[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

BBC: France most violent night - Rioters burnt 1300 Cars
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Noteworthy Discussion Threads
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 2:07 pm    Post subject: BBC: France most violent night - Rioters burnt 1300 Cars Reply with quote

France records most violent night


Saturday night's count of car burnings is the highest yet

Chirac in crisis talks on riots

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4412316.stm

Saturday night's count of car burnings is the highest yet
French President Jacques Chirac is holding crisis talks with key ministers about the growing wave of unrest.
He has come under pressure for having failed to intervene publicly during 10 nights of rioting and looting in mostly African and Arab communities.

The meeting came as cities across France cleared up the ashes from the most violent night of unrest.

Rioters burnt nearly 1,300 cars and more than 300 arrests were made, from the cities of Nice to Strasbourg.

Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin and Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy are among key government ministers called to the security talks at the presidential palace in Paris.

Correspondents say such security meetings are not usually made public, and its announcement is indicative of the gravity of the situation.

Top ministers have also been holding consultations on the problem.


Map of main flashpoints
Mr de Villepin called in police officers and teachers working in deprived areas for talks.

Mr Sarkozy visited police officers overnight in the troubled Essonne and Val-de-Marne areas near Paris.

Unrest began on 27 October after the deaths of two youths in the rundown Paris suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois, who were accidentally electrocuted at an electricity sub-station after reportedly fleeing police.

Police injured

The northern town of Evreux in Normandy saw some of the worst unrest on Saturday night with at least 30 cars burned along with three shops, the local authorities said.

A school was also petrol-bombed in the town while four police officers were injured in clashes with youths, some of them reportedly wielding baseball bats.

In other incidents:


A McDonald's was rammed by a car and almost completely burnt out in Corbeil-Essonnes, south of Paris

Five classrooms of a nursery in Grigny, south of Paris, were destroyed by fire while a primary school was also slightly damaged

A recycling facility was attacked in Essone, with at least 35 vehicles torched

In Drancy, north-east of Paris, two teenagers were caught and handed over to police after they tried to set fire to a lorry.



Clichy-sous-Bois: Two teenagers die in electricity sub-station on 27 October. Successive nights of rioting follow rumours they were fleeing police. A number of people arrested or injured.
Aulnay-sous-Bois: A flashpoint after violence spread from Clichy. Shots fired at police and cars and shops set ablaze. Further trouble in nearby suburbs, with more shots fired at police.
Elsewhere in France: From 3 November, violence spreads to other major cities like Dijon, Marseille, Nice and Strasbourg.


Last edited by cyrus on Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:33 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:34 pm    Post subject: WHY PARIS IS BURNING Reply with quote

WHY PARIS IS BURNING

By AMIR TAHERI

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source : http://www.nypost.com/commentary/53917.htm

'The Chirac administration...appears to be clueless about how to cope with...a "ticking time bomb." '
November 4, 2005 -- AS THE night falls, the "troubles" start — and the pattern is always the same.
Bands of youths in balaclavas start by setting fire to parked cars, break shop windows with baseball bats, wreck public telephones and ransack cinemas, libraries and schools. When the police arrive on the scene, the rioters attack them with stones, knives and baseball bats.

The police respond by firing tear-gas grenades and, on occasions, blank shots in the air. Sometimes the youths fire back — with real bullets.

These scenes are not from the West Bank but from 20 French cities, mostly close to Paris, that have been plunged into a European version of the intifada that at the time of writing appears beyond control.

The troubles first began in Clichy-sous-Bois, an underprivileged suburb east of Paris, a week ago. France's bombastic interior minister, Nicholas Sarkozy, responded by sending over 400 heavily armed policemen to "impose the laws of the republic," and promised to crush "the louts and hooligans" within the day. Within a few days, however, it had dawned on anyone who wanted to know that this was no "outburst by criminal elements" that could be handled with a mixture of braggadocio and batons.

