France: Hamas, Islamic Jihad not terror groups

[EL DANDY~! 0]

All I know is that Robin Williams said it best about the French...

 

"Yes...we don't care about you Americans...because we're French...*smokes his imaginary cigarette*...oh shit, the Germans are coming! *pause* HELLO, AMERICANS!!! HELLO!!!"

 

Might have been the funniest thing on that entire show...

[Firestarter 0]

your average american abroad is the most obnoxious, loud, arrogant, disprespectful piece of trash you are likely to encounter anywhere.

My wife and I recently spent two and a half months in Thailand, and without exception it was the Germans and the French who were rude, loud, obnoxious, disrespectful, and arrogant. Every American we saw was soft-spoken and polite; not one sunbathed topless in deference to Thai customs (whereas European women with sagging breasts were in abundant supply), and they always took their shoes off whenever a sign asked them to do so. A German couple, on the other hand, was observed having a loud argument with a diffident monk about the matter.

 

Your evidence is purely anecdotal - as is mine. I've seen counterexamples to both our posts countless times in countless countries. If you're going to ask us not to stereotype the Europeans, kindly return the favour. "Ugly Americans" abroad are an old and very tired cliche which never really existed.

 

As for the French, I've spent almost three months in Paris and two in Geneva, and my personal experiences with them were mostly pleasant. The only sweeping generalisation I'm willing to make is that they tend to be sniffy and unpleasant if your French is less than perfect, rather than flattered that you're making an attempt. But then, I was in Paris - and Paris, as Methos said, is full of Parisians. Even the French don't like Paris.

[Guest Marney's Life-Partner]

your average american abroad is the most obnoxious, loud, arrogant, disprespectful piece of trash you are likely to encounter anywhere.

My wife and I recently spent two and a half months in Thailand, and without exception it was the Germans and the French who were rude, loud, obnoxious, disrespectful, and arrogant. Every American we saw was soft-spoken and polite; not one sunbathed topless in deference to Thai customs (whereas European women with sagging breasts were in abundant supply), and they always took their shoes off whenever a sign asked them to do so. A German couple, on the other hand, was observed having a loud argument with a diffident monk about the matter.

 

Yeah, and the food was terrible too, and such small portions.

[Anakin Flair 0]

Accepted.

Thank you.

[Guest JMA]

Someone mentioned there was a history of anti-semitism in France. Could someone please explain this history? Anyway, if there is a history of anti-semitism, maybe that is why they surrended to the Third Reich. Although, that would be MUCH worse than surrendering.

 

Slightly off-topic: the only French jokes I've enjoyed were those from Al Bundy.

[Firestarter 0]

There's No Anti-Semitism in France, and the Earth is Flat

 

On June 21st, the Washington Post printed an article by François Bujon de l'Estang, France's Ambassador to the United States, entitled "A Slander on France." In the story, Mr. de l'Estang vehemently denied the existence of anti-Semitism in France and took great personal umbrage over the notion that his country had historically been guilty of such misconduct. The essay was written in response to an earlier story that appeared in the Post and to general criticism over the large number of anti-Semitic incidents that have been taking place in France.

 

In denying the existence of France's proclivity for anti-Semitism, he might as well have argued that the earth is flat. It's bad enough when everyday citizens of a country don't know their nation's history, but when a government official (an ambassador no less) is ignorant of basic fundamental information it is inexcusable.

 

Sadly, France has had a very long and sordid history of anti-Semitism, which began virtually as soon as the first Jews arrived in Gaul after Rome's expulsion of the Hebrews from Judea. In 1096, at the time of the first Crusades, severe anti-Jewish riots and massacres spread throughout France. In 1171, Jews living in the town of Blois were charged with Ritual Murder and 31 were burned at the stake after being found guilty. An especially violent massacre took place in Brittany during the Fourth Crusade (1235-1236). After a public disputation took place in Paris in 1240, the Talmud was condemned as blasphemous, setting off a new round of anti-Jewish riots. Jews were expelled from the city of Carcassone in 1253, 1306 and 1394. Jews were also forcibly expelled from the province of Dauphine in 1253 because of another charge of ritual murder. The province of Gascony gave orders to expel Jews after 1305, and Jews were then formally expelled from Brittany in 1391 and from Gascony in 1394.

