Did they give any clue as to a time frame for the missile attack?

It'll be interesting - no doubt they'll say the attack was because of the US Iraq invasion. They'll probably even say something like the missiles were "designed based on technology acquired from the US" ("acquired" in this cse meaning "stolen").

Yeah, Sarko wants to invite the RG(=FBI,MI5)to rented appartments in Argenteuil. That'll be good.That way there'll be even less space for homeless people. Well done Sarko! Instead of looking for the causes of discontent, just act like your cowboy buddy in Washington. Yee-haw!
By the way, I've commented on your piece on the so-called rise of anti-semitism in France in June 2004.

Big round of applause to Interior Minister Sarkozy -- apparently French men still have balls. These French communist "projects" apparently contain a large contingent of terrorists or sympathizers otherwise we would not have seen what took place: riots. As usual with these miscrients, they only succeed in destroying their own backyard.

Perhaps they need a new mayor and I would suggest "Doctor" Kamau Kambon after we deport him from the United States of America.

Gus R

'Apparently'?!Why don't you do some proper research? Are you afraid of being proved wrong?
Sarko is a little shit whose only interest is getting to the top spot. Not saying the others are much better, but he's a particularly nasty little shit. Why anyone thought Chirac and co would be less dangerous than Le Pen, I really don't know. Le Pen wouldn't have been able to cope at the top. But then, we French love a good scare, don't we? And the leaders love it even more...

That way there'll be even less space for homeless people. Well done Sarko! Instead of looking for the causes of discontent, just act like your cowboy buddy in Washington.

jez, I guess then you've welcomed one of those "homeless" people you're talking about. Because you're no cowboy, aren't you? You're such a wonderful, humanist Frenchie? What? You didn't?!

Why don't you get yourself an education before lecturing others?
Sarkozy is an opportunist socialist, I don't like him. But then, I'm certainly not gonna cry on the fate of all the caille-ra burning and destroying the private property of those who work to pay taxes so that they - the looters - are not homeless. See, this is the cause of my discontent.

Jay,

Did they give any clue as to a time frame for the missile attack?

No, they didn't. The article didn't give many details but the tone was serious. They're not sure the missiles are still in France or in Europe but they believe the threat is real.

It'll be interesting - no doubt they'll say the attack was because of the US Iraq invasion.

Actually no, they didn't. But I believe the anti-terrorism police units are not that narrow-minded - Thank God - and maybe that's why France is still here. I was told Bruguière is very pro-American actually.

Carine,
If you believe that the state is responsible for your welfare, ie cleaning up the 'caille-ra', then I believe the government is responsible for everyone's welfare, ie making sure everyone is safe.Telling me I should welcome homeless into my home, is a fallacious argument. If you believe it is up to citizens alone to be responsible, then what are you doing praising politicians for their decisions? What do you do to protect yourself against terrorism? What do you do in the event of a fire? What do you do if you are mugged by a 'caille-ra'? You mean, you don't rely on government protection? Mon oeuil!
Also, when I mentioned the homeless, I meant just that:people who are homeless. So, why you are equating them with looters is beyond me.
One last thing:calling me a 'frenchie'(an insult I suppose)and assuming I don't have an education isn't a very good argument. Try harder next time.

jez,

Either your English is not good enough to understand what I wrote, either your bad faith deserves a prize. L'un n'empêchant pas l'autre d'ailleurs.

If you believe that the state is responsible for your welfare, ie cleaning up the 'caille-ra', then I believe the government is responsible for everyone's welfare, ie making sure everyone is safe.

I don't believe in "the state", I believe "the state" or "the government" are my worst enemies. I am responsible for my "welfare", not the state.

Telling me I should welcome homeless into my home, is a fallacious argument. If you believe it is up to citizens alone to be responsible, then what are you doing praising politicians for their decisions?

Hey, you're the one lecturing others about the homeless, I thought at least you would have been doing something yourself. But it is so much easier to say "the state is responsible", meaning other people's money. You are never responsible. Today's situation in France is not your fault. The homeless, the crimes, everything that goes wrong around you: the "God State" is responsible. Politicians are responsible. You are never reponsible. So you'd rather let the homeless die in the streets instead of starting a private venture to help the homeless, you bitch at the State. But yet you ask for more state. So much easier, isn't it? And probably you take a lexomil before going to bed.

