby... The Jewish lobby is the only one though that is strong enough to make the government make changes to free speech-laws.
There are no other free speech-laws (there's no law against anti-muslimism, anti-black-ism,... except for fair employment-laws and the likes), and that tells me that the Jewish lobby is involved... might be wrong, though.
it is not only the fact that the Jew's own such powerful businesses, but it is also that the US supports them, so it is not only the french, but the big stick that the US has (and just loves to use)
Personally, i am against the french (no offence intended to anyone). They seem like hippocrites (that and i hate chirac with a passion idk why)
Perhaps the law is there for a humble reason, supression of possible future desires or repression of a past; urged to be forgotton.
That, of course, has nothing to do with the fact that their immigration policy has utterly flooded them with muslim immigrants from North Africa...... To the point they are tring to legislate against religious dress/images/icons...... ;)Quote:
France, like many European countries, is making a lot of efforts to make the Jews feel "at home".
If you know that 99% of all anti-Semitic attacks in France are committed by North-Africans, you can't blame them... the difference though is that North Africa doesn't have a strong lobby, although 10% of Frenchmen are Muslim, versus only 1% Jew.
French President Jacques Chirac has let it be known that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is not welcome as a guest in Paris. Mazel tov! Can you actually imagine Chirac putting out a genuine welcome mat for the Israeli leader who has shown that all of France's interventions in the area have brought nothing good: more of terror, more of Arafat, worst of all, more of Palestinian suffering, all to succor the illusion of French influence in the region. But this latest donnybrook between the two leaders focused not on the dispute with the Palestinians but about anti-Semitism in France itself. Chirac has for years been denying that the ugly phenomenon even exists. Finally, when day after day, evidence mounted that the country has not expelled the virus of Jew-hatred from the body-politic and that it is now becoming more malignant, even Chirac himself has had to sound the tocsin. And Sharon sounded it, as well, when this week he called on French Jews to make aliyah or "go up" to Israel. (Would that some Israeli leader had a quarter century ago called on the Jews of Argentina to immigrate.) This really got Chirac's goat. But not before he demonstrated in an off-hand remark that, for him, neither Jews nor Muslims, for that matter, are really genuinely French: "we are witnessing racial events involving our Jewish and Muslim compatriots. ... Sometimes just simple Frenchmen are attacked." This is an ugly dichotomy. But it is not new. After the terrorist bombing of the rue Copernic synagogue on October 3, 1980, Raymond Barre, the French prime minister, alluded to this "odious act which intended to strike Jews [and] struck innocent Frenchmen." Of course, Chirac and Barre are from the center-right and right where anti-Semitism has always nested. But such views are now a staple of the oh, so enlightened left, as well. French hatred of Jews now goes wall-to-wall. And French hatred of Israel, too. A few days ago, France went into a frenzy to mobilize the countries of the European Union at the UN to vote "yes" on the General Assembly resolution calling on Israel to take down the security barrier it is building against Palestinian terror. Many fatuous reasons were mustered to support this demand. But the real reason that France and some others oppose the fence is that it works.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=peretz072104
Palestinian terror? Who invaded who?
In a survey that ran through Europe Israel was identified as the biggest international security problem. Not only France is involved, but I guess there's a hype about them since they did not want to support the US interventions.
But it's all about the strength of the Jewish lobby groups. That's why, no matter how far right the US gets [unless the ANP takes over or something], it is unlikely that the Jews will be persecuted. They control too much of the wealth of the States to be so easily ignored.
What survey did you have in mind?
In case you don't realise it, France is extremely unpopular in the expanded EU, together with countries like the UK, because it always opposes the US, regardless of the merits of each case. As far as France is concerned the EU is their new empire, and everyone else must bow to French demands, otherwise they are 'anti-European'.
Fortunately, now that the EU has expanded, France together with Germany have lost their majority, and we can hopefully expect to see the EU taking a more sensible, and a less partisan line. And yes, that means we need to tell France to STFU.