By Monday, everyone in Paris was speaking of "an unprecedented crisis." Both Sarkozy and his boss, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, had to cancel foreign trips to deal with the riots.

How did it all start? The accepted account is that sometime last week, a group of young boys in Clichy engaged in one of their favorite sports: stealing parts of parked cars.

var bnum=new Number(Math.floor(99999999 * Math.random())+1); document.write('');

Normally, nothing dramatic would have happened, as the police have not been present in that suburb for years.

The problem came when one of the inhabitants, a female busybody, telephoned the police and reported the thieving spree taking place just opposite her building. The police were thus obliged to do something — which meant entering a city that, as noted, had been a no-go area for them.

Once the police arrived on the scene, the youths — who had been reigning over Clichy pretty unmolested for years — got really angry. A brief chase took place in the street, and two of the youths, who were not actually chased by the police, sought refuge in a cordoned-off area housing a power pylon. Both were electrocuted.

Once news of their deaths was out, Clichy was all up in arms.

With cries of "God is great," bands of youths armed with whatever they could get hold of went on a rampage and forced the police to flee.

The French authorities could not allow a band of youths to expel the police from French territory. So they hit back — sending in Special Forces, known as the CRS, with armored cars and tough rules of engagement.

Within hours, the original cause of the incidents was forgotten and the issue jelled around a demand by the representatives of the rioters that the French police leave the "occupied territories." By midweek, the riots had spread to three of the provinces neighboring Paris, with a population of 5.5 million.

But who lives in the affected areas? In Clichy itself, more than 80 percent of the inhabitants are Muslim immigrants or their children, mostly from Arab and black Africa. In other affected towns, the Muslim immigrant community accounts for 30 percent to 60 percent of the population. But these are not the only figures that matter. Average unemployment in the affected areas is estimated at around 30 percent and, when it comes to young would-be workers, reaches 60 percent.

In these suburban towns, built in the 1950s in imitation of the Soviet social housing of the Stalinist era, people live in crammed conditions, sometimes several generations in a tiny apartment, and see "real French life" only on television.

The French used to flatter themselves for the success of their policy of assimilation, which was supposed to turn immigrants from any background into "proper Frenchmen" within a generation at most.

That policy worked as long as immigrants came to France in drips and drops and thus could merge into a much larger mainstream. Assimilation, however, cannot work when in most schools in the affected areas, fewer than 20 percent of the pupils are native French speakers.

France has also lost another powerful mechanism for assimilation: the obligatory military service abolished in the 1990s.

As the number of immigrants and their descendants increases in a particular locality, more and more of its native French inhabitants leave for "calmer places," thus making assimilation still more difficult.

In some areas, it is possible for an immigrant or his descendants to spend a whole life without ever encountering the need to speak French, let alone familiarize himself with any aspect of the famous French culture.

The result is often alienation. And that, in turn, gives radical Islamists an opportunity to propagate their message of religious and cultural apartheid.

Some are even calling for the areas where Muslims form a majority of the population to be reorganized on the basis of the "millet" system of the Ottoman Empire: Each religious community (millet) would enjoy the right to organize its social, cultural and educational life in accordance with its religious beliefs.

In parts of France, a de facto millet system is already in place. In these areas, all women are obliged to wear the standardized Islamist "hijab" while most men grow their beards to the length prescribed by the sheiks.

The radicals have managed to chase away French shopkeepers selling alcohol and pork products, forced "places of sin," such as dancing halls, cinemas and theaters, to close down, and seized control of much of the local administration.

A reporter who spent last weekend in Clichy and its neighboring towns of Bondy, Aulnay-sous-Bois and Bobigny heard a single overarching message: The French authorities should keep out.

"All we demand is to be left alone," said Mouloud Dahmani, one of the local "emirs" engaged in negotiations to persuade the French to withdraw the police and allow a committee of sheiks, mostly from the Muslim Brotherhood, to negotiate an end to the hostilities.

President Jacques Chirac and Premier de Villepin are especially sore because they had believed that their opposition to the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003 would give France a heroic image in the Muslim community.