Moreover, where did I praise politicians?

What do you do to protect yourself against terrorism? What do you do in the event of a fire? What do you do if you are mugged by a 'caille-ra'? You mean, you don't rely on government protection? Mon oeuil!

Since in France, I am not allowed to bear a gun, I am compelled to rely on what you call "government protection" which is no protection at all since most of the times the looters, rapists and killers are considered as victims by people like you.

Also, when I mentioned the homeless, I meant just that:people who are homeless. So, why you are equating them with looters is beyond me.

The problem is my post was dealing with looters, not homeless people. Why you would equate my post with the problem of the homeless is beyond me too. The people who burnt cars and buildings were no homeless people.

One last thing:calling me a 'frenchie'(an insult I suppose)and assuming I don't have an education isn't a very good argument. Try harder next time.

I am not assuming, I just had to read your "comments" to get that 1) you're French (that you have the impression I have insulted you by stating a fact - that you're French - is your problem), 2) that you are ignorant regarding what you are talking about.

Mr. Jez,

You ask that we try harder. But you show up with what? Well reasoned discursus? No, just the usual clichéd spew and sneers. And for this you expect to be given serious consideration.

The response to your original post, having taken note of your complaints, sought your suggested remedies. You seem to have none. Your rejoinder answers arguments that have not been advanced. It simply takes the argument where you feel most comfortable, apparently making obvious statements about government services. Rest assured, everyone here relies on firemen to deal with fires and the police to provide protection as well as a variety of community services. What made you think otherwise?

Frenchie is mildly derisive, but not much of an insult. And, no, it is not meant to be an argument. It is just a little color, but of course you know that. On your blog you claim to be a non-national, so Frenchie really won't do. You have us curious how you travel about. Since you feel your Zodiac sign is an important part of your identity, do you simply present your horoscope at customs?

Please try harder.

DGB

Still going, and going...

>>Did they give any clue as to a time frame for the missile attack?

2002 per The Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/29/wterr29.xml
French and Algerian extremists with links to al-Qa'eda bought the Russian SA-18 Grouse missiles from Chechens in 2002 and smuggled them via Georgia and Turkey, according to French anti-terror sources quoted in Le Figaro. Both missiles and several of the extremists are reportedly still at large.
...
Some of its members had allegedly been involved in a plan to explode a bomb during a Christmas market in Strasbourg in 2000. Others were linked to a conspiracy to blow up Los Angeles airport in 1999.

My zodiac sign? I beg your pardon?
If you don't believe in the state, I presume you're some sort of an anarchist..obviously there can be anarchists at all ends of the political spectrum.
The fact is the state exists. We pay taxes to the government, and the government is supposed to represent us.I, apparently like you, do not believe in violent revolution, so until change comes around, I expect the state to use my, our taxes wisely. For me that means supporting all citizens, in particular the downtrodden. In your ideal world everyone has an equal opportunity to make money. I'm sure in your more reasoned moments you know this is not the case. In fact, if everyone had the same opportunities to make money, there'd be less of it around for people like you, wouldn't there?
In case you misunderstood, I was not lecturing 'others'. As I told you, I believe the government,as our so called leader, is responsible for the welfare of the people. There are things we as citizens can do to help the less fortunate, but I believe it is wrong for the government to depend on it's citizens to take on it's responsibilities.
You assume the 'caile-ra' depend on our taxes so that they are not homeless. We, as members of the state have a responsibility towards the less fortunate. And, as I have said, the government represents us. have you ever stopped to think why there is discontent? You might say it is arabs and/or muslims. But why, in that case do the arab/muslim inhabitants of city centre quaters, such as Arnaud Bernard here in Toulouse not riot? Why do arabs in Algeria not riot on a daily basis? Why, in Birmingham, England, were recent rioters Afro-carribeans and Asians?Why, in Northern Ireland are rioters white catholics and protestants? Have you ever stopped to think why people living in certain conditions express their discontent? I do not believe rioting is going to make much of a positive difference, but I do believe there are reasons for anger. Especially when I see someone like Sarkozy concentrating on repression rather than remedies.
My point, Damian, about relying on Fire and police services, is that these are government services. If you don't think the state is responsible(fair enough that was Carine's comment-but I suppose you have a similar view), then perhaps you should stand on your own two feet and take matters into your own hands.
I repeat:If we are the state, then the institutions which supposedly represent us should do their job. i think we agree that we do not live in an ideal society, but if we are expected to go by the rules of government, then we should be able to expect the government to do the job which we mandated it to do and for which we payed it.
I do my bit to help those in need to the best of my abilities.You don't know what I do, and I don't feel the need to justify myself.