This doesn't mean I agree with the US view, but the French position is absurd, as they do not represent the view of the EU, despite the fact they claim to do so.
No I agree that France might have come across as trying to be the spokesperson for the EU when they don't have the right to do so. But that is something that must be regulated within the EU.
On the other hand each country is free to have whatever internal/external policy it desires. There are always consequences no matter the choice, so France is taking a chance by being a bit more anti-Semitic than other countries are [outspokenly].
As for the survey... the link is somewhere in Cosmos, that's where I read about it. The original survey link is in that thread too.
Actualy super Etandards carried the exocet. There was also land launched exocet. Skyhawks dropped bombs not launch missiles.Quote:
Nihil Actually if i remeber rightly the argies used mainly Skyhawk fighter bombers armed with Exocet missiles
France was historically helpful to Israel, selling them nuclear reactors, for example (not necessarily to make plutonium, but can be modified)
Slarty
Jinxy
You are right on that. My point was that the argintine airforce was mainly made up of non french aircraft.Quote:
Actualy super Etandards carried the exocet. There was also land launched exocet. Skyhawks dropped bombs not launch missiles.
Tedob1 That is the best bit of onesided reporting I have seen in a long time. Republician propaganda when it comes to the french is getting ridicalous. It is starting to look like the book 1984. You know the parts where its explained that you control the information people read you control the people. Also when you are translating from one lanuage to another you should be carefull of the translation. I highly doubt that Chirac said exactly what was translatd in the "report" and definatly not in English.
IMHO Sharon was basicaly playing up to American francophobia to take attention away from the importance of the UN vote.
Hypronix Actually France is biased in favor of jews rather than against them.
Palestine tried to wipe Isreal off the map, they lost. Egypt tried it too, they also lost. In both cases the invading forces were pushed back past the isreal border where they stayed. Of course you can argue isreal should never be there in the first place but at the same time Palestine and Egypt could have kept the peace by adapting UN resolution or the desires of Allied forces, since they were on the wrong side or the losing side of WW2. The reason Palestine or Egypt would not hold to those borders is, can you guess? They are non-muslims. Oh also, I think Jews were there long before Christians and Muslims. In fact historically there is many many references to that fact. Heck the muslims even came after Christ. So I think Isreal probably deserves to be there, especially since WW2 happened and the region was in chaos as old Monarchies attempted to re-establish power base. I think the Palestines deserves some space, they got it and enacted war to get more and when Isreal didn't withdraw back into their own terrotory after the Palestine initiated war, the palestines enacted terrrorism to kill the "invaders" and remove them.Quote:
Palestinian terror? Who invaded who?
This is still slightly off topic, but coming back to the point about exocets, why do you think so many people in the UK are still so pissed off about this?
France is allegedly allied with the UK, but during the Falklands conflict it was trying to sell extra exocet missiles to Argentia, with the express purpose of sinking ships and killing large numbers of British forces.
Only stopped because of certain operations by the UK intelligence services.
How would you feel if we started arming anyone France has a conflict with, like some of the ex-French colonies on Africa.
Hmmm, maybe that is a good idea ....
Darkes
I'm not so sure that that is true, i think most people don't even think about it these days. Yes the English love to hate the French, but that is because of the percieved cultural and Historical differences between are countries. Ie, the froggies eat snails, never wash and make there bread in such a rude shape :D We on the other hand are a nation of shop keepers who eat crap and left them in the **** at Dunkirk.Quote:
This is still slightly off topic, but coming back to the point about exocets, why do you think so many people in the UK are still so pissed off about this?
yes but they also sold one to iraq which israel later bombedQuote:
Originally posted here by slarty
France was historically helpful to Israel, selling them nuclear reactors, for example (not necessarily to make plutonium, but can be modified)
Slarty
MURACU the NewRepublic isn't anymore republican than the NewAmerican (John Birch Socity) is American. it's very very far to the right of republican thinking.
from an article on their home page:
Power from the People
by Jonathan Chait
Bush isn't an aspiring dictator, and he's not planning to rig the election. But, with his love of secrecy, his penchant for misinformation, and his use of the machinery of government for partisan ends, he has made America less democratic.
i posted it to stimulate conversation i didn't write it but i do believe the statement was true about the bombing. maybe not meant to be taken as it was spoken but showing the truth none the less like many racist remarks. but yes it is extreamly one sided, its the reactionary party line.