That illusion has now been shattered — and the Chirac administration, already passing through a deepening political crisis, appears to be clueless about how to cope with what the Parisian daily France Soir has called a "ticking time bomb."

It is now clear that a good portion of France's Muslims not only refuse to assimilate into "the superior French culture," but firmly believe that Islam offers the highest forms of life to which all mankind should aspire.

So what is the solution? One solution, offered by Gilles Kepel, an adviser to Chirac on Islamic affairs, is the creation of "a new Andalusia" in which Christians and Muslims would live side by side and cooperate to create a new cultural synthesis.

The problem with Kepel's vision, however, is that it does not address the important issue of political power. Who will rule this new Andalusia: Muslims or the largely secularist Frenchmen?

Suddenly, French politics has become worth watching again, even though for the wrong reasons.

Amir Taheri, editor of the French quarterly "Politique internationale," is a member of Benador Associates.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:07 pm    Post subject: 'Shock Wave' of Violence Spreads Across France for 11th Nigh Reply with quote

'Shock Wave' of Violence Spreads Across France for 11th Night

By Molly Moore
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, November 7, 2005; 10:45 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/07/AR2005110700295.html?nav=rss_world

PARIS, Nov. 7 -- France's national police chief warned Monday that a "shock wave is spreading across the country" as rioting intensified in cities throughout France during an 11th night of violence. Officials from neighboring countries expressed concern that the unrest could leap across international borders.

Gangs of young men burned 1,408 cars and trucks in dozens of cities across France, national police chief Michel Gaudin said at a news conference Monday.


Ten riot police were hit with fine-grain birdshot fired by youths during a confrontation Sunday night in the southern Paris suburb of Grigny, according to Patrick Hamon, a spokesman for the national police. Eight of the police officers suffered minor injuries and two were hospitalized with wounds not considered life-threatening.

A man beaten up during violence in a riot-hit suburb north of Paris died of his injuries Monday, making him the first fatality in the unrest that began Oct. 27, wire services reported.

Hospital officials and an Interior Ministry spokesman confirmed the death of Jean-Jacques Le Chenadec but gave no other details.

Le Parisien newspaper said the victim was 60 and had been attacked by a youth outside his home in the suburb of Stains. He had been in a coma since then, it said.

"We are witnessing a sort of shock wave that is spreading across the country," police chief Gaudin said, adding that the violence seemed to be subsiding slightly in the Paris suburbs as it was worsening elsewhere in France. He said police made 395 arrests in connection with the unrest Sunday night.

French government officials said they would announce a plan Monday for combating the violence and its root causes of high unemployment, poverty and discrimination in the poor communities where the violence is concentrated.

French President Jacques Chirac addressed the public Sunday for the first time since the violence began, saying his government's "absolute priority" was "reestablishing security and public order." His brief appearance came hours after the arson rampages struck the heart of Paris and accelerated their spread to other major French cities.

Those sowing "violence or fear" will be "arrested, judged and punished," Chirac said from the steps of the Elysee Palace after an emergency meeting of his national security council.

Law enforcement officials said the unrest -- including nightly arson and what they described as copycat attacks -- was spreading more rapidly than their ability to respond to it. The violence began in the northern suburbs of Paris, where large populations of immigrants and their French-born children live.

Police said gangs of youths, apparently roused by television images and summoned by Internet blogs, torched 51 cars in Paris Saturday night, including in attacks at the congested Place de la Republique near the trendy Marais district. Blazes were also set in 42 cities from Rennes, the capital of Brittany in the north, to Nice on the Cote d'Azur in the south. Details from each day's violence are not fully known until the next morning.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Someone needs to tell French people "what goes around, comes around"...Do you remember protecting and polishing Khomenie( the murderer) and then on Air France, unloaded him in Tehran... And then French so called activist intellectuals said that was the best thing happened to Iran?? Well dears it is now your turn.... Twisted Evil
Have a sip of your own medicine...........