 

Mr. de l'Estang incredulously used the French Revolution and the Dreyfus Affair as affirmative examples of France's great humanitarian concern for the rights of its Jewish citizens. He wrote that France was "the first in Europe to extend full citizenship to Jews, in 1791" and that France "came close to civil war a century ago because the intelligentsia rallied to restore the honor of an innocent Jewish officer, Captain Alfred Dreyfus, wrongly convicted of treason." However, he failed to mention that when the revolution was finally suppressed (after the final defeat of Napolean Bonaparte), that the Jews were largely blamed and ostracized for both the revolution and Bonaparte’s rise to power. They lost many, if not most of the rights they acquired from their "emancipation" in 1791. Mr. de l'Estang also completely ignores the fact that Dreyfus was framed and railroaded due to rampant anti-Semitism within the government, military, and general public. Dreyfus was only cleared of charges because of the continuous efforts of a handful of supporters. The attempt by the French government to bury evidence of Dreyfus' innocence was so heinous that it was the cover-up, and not outrage over anti-Semitism that created so much dissention in the country. Moreover, in getting Dreyfus acquitted, the flames of Jewish hatred in France were further fueled, not quenched.

 

One outcome of the subsequent anti-Semitic rhetoric stemming from the blame for the French Revolution was the publication of works such as "Dialogues in Hell" in 1864, and "La France Juive" in 1886. "Dialogues in Hell" was later used as the basis for the notorious "Protocol of the Elders of Zion," and the anti-Semitic tract "La France Juive" was so strongly received by France's Jew-haters that it went through 114 editions in one year.

 

However, Mr. de l'Estang's worst distortion of his country's anti-Semitic history was his assertion that the French people sacrificed themselves during World War II to save Jews. Without being asked by the Nazis, French police in Vichy France arrested and deported more than 60,000 Jews to German death camps and all were murdered. The number of Nazi collaborators in France far exceeded the number of Frenchmen that fought in the underground against the Nazis. Indeed, it was because of France's historic, virulent anti-Jewish sentiment that several scholars have posited that France, not Germany, would have been the most likely country for a Holocaust-type situation to occur.

 

The end of WWII didn't see the end of anti-Semitism in France. It remained entrenched everywhere, including the highest offices of the land. In 1967 Charles de Gaulle cut off support for Israel when they successfully defended themselves in the 1967 war and denounced the Jews "as an elite people, sure of themselves and domineering." In the 1970s France made a deal with the PLO that it would not arrest Arab terrorists using France as their base for planning attacks on Israel and Jews so long as they did not engage in terrorism on French soil. And finally, in just the last couple of years there have been literally hundreds of violent and destructive anti-Semitic acts committed throughout France.

 

Mr. de l'Estang's idea of France’s "long tradition of tolerance and respect for freedom of religion and fighting for international peace and justice" is as perverted as his country's basic judicial tenet: that a person is guilty until proven innocent. Likewise, his revision of French history is as vile as the inequitable attempts to revise Middle East history in favor of the West Bank Arabs.

- ChronWatch article

 

Click here to read a Washington Post article detailing rising anti-Semitism in present-day France.

 

Commentary on a French ambassador's recent description of Israel as "that shitty little country."

 

Read this for a summary of political and social anti-Semitic trends in France over the end of 2001 and most of 2002.

 

Also see the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise's detailed and hyperlinked history of Jews in France.

 

Really, I could go on hyperlinking for the better part of the day, and I would only skim the surface. Barely. If you're unaware of the level of hatred for Jews in general and Israel in particular in France, it's because you haven't taken the time or the interest to educate yourself. The information itself isn't hard to find or hard to interpret. It is all too abundant, and all too clear.

Edited September 2, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

To be fair, so could do the same kind of thing for America (or indeed Britain) and anti-black sentiments. It still doesn't reflect on the country as a whole.

 

And to the person who asked earlier, France has a large Muslim population mainly due to the fact that they used to have many Muslim colonies, such as Morrocco.

[Firestarter 0]

To be fair, so could do the same kind of thing for America (or indeed Britain) and anti-black sentiments.

Will you shut up. You say the same damn thing in every thread about anti-Semitism, you get slapped around like a redheaded stepchild by the same damn people, you back down, and then you bring it up in yet ANOTHER thread, as if you think everyone's forgotten the last twenty times you made the same specious and feckless comparison. There is no significant organised grass-roots movement to kill or persecute black people in the United States today. Our law enforcement agencies fully investigate all individual incidents. The same cannot be said of France and its Jews.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

To be fair, so could do the same kind of thing for America (or indeed Britain) and anti-black sentiments.