Tedob1
The qoute about Raymond Barre is fairly acurate even if it was taken out of context at the time by his political opponents. It also signed his political death warrent. The French have always reacted strongly against racaisim be it against jews or musilalims. Except maybe against the English who as Jinxy said they love to hate.
I am sure that when you take the so called quote by Chirac in context and in french It would not come out the same. It is funny that i dont remember hearing about it as normally something like that would be headline news.
Another little point most peole tend to ignore as Roadclosed said if Isreal has occupied Palistien it is because of the the attempted invasions by the surrounding Arab countries. also Isreal only occupied half of palistien the rest is occupied by Jordan and Egypt. I havent seen any talk of them handing back the land they occupied to the new palistienian state.
People worry about the government. I keep my eye on the media, they are extremely biased and unreliable. If a story contradicts their political views it gets buried. People will argue with me but it's more and more on the left of the hand than the right. For instance other's have voiced opions in another thread about a man who was Clinton's national security advisor getting caught and admitting to stealing highly sensitive documents from entrusted archives. It made page 7 in one national newspaper and was further along in others. Very curious but not surprising. I could go on and on, but it's pointless other than perhaps convincing others to be careful.Quote:
It is funny that i dont remember hearing about it as normally something like that would be headline news.
An entire generation and washed population does not understand or achnowledge the history of why Isreal is even in Palestine - or the fact that you mentioned other countries were involved. Perhaps even that is politically motivated and those who voice opposing opinion against isreal, really don't even care about the area, they may be swinging on the side they like and if the side they like hates isreal then they too, in default hate Isreal. Perhaps it only because a Jew owns the local diamond shop, who knows. I have tried to make sense of it. I come up empty it seems.
Like I said -- 1984 He who controls the present controls the past and he who controls the past controls the future.
Now hang on here. The Democrats have had the monopoly on information disemination in the USA for the last 30 years. And now you want to bring up a 1984 type of environment? Even though Fox News (which is decidedly more Republican than any other major news outlet) is beating CNN hands down as the most wathced News program on television, Democratic biased newspapers and news television programs far exceed Republican biased venues of the same. Which I attribute to Democrats finding Fox News to be more entertaining than CNN, and a general shift in understanding of exactly what Democrats and Republicans claim to represent.Quote:
Originally posted here by MURACU
Like I said -- 1984 He who controls the present controls the past and he who controls the past controls the future.
As for Talk Radio - Yes Republican biased programming far exceeds Democratic based programming. I like to think this is due to Republicans desiring to be informed rather than entertained. Jab Jab. :D
I think he was agreeing. :)
I was agreeing. The thing I find the most frighting in 1984 is not the fact everyone is watched but the idea of the power controling the media has. I have no real interest weather it is the democrats or the republicains who control 51% of the media sources in the states. Already the fact that it can be said is a bad sign. It means that for the vast majority of people their information source is controled by the political machine. Most people will believe almost blindly what the are told. Hence my referance to 1984. I would love to continue this but I am taking my son to ireland tomorrow for three weeks so I wont be really checking the internet. Going to spend the time sailing. So have fun all. :)
That is true. But we can go and look at both sides and make some kind of educated decision. Look now; a movie from Hollywood is seeking to change the course of American thinking to rally behind a group of personal political views. They are even going to time the DVD release to coincide with the election. People will vote based on nothing more than a movie and a few web sites. The enemy isn't the government. It's Dan Rather and Hollywood icons people follow like deities and the like. :) But we, well a lot of us (I hope) know that.
