It happens in front of police . If you look at this map , you will see Notre-Dame de Paris Church (1) is opposite Police Headquarter of Paris ( Préfecture de Police de Paris ) (2) . Everytime I passe by day or night , and I see a large number of policemen in uniform or plain clothes , police cars ,around . The criminal(s) eluded surveillance of police and committed this cowardly act . I believed this area is kept under close scrutiny , cause : The Paris Hall of Justice (Palais de Justice de Paris) (3) , Quai des Orfèvres (4) ( France’s Scotland Yard equivalent. Familiar name for the Criminal Investigations Division of the Paris Police , the office of anti-terror judge Jean-Louis Bruguière is there ) , and the tourists .
I hope anti-Semitic daub won't be found soon at the wall of Palais d'Elysée .
---
The Paris Hall of Justice (3) houses various courts: the Paris court of large claims; the Paris correctional court; the Paris Court of Appeal; the French Cour de cassation (highest jurisdiction in the French judicial order).

It makes me wonder if a constable wasn't the one holding the dauber.

That was unkind of me to say.

Seriously, a swastika on a church just prior to a visit from the Pope. Wonder who that could have been? */sarcasm
I wish Mr. Chirac would just admit he has a problem.
Do they have intervention clinics for such things? Because America's shingle is being taken out of the window. I am sorry for that, Carine and Valerie, but this doctor doesn't make housecalls anymore.

Hello I'm back...

You quote that : "Chirac mentioned his efforts to fight "all forms of discrimination, oppression, racism and hatred, so urgent in the face of the rise of fanaticism and intolerance."

Strange isn't it ? Because religion is the root of fanaticism and intolerance ! History and world news teach us that behind a lot of troubles, there is religion. no ?

Papertiger,
What? A problem? What are you talking about? There is no anti-Semitism in France not the "wildest of anti-Semitism," not at all.

Stéphane,
To write just what you wrote, it wasn't worth coming back. What have you been doing all this time (rhetoric question - I really don't wanna know). I thought at least you would have learned a bit.
So what do you wanna do? Wage war on religion?
Ignorance is the root of all evil. La preuve.

Good to see you Steph.

Strange isn't it ? Because religion is the root of fanaticism and intolerance ! History and world news teach us that behind a lot of troubles, there is religion. no ?

No, unless you take an exceptionally narrow view of what constitutes "troubles". Was religion at the root of the Cambodian killing fields? Let's see what Time Asia says about Pol Pot:

Born May 19, 1925 in Prek Sbauv
1949 Studies left-wing politics in France
1953 Returns to Cambodia and joins Communist Party, which he leads a decade later
1975 Khmer Rouge is victor of civil war and occupies Phnom Penh; reign of terror kills 1.5 million in next four years
1979 Goes into hiding after Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia
1998 Dies April 15 in Cambodian jungle

Not a single mention of the Vatican, how odd. But he sure got his career off to a good start. And good ol' Chairman Mao, what religion was he again? Buddhist, maybe? Wait, I remember, he was baptized an athiest leftist.

And Ho Chi Minh's Taoist aggression- ah, now I remember. He wasn't Taoist, was he. He was a tool of Moscow.

Oh, but that intolerant Christian, Stalin! This is getting predictable, isn't it - once again, religion was not the genesis of Stalin's atrocities - it was ideology. Leftist, to be precise.

Nazi Germany - now there was a bunch of Hindus who- oh, hold on, that wasn't religious either. Unless you count the way those rotten Jews pressured the Germans into persecuting them.

How curious that you should also embrace the persecution of religion. Curious indeed.

If you remove Islam from the equation, you do not find religious "fanatacism and intolerance" behind many of the world's troubles today. Take some time to list the world's troubles, and you'll find that intolerance does just fine without religious roots. None of Europe's favorite bigotries are based in religion; if anything, we see religion on the receiving end of intolerance. And what is your use of an overly-broad brush in painting religion if not intolerance?

And if you insist on including Islam in your broad indictment of religion - a single religion among a world full of them - how do you account for the collectivist roots it shares with socialism?

But perhaps you can broaden my view here - maybe Shinto is seeding misery some place I'm not aware of. I suppose Zoroastrians could be getting up to all kinds of mischief I just haven't heard about. There may be no end of Wiccan slaughter, oppression, and mayhem that simply doesn't make the news. Care to enlighten me?

Hey ! I said "a lot" not "all troubles".

Let's take some examples : War of religion in Europe, Cruisades to Jerusalem, Israelo-Palestinian conflict, persecution of homosexuals and same-sex couples, 9/11, "Axis of Evil" etc...

Yes religion is the root of evil !

But I agree that Buddhism is the kind of tolerant religion.