Will you shut up. You say the same damn thing in every thread about anti-Semitism, you get slapped around like a redheaded stepchild by the same damn people, you back down, and then you bring it up in yet ANOTHER thread, as if you think everyone's forgotten the last twenty times you made the same specious and feckless comparison. There is no significant organised grass-roots movement to kill or persecute black people in the United States today. Our law enforcement agencies fully investigate all individual incidents. The same cannot be said of France and its Jews.

I don't back down, I just get reminded that you can't argue a point for more than a few posts without resorting to either links of questionable legitimacy or insults. That said, you are still probably the post poster in this folder to be debate with.

 

Okay then, if you're in denial about the higher levels of American Government being inherrently racist (despite all evidence to the contrary), then what about in Britain? The Metropolitan police has been shown to treat black people different to white people, there have been race riots in the last few years, and the NF is gaining in popularity throughout the country. You could change France and Jews for Britain and Blacks in some of those quotes.

 

Would you say, then, that Britain should be treated the same as France in that respect?

[Firestarter 0]

I don't back down, I just get reminded that you can't argue a point for more than a few posts without resorting to either links of questionable legitimacy or insults.

"Links of questionable legitimacy?" Like what? Name one, please, and why you question its legitimacy.

 

And by the way, I've never addressed that odious comparison of yours. It's beneath contempt and I rarely even acknowledge that you've made it. The last time, I believe it was Mike who took you apart.

 

So the "higher levels of American government" are "inherrently (sic) racist." Fascinating. Do you include cabinet secretaries in that category? Like, oh, say, General Powell and Dr Rice? What about the President who employs them? Or do you think he hired them just to conceal his racism? In that case, what would constitute evidence against racism, since non-racist meritocratic appointments are clearly nothing more than a blind?

 

I can't speak to Britain's institutionalised racism or lack thereof; I have no direct experience of it. I do have direct experience of American attitudes and American law enforcement agencies, and in that respect you are full of it.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Powell and Rice don't count because they're conservative/Republican -- just chuck them into the Clarance Thomas aisle...

[Firestarter 0]

Yeah, any black person who'd work for a white Christian male is obviously a racist.

 

No, wait.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

So the "higher levels of American government" are "inherrently (sic) racist." Fascinating. Do you include cabinet secretaries in that category? Like, oh, say, General Powell and Dr Rice? What about the President who employs them? Or do you think he hired them just to conceal his racism? In that case, what would constitute evidence against racism, since non-racist meritocratic appointments are clearly nothing more than a blind?

The higher levels of American Governments are controlled by white middle-aged males. Are you honestly saying that they are not prejudiced against black people in any way?

 

This all goes back to the arguement about whether a president would be elected if he was black. For example, if Bush was black, would he be president now? Probably not.

 

As for your links, I'm sure I called you up on one before, but I'm too lazy to do my research so I'll just accuse blindly

[Justice 0]

So the "higher levels of American government" are "inherrently (sic) racist." Fascinating. Do you include cabinet secretaries in that category? Like, oh, say, General Powell and Dr Rice? What about the President who employs them? Or do you think he hired them just to conceal his racism? In that case, what would constitute evidence against racism, since non-racist meritocratic appointments are clearly nothing more than a blind?

The higher levels of American Governments are controlled by white middle-aged males. Are you honestly saying that they are not prejudiced against black people in any way?

So Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, and Supreme Court Justice are no longer count as high positions in the Government? Wow, surprise to me.

 

This all goes back to the arguement about whether a president would be elected if he was black. For example, if Bush was black, would he be president now? Probably not.

 

But if Colin Powell did he almost certainly would win. OMG, BIAS!

[Firestarter 0]

The higher levels of American Governments are controlled by white middle-aged males.

Like the State Department? And the National Security Council? I'll relay that to General Powell and Dr Rice. I'm sure they'll be very interested to hear your views. Could you tell me who these white males are? If they're subverting presidential appointments, I'm sure the President would like to hear about it as well.

 

Are you honestly saying that they [white middle-aged males] are not prejudiced against black people in any way?

Are you saying that white middle-aged males MUST BE prejudiced against black people simply because they're white middle-aged males?

 

 

 

I'm confused, were you trying to accuse someone of racism or were you trying to establish the fact that you are a racist yourself?

 

As for your links, I'm sure I called you up on one before, but I'm too lazy to do my research so I'll just accuse blindly

That's marvellous, darling. I'll just ignore your blind accusation.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

This all goes back to the arguement about whether a president would be elected if he was black. For example, if Bush was black, would he be president now? Probably not.