jez old boy,

Carine is closer to being a libertarian than an anarchist. They believe the state exists to protect its citizens from force and fraud within the country and force from outside the country. all else is fluff.

The cowboy solution is the only one that will work at this stage: ride 'em in, round 'em up and head 'em out, yippee! But france will not do it and will suffer the consequences.

Interventor,

Thank you! :)

But you know, most French have no idea what libertarianism is. For them, Chirac & Co. are pro free-market and ultra-libéraux, so you can guess how they'd judge/view libertarians.

If you don't think the state is responsible(fair enough that was Carine's comment-but I suppose you have a similar view),

Responsible for what? Can't you be responsible for your own life? Why should others be responsible for you?

then perhaps you should stand on your own two feet and take matters into your own hands.

But that's what we do with our lives every day, jez. We don't wait for the government to think/work/walk/speak or for that matter, help our less fortunate neighbor if we feel like it for us.

but if we are expected to go by the rules of government, then we should be able to expect the government to do the job which we mandated it to do and for which we payed it.

The problem is we don't have a choice. We don't pay for the so-called public services, our money is taken from us, whether we want it or not. What if I don't want la sécurité sociale? What if I believe I'd do a better job saving money myself? Why should I pay for those who will burn my car because kids of illegal aliens - who fled the police because they were illegals and, apparently, had
been involved in a robbery - died fleeing the police? I don't have a choice. This is not solidarity. This is legalized spoliation.
Besides, who says the "governement" or the "state" is more efficient than individuals? Where is the evidence? On the other hand, there has been plenty of evidence to the contrary.
And why should the money I'd like to give to my "less fortunate" neighbor (say €100) can't go directly to my "less fortunate" neighbor instead of paying an incompetent civil servant (around maybe 75 to 85 euros our of the €100 I would have given) along the way?

I do my bit to help those in need to the best of my abilities.You don't know what I do, and I don't feel the need to justify myself.

That you say. Well, it's the same here. Yet, it's do what I preach, not what I do: you come here and call me a fascist because I support Iraqis and their move towards democracy but not France's move towards totalitarianism by commendeering of private property.

Again, bad faith.

And by the way, I don't "assume" the looters in Clichy-sous-Bois depend on our forced solidarity. It's a fact. I used to live in Clichy-sous-Bois, btw. I know what it used to be, compared to what it is today.
Housing projects are payed for partly by taxes. So the least the people who benefit from these apartments could do is not burn others', including the so-called public - property.
On the other hand, you assume they are less fortunate than we are. Are they really? Are looting and torching (what you poetically call discontent) the evidence of people being less fortunate? Are you saying all the poor of the world are looters and prompt to destroy others' (supposedly more fortunate) property?
I don't really care whether these people are Arabs, Africans or Caucasians, Muslim or Christians, socialists or communists. What I see first is what they've done. Their nationality and religion don't really matter. But I strongly believe that they should be stopped instead of "understood". There is no excuse for what they are doing. No excuse and no reason.

I see you are not interested in finding the root of what is bad in society. In your world we will continue the vicious circle of anger-repression-anger-repression ad vitam eternam.
Actually, Carine, I know what libertarianism is. You presume I am simply a 'frenchie' despite all the evidence if you really took a look at my blog(s). Still, that's up to you. I was merely being facetious, since libertarianism and anarchism often seem so close, and are yet so far apart.
Anyway, I can see you do not wish to address the issues I put forward, as you would much rather remain in your little egoistical libertarian bubble.
I have posted some views on my blog, though not on this particular subject yet. You are welcome to visit and comment, as long as you leave out the ad hominems!
BTW, I still don't understand the allusion to my zodiac sign!

Anyway, I can see you do not wish to address the issues I put forward, as you would much rather remain in your little egoistical libertarian bubble.

