Paris burning

[The Tollan]

If the political parties cannot come to an agreement (or come to the wrong agreement) on how to resolve the economic woes then is an authoritative (not necessarily authoritarian) executive needed (as has happened before)?

Edit (see post below): I will acquire that book you recommend. I have heard about it before.

 

[Masquerouge]

Everybody in this forum who wants to know more about France should read "60 millions Frenchmen can't be wrong". It's by Canadians, and is an excellent explanation of what makes the French so French. Its chapters on immigration are excellent.
It is NOT a pro-French book, btw.

 

[SonicX]

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/11/13/france.rioting/index.html

Ok, I guess the situation is bad once we've made the headlines on CNN. And as I said before, the situation of those immigrants is FAR FROM the same as the situation in France.

Though it's not completely correct as you can expect from American media broadcasting about events abroad.
"The incidents marked the first in Belgium after 17 consecutive nights of arson in France" -> Not true, a few cars were torched daily after it begin in Lille (a French city on the Belgian border)

And they only mention Brussels and Charleroi, while acts of vandalims have also been commited in the cities of Antwerp, Liège, Bruges (Brugge), Ghent (Gent), Genk, Lokeren, St Niklaas, Malines (Mechelen), Berchem and Lier.

 

[Elrohir]

Not all opinions are equal, and yours on this point is wrong. This has nothing to do with my supposed arrogance, or you being American, but it has all to do with you being misinformed and having an agenda.
Deal with it, saying that I have issues with my ego won't magically make these riots islamic ones (the fact that rioters have a big numbers of "muslims" is irrelevant, just like when a "christian" rob someone, it's a crime for money, not about religion).

You're right, not all opinions are equal, because mine are right and yours are wrong.

That sounded arrogant, didn't it? But that's exactly what you've been saying this whole thread, so why don't you knock it down a notch, ok Big Guy? For the sake of the discussion.

For one final time, I want that link to the article saying only 50% of the rioters are Muslims. You guys both quoted it, but neither of you have supplied it, if you and Marla reply to this post without supplying the article then it will be clear that you guys do not have it, and have inflated the figures to make your arguments more important, which is pretty pathetic.

If it's true, it shouldn't be that hard, just give me the link!

Elrohir : People who blame Islam for everything like it was the case for Jews one century ago will only repeat the situation back then. It's people thinking like you do who got Hitler in power. Need for a scapegoat = not able to think and update oneself. Ignorance -> indifference -> rejection of the others -> hatred.

I'm calling in Godwin's Law. You lose.

 

[Akka]

You're right, not all opinions are equal, because mine are right and yours are wrong.

That sounded arrogant, didn't it? But that's exactly what you've been saying this whole thread, so why don't you knock it down a notch, ok Big Guy? For the sake of the discussion.

The difference is that I have FACTS to back up my opinions, while you only have your agenda, which already destroy most of your credibility.
So just coming up with reversing the "I'm right, you're wrong" doesn't work, sorry.

When you'll have FACTS, come back. Meanwhile, you're just blowing hot air and trying to put on equal foot bias and reality, which doesn't work. Sorry.

For one final time, I want that link to the article saying only 50% of the rioters are Muslims.

Shows how much you read what is actually told to you, so I'll quote myself :
the fact that rioters have a big numbers of "muslims" is irrelevant, just like when a "christian" rob someone, it's a crime for money, not about religion
Quite revealing about your actual willingness to see reality and not just your personnal agenda...

You guys both quoted it, but neither of you have supplied it, if you and Marla reply to this post without supplying the article then it will be clear that you guys do not have it, and have inflated the figures to make your arguments more important, which is pretty pathetic.

I've provided no figures, so I wonder how I could have inflated them...
And I don't see why an article showing a percentage of Muslims would make these riots religious-based. If we use this whacky logic, I can say that the post-Katrina problems in NO were caused by Christianity, considering that the overwhelming majority of snipers, looters and the like were Christians

If it's true, it shouldn't be that hard, just give me the link!

Ok, prove me that the NO problems were not Christian-related by providing me a link proving that there were less than 50 % of Christians in the people involved in violence.

You're continuing to ridicule yourself, man. It's becoming embarassing...

 

[Elrohir]

Someone here is blowing hot air, but it's not me. Let me know when you're going to stop being a hypocrite and actually debate intelligently for a change, instead of dodging the issue by bringing up unrelated issues and saying stupid things.

 

[Jorge]

Not the Japanese in general, but I doubt there are many who deny that the Kamikaze's were crazy violent people. Your own example works against you, I never claimed all Muslims were violent terrorists, if you read my initial post I quite clearly stated that many Muslims chose to live a life of peace despite what Mohammed did, something I commend them for.


Those events are vastly overstated, and i'm sick of hearing about them. Do you know words like "Jihad" or "genocide"? Look up the slaughter of the Banu Qurayza, and the other Jewish tribes by Mohammed, and then get back to me with your "Islam is peace, Mohammed was a peaceful man" crap.

Kamikazes were crazy violents, and so are suicide bombers. But what you argue is that the whole religion is violent. So no, my example does not work against me. You link suicide bombing with religion and ask why would anyone commit suicide if is not for religion, and I give you one example where sucide is not linked to religion, but to war.