Last edited by blank on Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

blank wrote:
Someone needs to tell French people "what goes around, comes around"...Do you remember protecting and polishing Khomenie( the murderer) and then on Air France, unloaded him in Tehran... And then your so called activist intellectuals said that was the best thing happened to Iran?? Well dears it is now your turn.... Twisted Evil
Have a sip of your own medicine...........


cyrus wrote:


On 6th August, 1991 Prime Minister Dr. Shapur Bakhtiar was murdered by the agents of the Islamic Republic Mafia with knife in his Paris home. What the regime did not realize is that they will never kill his ideas. As a firm opponent of all totalitarian rule, he volunteered for service with the French Resistance and served in the "Orlean" battalion in WWII. France sold his hero and soul to cheap oil and contracts from Islamic Mafia.

Has France Sold His Hero and Soul To Islamic Clerical Mafia Knife? What happened to friends of liberity?


Someone should remind them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The corrupt French government was bribed again by iri, so they allowed the killers of Dr. Bakhtiar flee back to Iran........
They deserve what's coming to them......... Twisted Evil
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:27 pm    Post subject: A Question of Integration Reply with quote

A Question of Integration
Stratfor intelligence
By George Friedman

For more than a week, France has been torn by riots that have been, for the most part, concentrated in the poorer suburbs of Paris. The rioters essentially have been immigrants -- or the children or grandchildren of immigrants -- most of whom had come to France from its former colonies. They are, in many cases, French citizens by right of empire. But what is not clear is whether they ever became, in the fullest sense of the word, French.

And in that question rests an issue that could define European -- and world -- history in the 21st century.

Every country has, from time to time, social unrest. This unrest frequently becomes violent, but that is not necessarily defining. The student uprisings around the world in the 1960s had, in retrospect, little lasting significance, whereas the riots by black Americans during the same period were of enormous importance -- symptomatic of a profound tension within American society. The issue with the French riots is to identify the degree to which they are, or will become, historically significant.

For the most part, the rioters have been citizens of France. But to a great extent, they are not regarded as French. This is not rooted necessarily in racism, although that is not an incidental phenomenon. Rather, it is rooted in the nature of the French nation and, indeed, in that of the European nation-state and European democracy -- an experience that distinguishes Europe from many other regions of the world.

The notion of the European nation stands in opposition to the multinational empires that dominated Europe between the 17th and 20th centuries. These were not only anti-democratic, dynastic entities, but they were also transnational. The idea of national self-determination as the root of modern democracy depended first on the recognition of the nation as a morally significant category. Why should a nation be permitted to determine its own fate unless the nation was of fundamental importance? Thus, in Europe, the concept of democracy and the concept of the nation developed together.

The guiding principle was that every nation had a right to determine its own fate. All of the nations whose identities had been submerged within the great European empires were encouraged to reassert their historical identities through democratic institutions. As the empires collapsed, the submerged nations re-emerged -- from Ireland to Slovakia, from Macedonia to Estonia. This process of devolution was, in a certain sense, endless: It has encompassed, for instance, not only the restoration or establishment of sovereignty to the European powers' colonial holdings in places like Africa or Latin America, but pressure from groups within the territorial borders of those recognized powers -- such as the Basques in Spain -- that their national identity be recognized and their right to democratic self-determination be accepted.

Europe's definition of a nation was less than crisply clear. In general, it assumed a geographic and cultural base. It was a group of people living in a fairly defined area, sharing a language, a history, a set of values and, in the end, a self-concept: A Frenchman knew himself to be a Frenchman and was known by other Frenchmen to be French. If this appears to be a little circular, it is -- and it demonstrates the limits of logic, for this definition of nationhood worked well in practice. It also could wander off into the near-mysticism of romantic nationalism and, at times, into vicious xenophobia.

The European definition of the nation poses an obvious challenge. Europe has celebrated national self-determination among all principles, and adhered to a theory of the nation that was forged in the battle with dynastic empires. At the heart of its theory of nationalism is the concept that the nation -- national identity -- is something to which one is born. Ideally, every person should be a part of one nation, and his citizenship should coincide with that.