Which issues you put forward? "Sarko is a little shit?" or is it the "Yee-haw!" regarding the "cowboy buddy in Washington"?

If you care so much about the looters' "anger", why don't you try to explain to me what was their point in yelling "Allahu Akbar" in the streets of Clichy-sous-Bois last night?
Sure, we should understand their anger at us being in their way, protecting our property. That is perfectly understandable.

Speaking of bubble, good luck with the French social model. It is at work right now. And the results and consequences, for once, are perfectly clear and understandable.

Hundreds of police were called in to restore calm. No injuries were reported.

Mistake #1.

If I'd known that French firefighters were at such risk of being assaulted by the people they try to help, I would have had fewer disparaging comments to make about their last strike.

Earlier this week, Sarkozy announced new measures to deploy thousands of riot police to France's toughest neighbourhoods and to equip police night patrols with video cameras.

Cameras? "Arret, little brown one, or I will use ze soul-stealing box!"

I see you are not interested in finding the root of what is bad in society.

I think she has; it's what she writes about.

It's very easy to highlight a few words of mine, while ignoring the rest. Well done!
It's alright. I think we agree that government plays a negative role. I, however, believe human nature is based on solidarity rather than competition, and there is plenty of evidence to support such a belief. It is also easy to show how a system based on competitivity is NOT human nature. Obviously, this is not even a competitive society, since a majority of the world's population doesn't even have a chance to compete.
It's ok, I understand you want to protect your assets, and even kill for them if you have to. Personally, I'd rather share my wealth-it's a choice based on my idea of human nature. It(s also a case of survival. I believe the human race can only survive through solidarity.It seems pretty obvious to me, that if we react to violence by violence, we're not going to get very far.It's amatter of choice after all.

I, however, believe human nature is based on solidarity rather than competition, and there is plenty of evidence to support such a belief. It is also easy to show how a system based on competitivity is NOT human nature.

Which evidence? You had plenty of occasions to demonstrate it. You never did it here. You have no arguments.

I understand you want to protect your assets, and even kill for them if you have to.

Thank you very much your highness. Yes indeed, I'd rather kill than be killed or let my natural rights be violated. That's called responding to the use of force. Or self-defense.

Personally, I'd rather share my wealth-it's a choice based on my idea of human nature.

But you do whatever you want to do as long as you don't force me into solidarity.

I believe the human race can only survive through solidarity.It seems pretty obvious to me, that if we react to violence by violence, we're not going to get very far.It's amatter of choice after all.

Geez, if only FDR had known you...

I'm not the one advocating violence. It seems to me if you want to use violence, it is up to you to prove the absolute necessity of it.There was a case recently in the news, something about a war in Iraq. This guy had a chance to put his case for his war but was unable to prove that his war was morally or legally justified. I never heard nyone say it was up to his opponents to prove violence was unncessary or counter-productive(though again, there is plenty of evidnce to show this). No, the burden of proof is on he/she who wishes to use violence.

No, the burden of proof is on he/she who wishes to use violence.

And here it is. How many times will we have to repeat this?

The case is not about initiating violence (in our cases: the looters and Saddam did) but about stopping it, if necessary by using violence. Self-defense.
There was, I repeat, NO REASON OR EXCUSE, to the violence of Saddam or - although it is not possible to compare the two; you decided to; but what if we don't stop them now, what's next? - the youths who burnt, pillaged, destroyed in Clichy-sous-Bois.

Again, jez, you bring nothing but your opinion. No facts. No arguments. And of course no links to prove what you claim.

Yeah I know, the state should do it for you.

Carine,
You can repeat the same old excuses for the war(which, by the way, were not the original reasons given)which have been time and time again disproved, but it won't make your position any more tennable.
This country's recent history is full of cases of police and state violence, so claiming that they (the looters) started is hardly a rational argument.
On Saddam Hussein, how many times does it have to be reminded that he was supported and armed by western 'democracies' at a time when he had long started terrorising the citizens of Iraq? How many times does it have to be reminded that US/western state terrorism started long before the state of Iraq even existed?
And if Bush's war was so humanitarian, what's he waiting for to invade the Sudan, Zimbabwe, Ouzbekistan, North Korea...(the list goes on)?
For someone who distrusts government, you're very good at seeming like one of it's propagandist's.