I love the way Doug presented detailed facts and Stéphane, well, short-listed a couple of very different events in history (or what he understood of them) to suit his marxist thought system. Very telling.

Stéphane
"Because religion is the root of fanaticism and intolerance ! " No !
But " Because religion is one of the roots of fanaticism and intolerance ! " Yes ! Others causes : ideology - nazism - communism - stalinisn - maoism ( = Pol Pot), greed , the nature of human ...
"History and world news teach us that behind a lot of troubles, there is religion. no ? " Yes , I agree .

The wars of religion and the crusades were not only hundreds of years ago, but every bit as much about politics as religion - I'd argue more. The Catholic Church was a far different thing then, more interested in political power than religion, but if you'd like to claim that it was representative of all religion then you'll need parallels from at least a few other faiths. Within the last hundred years or so, please.

Any reference to events involving Islam are invalid until such time as you refute my assertion that Islam's conduct is an exeption to, not an example of, what religion as a whole represents to the world. So much for Israel-Palestine and 9-11. That leaves two supposed examples.

It's hardly established that "persecution of homosexuals" - which I think I can assume includes refusing to have your liver confiscated for transplant if a homosexual needs it - is a religious phenomenon, although a few religions do frown upon it (notably Christianity). However, until I'm hearing about homosexuals being butchered in the name of Jesus or blacklisted by the Masons, that case isn't made by half.

Lastly, "Axis of Evil"? How does that have anything at all to do with religion? Are you laboring under the misconception that evil does not exist if the framework of religion is discarded? You're an atheist, tell me - Uday Hussein torturing Iraqi athletes who did not win in the Olympic Games - you don't consider that evil?

No, if you want to establish that religion is the root of intolerance or evil, then you look for intolerance or evil first, and then determine whether religion was the cause. If you are correct, it will be; any other process is fraud. I do not think this method will bear out your assertion.

In Darfur, there are hundreds of thousands of displaced people, run out of their homes by government-backed thugs. They're living without shelter in the middle of the rainy season, and by cruelest irony thousands can't find potable water (though cholera has thankfully not yet become epidemic). They're hiding in places where we have trouble finding them, and their government isn't doing anything much to help us get food to them - "obstruct" would be a better term for their involvement. Last month, their government was given 90 days to continue that state of affairs without reprisal - that is evil, Steph. And the UN doesn't even have a priest.

Doug :
You know that I agree with you, but we don't have the same point of vue when we talk about that. Your example about Uday Hussein: of course it's evil, but it doesn't means that Irak is an evil country (citizens aren't evil at all but they suffered ten time much of the war).

Anyway : religions have sometimes rules which are sort of weird (particularly about abortion and homosexuality).

Stéphane,

Nobody said the Iraqis were evil. Actually, American troops are currently dying so that they could be free and live in a democracy, not a theocracy. You should applaud.

And are you suggesting the Iraqi people suffered more from Operation Iraqi Freedom than from decades of tyranny? If so, I'm warning you, you have to stop posting stuff like that here, this is an offense to the Iraqi people - and to the US-led coalition - I will not tolerate.

No reaction from the Germans on the long over due post World War, American withdrawl from Germany?

If you think back to the wall crumbling along with the Soviets, as the end of it, they have only been deployed 25 years after the end of the Cold War.

I want to point out that these are examples of Democrat's notion of winning the peace.

Carine :

I don't remember that I said such things... did you really read my post ?

Your example about Uday Hussein: of course it's evil, but it doesn't means that Irak is an evil country (citizens aren't evil at all but they suffered ten time much of the war).
Posted by Stéphane at August 17, 2004 02:00 PM

So what were you supposed to mean? I'm afraid the syntax isn't really, er, clear, to put it mildly.

I don’t want to imply what Stephene was saying, but I interpret what he said as this: “Well, heck, Carine, who cares what Saddam & Co. did to the Iraqies; it’s nothing compared to what the evil American soldiers have done to the civilians since the war started.”

Remember: America BAD, Saddam & Co. GOOD.

I meant to type StephAne, NOT Stephene. Sorry.

With an A. An A. An A. OK. It's in my memory now.

Andy,

Thanks for reminding me. No matter how many times my "fellow" citizens repeat and repeat and repeat that obvious fact to me, my poor brainwashed mind just doesn't seem to accept it. I wonder why.

Carine & Andy :

You should stop misinterpreting what I'm saying...

Never said "America BAD, Saddam GOOD".
Carine, when I say someting you say : "Ok Stéphane because you said : this , it means that you think : that (something I didn't meant at all).

But don't be angry against me, I seriously think that I may not be able to talk about my ideals... But actually it's difficult to have a real debate with short posts...