But this is, of course, not always the case. What does one do with the foreigner who comes to your country and wants to be a citizen, for example? Take it a step further: What happens when a foreigner comes to your country and wants not only to be a citizen, but to become part of your nation? It is, of course, difficult to change identity. Citizenship can be granted. National identity is another matter.

Contrast this with the United States, Canada or Australia -- three examples where alternative theories of nationhood have been pursued. If being French or German is rooted in birth, being an American, Canadian or Australian is rooted in choice. The nation can choose who it wants as a citizen, and the immigrant can choose to become a citizen. Citizenship connotes nationality. More important, all of these countries, which were founded on immigration, have created powerful engines designed to assimilate the immigrants over generations. It would not be unreasonable to say that these countries created their theory of nationhood around the practice of migration and assimilation. It is not that the process is not painful on all sides, but there is no theoretical bar to the idea of anyone becoming, for example, an American -- whereas there is a theoretical hurdle to the idea of elective nationalism in Europe.

This obstacle has been compounded by the European imperial experience. France was born of a nationalist impulse, but the nationalism was made compatible with imperialism. France created a massive empire in the 19th century. And as imperialism collided with the French revolutionary tradition, the French had to figure out how to reconcile national self-determination with imperialism. One solution was to make a country like Algeria part of France. In effect, the definition of the French nation was expanded to incorporate wildly different nationalities. It left French-speaking enclaves throughout the world, as well as millions of citoyens who were not French by either culture or history. And it led to waves of immigrants from the former francophone colonies becoming citizens of France without being French.

Adding to this difficulty, the Europeans erected a new multinational entity, the European Union, that was supposed to resurrect the benefits of the old dynastic empires without undermining nationalism. The EU is an experiment in economic cooperation and the suppression of nationalist conflicts, yet one that does not suppress the nations that created it. The Union both recognizes the nation and is indifferent to it. Its immigration policy and the European concept of the nation are deeply at odds.

The results of all of this can be seen in the current riots in France. As evident from this analysis, the riots are far from a trivial event. These have involved, by and large, French citizens expressing dissatisfaction with their condition in life. Their condition stems, to some degree, from the fact that it is one thing to become a French citizen and quite another to become a Frenchman. Nor is this uniquely a French problem: The issue of immigrant assimilation in Europe is a fault line that, under sufficient stress and circumstances, can rip Europe apart. Europe's right-wing parties, and opposition to the EU in Europe, are both driven to a large extent by the immigrant issue.

All societies have problems with immigration. In the United States, there currently is deep concern about the illegal movement of Mexican immigrants across the border. There is concern about the illegality and about the changing demographic characteristics of the United States. But there is no serious movement in the United States interested in halting all immigration. There is a management issue, but in the end, the United States is perpetually changed by immigrants and the immigrants, even more, are changed by the United States. Consider what once was said about the Irish, Italians or Japanese to get a sense of this.

The United States, and a few other nations, are configured to manage and profit from immigration. Their definition of nationhood not only is compatible with immigration, but depends on it. The European states are not configured to deal with immigration and have a definition of nationhood that is, in fundamental ways, incompatible with immigration. Put simply, the Europeans could never quite figure out how to reconcile their empires with their principles, and now can't quite figure out how to reconcile the migrations that resulted from the collapse of their empires with their theory of nationalism. Assimilation is not impossible, but it is enormously more difficult than in countries that subscribe to the American model.

This poses a tremendous economic problem for the Europeans -- and another economic problem is the last thing they need. Europe, like the rest of the advanced industrial world, has an aging population. Over the past generation, there has been a profound shift in reproductive patterns in the developed world. The number of births is declining. People are also living to an older age. Therefore, the question is, how do you sustain economic growth when your population is stable or contracting?