It's been a long time since I read or saw 1984. Perhaps we just assume it's a soviet like socialist government. Maybe it was just a media corporation with forced subscription on their network? :D
Perhaps the media bias in this country IS the reason it's number 15 and not censorship of the government at all. Those behind the camera do practice censorship; locally and on purpose. Is it a problem? Hell yes. Is it as scary as Al Queda? Yep, almost.
See ya when you get back.
Hoo boy, I'm staying out of this one! :)
But I do want to throw my opinion on this in:
I'm really tired of how cliche the term "antisemitism" has become. It's simply a trendy term to throw out to serve a political agenda nowadays. If I sneeze too hard in the general direction of a jewish individual, I'm antisemitic.
Sorry but I disagree completely, I think you mean racism. Antisemitism is not thrown around like racism these days. To even try to pass that off as an intelligent comment is B.S.Quote:
Originally posted here by AngelicKnight
Hoo boy, I'm staying out of this one! :)
But I do want to throw my opinion on this in:
I'm really tired of how cliche the term "antisemitism" has become. It's simply a trendy term to throw out to serve a political agenda nowadays. If I sneeze too hard in the general direction of a jewish individual, I'm antisemitic.
Back on track. France and Germany have both shown that you can burn down synagogues and destroy Jewish cemetaries with impunity. They don't care. They certainly haven't been tripping over themselves to find the culprits and so Sharon made his comments. Chirac is a puke and he plays politics to appease the masses, he's an insignificant leader of an insignificant country and now that he knows it he's pissed.
Well I have to completely disagree with your completely disagreeing. :) Hardly B.S. You may just not have been on the receiving end of it as much as I have, but I've had it thrown at me to the point it's just sickening to hear the term (and I'm anything but antisemitic). But yeah, racism is much more thrown around.
This is very interesting seeing the opinions of our Europeans in here. I don't know much about how the British view the French and vice versa on these issues, so I'm enjoying taking in your opinions. Very interesting stuff.
Here's an interesting article about that, Korp :)
And more interesting stuff atQuote:
...
These lists, based on reports from communal organisations, need some reservations. They include incidents not properly verified. The fire in the synagogue at Trappes (2), which was burnt to the ground, acquired symbolic importance, but was in fact an accident (3). And the motives of the perpetrators of real incidents were not always clear. Upon arrest some proved to have no antisemitic intentions. The use of the terms Arab and Maghrebi in the lists is misleading, since private security guards do not know the origins or identity of suspects.
France has the largest Jew population in Europe (600,000), but also one of the largest muslim ones (5 million). The number of incidents is relatively low if you look at those figures, imo...Quote:
Time Europe
When French president Jacques Chirac learned on Nov. 15 that a Jewish school had been set ablaze in the Paris suburb of Gagny, he sounded the tocsin. Officials flocked to the scene of the fire, and, 48 hours later, Chirac summoned his closest advisers to the Elysée Palace to brainstorm new ways to fight anti-Semitism. "When one attacks a Jew in France, it's France in its entirety that is attacked," he told reporters. "Anti-Semitism is contrary to all the values of France."
As the latest take on this, try this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3932313.stm
especially the comment at the end: "The BBC's correspondent in Paris says the number of threats and attacks on Jews in France has risen sharply in the wake of the second Palestinian uprising."
Underplaying French problems?
600 reported cases of abuse by Jews
1000 Jews leaving France this year headed to Isreal? I listened to an interview from a woman leaving because she is scared to live in France, very cute Frech accent.
500 reported cases last year?
More and more muslims each year.
And I haven't even looked at a Jewish paper.
Some hopefully unbiased sources. I can post biased one's if needed. In these the French downplay issues.
http://www.iht.com/articles/527883.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2683783.stm