Yes, I heard about Jihad and all the wrong things that the muslims did. No one has a clean record, I just say that christians did things as terrible and no one is here saying that christians are violent per se (and by the way, I did not say anything similar to "Islam is peace, Mohammed was a peaceful man!", so that crap is your own paranoia).

 

[Akka]

Someone here is blowing hot air, but it's not me. Let me know when you're going to stop being a hypocrite and actually debate intelligently for a change, instead of dodging the issue by bringing up unrelated issues and saying stupid things.

Well, accusing me of what you're the one to do won't change reality either.

What's obvious is that :
- You have no facts.
- You avoided the question because you couldn't answer them.

Well, you proved that you are wrong, if anything by the way you reacted and answered.
I've nothing more to add until you come up with something to back up your agenda (which, considering the state of actual facts, will probably be a looong time ^^).

 

[Grisu]

For one final time, I want that link to the article saying only 50% of the rioters are Muslims. You guys both quoted it, but neither of you have supplied it, if you and Marla reply to this post without supplying the article then it will be clear that you guys do not have it, and have inflated the figures to make your arguments more important, which is pretty pathetic.

I'm just rescanned the thread and I can't find a single post where Akka quoted this, IIRC it was just Marla's post.

I'm willing to guess that the figure she quoted was just a guestimate, but it doesn't change the fact that these riots are about problems of immigration/integration rather than religious problems. Nobody (at least no media I'm aware of) talks about muslim riots, so why do you keep claiming that it's basically all islam's fault?

 

[Jorge]

.
For one final time, I want that link to the article saying only 50% of the rioters are Muslims. You guys both quoted it, but neither of you have supplied it, if you and Marla reply to this post without supplying the article then it will be clear that you guys do not have it, and have inflated the figures to make your arguments more important, which is pretty pathetic.

In any case, it should be you (that are the one acusing muslims) the one providing figures to support your view that most of the people rioting are muslim. It´s as if I say that they are christians and ask you to provide figures contradicting my point. You make the point, you provide the figures, please.

 

[kryszcztov]

I'm calling in Godwin's Law. You lose.

I have a geek in front of me ! Well, I think you asked for it, no ? So it's forbidden to quote the Nazis because it also suits your agenda ?? BTW, I'm not sure if you clearly understood what this law is about, my friend. Never did I call you a Nazi. What I told you is that you had the same logic as anti-semitic people one century ago, leading to Hitler's ascent to power. Ack, maybe you thought that the Internet would magically make the Nazis disappear ?

With absolutely NO argument to back up your claim that the French riots are about Islam, you have lost.

 

[AceChilla]

A few cars where torched in Rotterdam last night. I guess they just realised they are also poor, dicriminated victims of society last night.

 

[wit>trope]

I wonder if this means the French National Front party which made it to what I gather was the FINAL round in national leader elections will do even better next time around. Some people say they are "racist" BUT I looked them up on wikipedia and guess what? It says that some say they are racist "ON ACCOUNT of its OPPOSITION TO IMMIGRATION" ... so obviously the accusations that they are racist are completely baseless.

French Interior Minister Sarkozy has called these people responsible "scum" and so he would probably be good for France too (in another thread I objected to children being called scum; this is different obviously besides the fact that it was in French)

 

[Phyr_Negator]

Buahahahaha, summary by me
They want: Financial supply, native French rights, to bring their relatives to France
They do not want to:work, assimilate.
Question: Why do they are needed for?(except for purpose of chomping into
donor parts=D)

 

[Grisu]

well, I'm not surprise that you don't think the ideas of the front national repulsive, they are firmly on your line...

the reason he got into the 2nd round was basically because the french left was divided, getting him the 2nd-most votes... obviously he didn't have a chance in the final round....

and of course, you're perfectly able to decide whether a party is racist simply because of a single wiki article

 

[Grisu]

@Phyr_Negator: actually, most of the immigrants living in france want to work, but don't find a job.....not quite the same as not wanting to work, is it?

 

[Phyr_Negator]

So dump em out - if there are no work places and a they are keep coming why do France need them)?

 

[AceChilla]

@Phyr_Negator: actually, most of the immigrants living in france want to work, but don't find a job.....not quite the same as not wanting to work, is it?

They can come work over here. There are loads of jobs done by Poles right now that could be done by them without any problems. Thousands of jobs.

 

[wit>trope]

well, I'm not surprise that you don't think the ideas of the front national repulsive, they are firmly on your line...

the reason he got into the 2nd round was basically because the french left was divided, getting him the 2nd-most votes... obviously he didn't have a chance in the final round....

and of course, you're perfectly able to decide whether a party is racist simply because of a single wiki article

Well I thought that maybe, just maybe there was actually something TO the racist accusations but in like the 1st paragraph of the article on the party it mentions only ONE SINGLE reason "ON ACCOUNT OF" which they are labelled by some as racist ... and that reason was opposition to immigration! As if opposing immigration makes you racist!

So it wasn't just one single wikipedia article, but one single paragraph of one single wikipedia article! It was all I needed to read cuz it made clear what the foundation was for the accusations and I KNOW that is not a foundation because being opposed to immigration is OBVIOUSLY not necessarily anything to do with racism.

 

[Princeps]

They do not want to:work, assimilate.

Where did you here that they dont want to work? of course, they want to work but they fail to get job, and they are god-damnded into life of crime.

Also, the reason why they dont assimilate is because some French fail to give them the chance to do so.