I really would like to meet everyone for real, just to talk about all these subjects.

Carine & Andy :

You should stop misinterpreting what I'm saying...

Mommy! Mommy! They're being mean to me! Mommy, tell them to stop!

Carine, when I say someting you say : "Ok Stéphane because you said : this , it means that you think : that (something I didn't meant at all).

Stéphane:
First I asked a question. Then, I'm not responsible for your original syntax. Finally, am I supposed to guess that you mean the opposite of what you write?

But don't be angry against me, I seriously think that I may not be able to talk about my ideals... But actually it's difficult to have a real debate with short posts...

Angry? Do you really think you're that important? I just won't tolerate people at E-nough! claiming Iraqis were better-off under Saddam because it's an offense to the Iraqis, the US-led coalition and freedom. And it's simply a big fat lie. You've been warned.

As for your ideals, I think that history has already done the job you're claiming unable to do yourself here. They've already proved to the world how efficient they were ("seriously think" about this).

Should come as no surprise to regular readers of this blog...but Val de France et moi long ago decided that due to her fiesty spirit, love of the truth, and defense of freedom, Carine is most certainly a Yellow Rose of Texas. One that is blooming in France. For the present time, any way.
Yellow Rose of Texas, tall and proud.
Watch out for the thorns.

Never said "America BAD, Saddam GOOD".
Carine, when I say someting you say : "Ok Stéphane because you said : this , it means that you think : that (something I didn't meant at all).

All that shows is that she thinks about what you say and applies logic, Steph. She considers your meaning, rather than just your words. If you say "I want all bees dead", then she'll see that you're also saying "I want honey gone". It doesn't need to be said by you - it's implicit. You can't advocate the first without advocating the second.

When analyzed, a majority of French (and more generally, european) press accounts seem to boil down to exactly what Andy suggested - "It was ok with Saddam, but with America? Unacceptable!" It seems pretty clear that Andy didn't derive that directly from your words, he was just making an educated guess. People who are more disposed to repeat the press rather than consider it will sound exactly the same as it, as you often do.

At any rate, I'm not sure that such people are well-advised to adopt their opinion from sources that even Iraqis complain about. Perhaps a better source would be Iraqis themselves (shocking idea, I know).

link

We lived our worst years under Saddam regime, a regime that many Arabs still believe in! We don't know why don't they leave us in peace, especially the Arab media that turns liberation into occupation and criminals into resistant. We, Iraqis, know the truth very well. The situation is much better now for the vast majority of Iraqis. Most of the people are government employees who used to get paid 4 or 6 thousand Iraqi dinars. Now the lowest salary is 100 thousand Iraqi Dinar. We feel free and we don't fear prisons and torture. The Arab media, as expected, made a huge fuss about the prisoners abuse in Abu-Gharib. Shame on them. Where were they when Saddam put explosives around a bunch of young men and blasted their bodies and they all saw that on TV? Where were they?

The daily life in Basra is not that different from other parts of Iraq; It's very hot, the water and power supply are not Continueous, still I prefer to live a year in these conditions than one hour like those we lived under Saddam.

Doug :

I understand your point, but you know it makes me mad to talk about Iraq because we weren't talking about this at the beginnig but someone always bring back the discussion to it, it's kind of stupid...

You see that I'm considered as a stupid young peacemonger and also as a threat to the beautiful ideals of conservatism, so I don't expect some people to have a debate with me.

Did you know that 1938 was 66 years ago ? and that in 1938 noone knew what would happen after 1939 ?
*sigh*
Posted by Stéphane at August 20, 2004 01:26 PM

You see that I'm considered as a stupid young peacemonger and also as a threat to the beautiful ideals of conservatism, so I don't expect some people to have a debate with me.
Posted by Stéphane at August 20, 2004 01:37 PM

Doing a very good job marketing yourself on your own, Stephane.

I understand your point, but you know it makes me mad to talk about Iraq because we weren't talking about this at the beginnig but someone always bring back the discussion to it, it's kind of stupid...

Actually, the "Axis of Evil" was introduced by yourself; if your point was to be examined, discussion of Iraq was pretty much inevitable. Your arguments typically seem to depend on not being examined though, so I suppose I can understand your disappointment.

You see that I'm considered as a stupid young peacemonger and also as a threat to the beautiful ideals of conservatism, so I don't expect some people to have a debate with me.

Young yes, peacemonger perhaps, but stupid is not necessarily the correct word. Someone who floats a conclusion as though it should stand on its own, but cannot seem to support it is only stupid if they arrived at it without help. A useful idiot does not think; a stupid person cannot. One of these conditions is correctable.

Since you so seldom actually debate, I don't think anyone really expects you to. But I keep hoping.