 

But if Colin Powell did he almost certainly would win. OMG, BIAS!

I would be damn surprised if he did.

[Justice 0]

This all goes back to the arguement about whether a president would be elected if he was black. For example, if Bush was black, would he be president now? Probably not.

 

But if Colin Powell did he almost certainly would win. OMG, BIAS!

I would be damn surprised if he did.

He is very popular in the US, and right now if he were running for President against the Democratic contenders he'd literally wipe the floor with anyone.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

The higher levels of American Governments are controlled by white middle-aged males.

Like the State Department? And the National Security Council? I'll relay that to General Powell and Dr Rice. I'm sure they'll be very interested to hear your views. Could you tell me who these white males are? If they're subverting presidential appointments, I'm sure the President would like to hear about it as well.

 

Are you honestly saying that they [white middle-aged males] are not prejudiced against black people in any way?

Are you saying that white middle-aged males MUST BE prejudiced against black people simply because they're white middle-aged males?

 

 

 

I'm confused, were you trying to accuse someone of racism or were you trying to establish the fact that you are a racist yourself?

Many people are inherently rascist against other races. I'm not saying it's right, but it happens.

 

I'm also not saying that America is any more rascist than other countries, but there is a history of racism in your country comparable to anti-semitism in France, and to say that it's not still present is just naive.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

This all goes back to the arguement about whether a president would be elected if he was black. For example, if Bush was black, would he be president now? Probably not.

 

But if Colin Powell did he almost certainly would win. OMG, BIAS!

I would be damn surprised if he did.

He is very popular in the US, and right now if he were running for President against the Democratic contenders he'd literally wipe the floor with anyone.

But that's as much to do with the state of the Democrats as him. Would he ever get the chance to run as a presidential candidate?

[Justice 0]

This all goes back to the arguement about whether a president would be elected if he was black. For example, if Bush was black, would he be president now? Probably not.

 

But if Colin Powell did he almost certainly would win. OMG, BIAS!

I would be damn surprised if he did.

He is very popular in the US, and right now if he were running for President against the Democratic contenders he'd literally wipe the floor with anyone.

But that's as much to do with the state of the Democrats as him. Would he ever get the chance to run as a presidential candidate?

Again, yes, absoutely. Why wouldn't the Republicans want him? He's an incredibly strong and charismatic candidate. Also, it's not just the state of the Democrats. The guy has a serious following. Regardless of party a lot of Americans like Colin Powell, but I don't think you seem to understand that.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

This all goes back to the arguement about whether a president would be elected if he was black. For example, if Bush was black, would he be president now? Probably not.

 

But if Colin Powell did he almost certainly would win. OMG, BIAS!

I would be damn surprised if he did.

He is very popular in the US, and right now if he were running for President against the Democratic contenders he'd literally wipe the floor with anyone.

But that's as much to do with the state of the Democrats as him. Would he ever get the chance to run as a presidential candidate?

Again, yes, absoutely. Why wouldn't the Republicans want him? He's an incredibly strong and charismatic candidate. Also, it's not just the state of the Democrats. The guy has a serious following. Regardless of party a lot of Americans like Colin Powell, but I don't think you seem to understand that.

I honestly wouldn't know. I've read some negative stuff about Powell, but that may just be because it was written by non-Americans...

[Guest MikeSC]

To be fair, so could do the same kind of thing for America (or indeed Britain) and anti-black sentiments. It still doesn't reflect on the country as a whole.

 

And to the person who asked earlier, France has a large Muslim population mainly due to the fact that they used to have many Muslim colonies, such as Morrocco.

Except that when gov't officials say such things in America, they tend to lose power IMMEDIATELY, not rise in the power structure, ala Europe.

 

As to their colonies, if France thinks we were unjustified in our war with Iraq, WHAT was THEIR defense for their wars with Algeria and the like?

-=Mike --- War is OK --- as long as you own the brown people there, right?

[Guest MikeSC]

To be fair, so could do the same kind of thing for America (or indeed Britain) and anti-black sentiments.

Will you shut up. You say the same damn thing in every thread about anti-Semitism, you get slapped around like a redheaded stepchild by the same damn people, you back down, and then you bring it up in yet ANOTHER thread, as if you think everyone's forgotten the last twenty times you made the same specious and feckless comparison. There is no significant organised grass-roots movement to kill or persecute black people in the United States today. Our law enforcement agencies fully investigate all individual incidents. The same cannot be said of France and its Jews.