Again, jez, you bring nothing but your opinion. No facts. No arguments. And of course no links to prove what you claim. Yeah I know, the state should do it for you. Posted by Carine at November 2, 2005 11:02 AM

I quit. Bad faith and no evidence of your opinion and opinion only. I've tried but there is no dialogue possible.

Oh and there were three reasons for the Liberation of Iraq: WMD (that have yet to be found and they will, once Syria is being dealt with), terrorism and an end to Saddam's tyranny.
Don't you want to show solidarity with Iraqis too? Can't you possibly understand them too? Or are they not worth democracy and - awwww - peace?

Btw, I've answered your comments on anti-Semitism in France, too. But again, without arguments (I am still waiting for one single link to substantiate what you say), you can only write that you say I am wrong. Now, that's an argument. Your opinion.

I can also repeat myself:

"On Saddam Hussein, how many times does it have to be reminded that he was supported and armed by western 'democracies' at a time when he had long started terrorising the citizens of Iraq? How many times does it have to be reminded that US/western state terrorism started long before the state of Iraq even existed?
And if Bush's war was so humanitarian, what's he waiting for to invade the Sudan, Zimbabwe, Ouzbekistan, North Korea...(the list goes on)?"

So WMD's will be found, will they? What a convenient answer!
Again, I'm not the one advocating violence. I still haven't seen any credible piece of evidence that the violence is absolutely necessary. The root causes for unrest are easy to find. Just study France's colonialist past, it's post-colonial attitude towards it's minorities, police violence...I have asked you to explain why there should be something inherently violent about certain groups, yet you refused. You said yourself that you weren't interested in understanding. When one wishes to deal with a problem, it is usually necessary to look for causes instead of knee-jerk reactions.

jez, carine,
i just read your battle and i had a good time.
i m french, but i dont agree with all you said jez. i m ok to consider the roots of all these problems but i m not ok with the way they must be solved, and i dont share your point of view about the role of the state in our country.
but what made me really laugh was the way an american citizen like you carine, dare to give a lecture around. you from one of the naughtiest and hypocrit country in the world, inside and outside its frontiers for 300 years.
saddam was a horrible character but you didnt do better than him with the indians when you stole their lands, with the black people when you slaved them and carried on with segregation, with all the wars you caused just for power and money, killing so many innocent people...and the worst remains to come: kyoto protocol your country refused to sign. the planet is dying, you know that and you do nothing because you prefer your financial interest than a safe future for the next generations. so please carine, dont tell us how to think cause you'r like a taliban preaching on women's liberation

but what made me really laugh was the way an american citizen like you carine, dare to give a lecture around.

Malheureusement, je suis française, donc je donne mon avis sur mon pays que cela vous plaise ou non.

you from one of the naughtiest and hypocrit country in the world, inside and outside its frontiers for 300 years.

Indeed, I'm French.

so please carine, dont tell us how to think cause you'r like a taliban preaching on women's liberation

I'm not the one telling you how to think. You're the one being a revionist... or is it simply crass ignorance? And that's how you leave this blog. Thank you very much. I'll keep on doing what I want to do in my house. Get outta here.

if you aint american, you are plus royaliste que le roi then.
anyway, i can see you got nothin to reply except "I'll keep on doing what I want to do in my house. Get outta here." that couldn't be a more pathetic answer

moreover, you highlighted only the less important part of what i wrote previously, i mean what was about yourself. why didnt you argue against what's really worth it? american history, wars, kyoto?? nothing to say?

Buy a history book. I don't argue with crass ignorance.

ganstagreg,

Total slave shipments by US/UK to new world -1,500
Total slave shipments by france to new world -4,000.

Global warming is a natural cyclical occurence caused mainly by plasma flow fluctuation on the sun's surface. 2,000 years ago, Roman army veterans retired to england, because of free land and a warm climate friendly to vinyards.

France managed to screw up Haiti, a good part of Africa and Indo-china.

Idiot frenchies using american rap knick names -- too damned many. Pardon me, isn't that you car burning? Rascist escargot have no business preaching to anyone. Last two idiots running for president were a corrupt ex-mayor and an idiot neo-nazi, pathetic.