I don't back down, I just get reminded that you can't argue a point for more than a few posts without resorting to either links of questionable legitimacy or insults. That said, you are still probably the post poster in this folder to be debate with.

 

Okay then, if you're in denial about the higher levels of American Government being inherrently racist (despite all evidence to the contrary), then what about in Britain? The Metropolitan police has been shown to treat black people different to white people, there have been race riots in the last few years, and the NF is gaining in popularity throughout the country. You could change France and Jews for Britain and Blacks in some of those quotes.

 

Would you say, then, that Britain should be treated the same as France in that respect?

Provide this evidence. You claim that it exists but provide scant little evidence to back up this asinine --- at best --- comment.

 

Trent Lott makes a comment praising Strom Thurmond (and that was construed as racist) and lost his Senate Majority post in about a week.

 

And why do cops treat "blacks" differently than whites? Who says they do? What is this --- anectodal evidence from various people? I've had cops who were dicks to me and some who were nice to me --- should I assume that some of the officers who were dicks and happened to be blacks were racists?

 

No, I assume that they were just dicks, no race needed.

 

When you have British gov't officials making blatantly anti-Semitic remarks (and let's not even PRETEND that the French gov't is "nice" to blacks) as often as French officials do, your specious point MIGHT have some semblance of legitimacy.

 

But, as it is, it still does not.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

So the "higher levels of American government" are "inherrently (sic) racist." Fascinating. Do you include cabinet secretaries in that category? Like, oh, say, General Powell and Dr Rice? What about the President who employs them? Or do you think he hired them just to conceal his racism? In that case, what would constitute evidence against racism, since non-racist meritocratic appointments are clearly nothing more than a blind?

The higher levels of American Governments are controlled by white middle-aged males. Are you honestly saying that they are not prejudiced against black people in any way?

 

This all goes back to the arguement about whether a president would be elected if he was black. For example, if Bush was black, would he be president now? Probably not.

 

As for your links, I'm sure I called you up on one before, but I'm too lazy to do my research so I'll just accuse blindly

I'm saying that I don't CARE what the heck ANYBODY in Washington thinks or feels.

 

It is beyond irrelevant.

 

Their ACTIONS and their AGENCY'S ACTIONS are NOT anti-black, so it is all quite a moot point. Their WORDS, when racist, get them quickly and thoroughly punished.

 

If Bush were black, would he be President? Probably.

 

We've not had a competent black candidate for President yet, so to bemoan that no black has been elected is laughable.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Are you honestly saying that they [white middle-aged males] are not prejudiced against black people in any way?

Are you saying that white middle-aged males MUST BE prejudiced against black people simply because they're white middle-aged males?

 

 

 

I'm confused, were you trying to accuse someone of racism or were you trying to establish the fact that you are a racist yourself?

Many people are inherently rascist against other races. I'm not saying it's right, but it happens.

 

I'm also not saying that America is any more rascist than other countries, but there is a history of racism in your country comparable to anti-semitism in France, and to say that it's not still present is just naive.

We can PROVE French officials are with specific examples.

 

Evidence of American "racism" seems anecdotal at best.

-=Mike

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

Well, someone doesn't agree with me

[Guest Anglesault]

Well, someone doesn't agree with me

Well, when you make a statement about how all the higher ups in the US government being white males, despite the black secrtary of state and the black female national security advisor, well, you know, you're wrong.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

Well, someone doesn't agree with me

Well, when you make a statement about how all the higher ups in the US government being white males, despite the black secrtary of state and the black female national security advisor, well, you know, you're wrong.

I still stand by my point that in any predominantly white hierachy, it's going to be hard for a black person to break into that.

[Guest Anglesault]

Well, someone doesn't agree with me

Well, when you make a statement about how all the higher ups in the US government being white males, despite the black secrtary of state and the black female national security advisor, well, you know, you're wrong.

I still stand by my point that in any predominantly white hierachy, it's going to be hard for a black person to break into that.

So how did two do it?

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

Well, someone doesn't agree with me

Well, when you make a statement about how all the higher ups in the US government being white males, despite the black secrtary of state and the black female national security advisor, well, you know, you're wrong.

I still stand by my point that in any predominantly white hierachy, it's going to be hard for a black person to break into that.

So how did two (Three with Thomas) do it?

Based purely on merit, admitedly.

 

But I'm sure that more than just those three black people in the whole of America deserve to be in those positions of power.