The American answer is relatively straightforward: immigration. Shortages of engineers or scientists? No problem. Import them from India or China, give them advanced education in the United States, keep them there. Their children will be assimilated. Is more menial labor needed? Also not a problem. Workers from Mexico and Central American states are readily available, on a number of terms, legal and illegal. Their children too can be assimilated.

Of course, there have been frictions over immigrants in the United States from the beginning. But there is also a roadmap to assimilation and utilization of immigrants -- it is well-known territory that does not collide with any major cultural taboos. In short, the United States, Australia and Canada have excellent systems for managing and reversing population contractions, which is an underpinning of economic strength. The Europeans -- like the Japanese and others -- do not.

The problem of assimilating immigrants in these countries is quite difficult. It is not simply an institutional problem: A new white paper from Brussels will not solve the issue. It is a problem deeply rooted in European history and liberalism. The European theory of democracy rests on a theory of nationalism that makes integration and assimilation difficult. It can be done, but only with great pain.

It is not coincidental, therefore, that the rates of immigration to European states are rather low in comparison to those of the more dynamic settler-based states. This also places the Europeans at a serious economic disadvantage to the immigrant-based societies. The United States or Canada can mitigate the effects of population shortages with relative ease. The influx of new workers relieves labor market pressures -- encouraging sustained low-inflation economic growth -- and the relative youth of immigrants not only allows for steady population growth but also helps to keep pension outlays manageable. In contrast, the European ideal of nationality almost eliminates this failsafe -- so that while, as a whole, Europe's population is both aging and shrinking, the dearth of young immigrant workers spins its pension commitments out of control.

These are the issues that, over the next few generations, may begin to define the real global divide -- which will be not only between rich and poor nations, but between the rich nations that cannot cope with declining populations and the rich nations that can.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well Blank, I never thought I'd see the day when you and the IRI were of the same mindset, but nothing suprises me anymore....you say the French deserve what they get, and I think the same is reflected by the IRI in the following.

If the IRI is behind the "highly organised" riots, this following statement surely gives one insight into their justification for this, if the IRI is stoking the flames, as it were.




http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4349

Iran takes France to task over treatment of Muslims Tue. 8 Nov 2005



Iran Focus

Tehran, Iran, Nov. 08 – State-run Iranian dailies accused on Tuesday the French government of oppressing its people as Paris and other cities went through another night of fiery protests.

The semi-official daily Jomhouri Islami said that the French government had given the orders for the French army to “suppress” protestors.

“Events of the past few days in France have totally undone all the efforts of French leaders in recent years to keep for France the title of the cultural centre of Europe and the world. These events discredited the French rulers in Paris, the so-called cradle of freedom and civilisation”, the daily wrote.

On Sunday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamid-Reza Asefi, blamed the French police for “resorting to violence”.

“The French police and government must treat the minorities in that country, including the Muslims, in a proper manner”, Asefi told a weekly press conference in Tehran. “We hope the French government would respect the rights of the people there and pay attention to their demands in a peaceful way, so that we would not continue to witness the violation of citizens’ rights in that country”.

The editorial in Jomhouri Islami stated that “every car that is set on fire and every shop that is damaged in the uprisings in Paris and other cities is a reflection of the injustice that the residents of Elysees Palace have inflicted on the impoverished and oppressed people of France”.

“They expose all the lies that French rulers have been telling under the pretext of support for human rights around the world”.

“It is not just the French rulers who are being openly discredited”, it said, adding, “All Western leaders who claim to be supporters of human rights are being discredited and exposed”.

“As for France, the current circumstances make it necessary to throw a glance at part of the record of the rulers of this country on the question of the Middle East. The black record of France in the past half-century includes its strong and continuing support for the usurper and terrorist Zionist regime and its crimes against the nation of Palestine. All French governments in recent decades have committed themselves to provide political, military, financial and propaganda support for the Zionist regime”.

Jomhouri Islami said that the most recent examples of French support for the “Zionist regime” was the “extensive participation of French rulers in the huge propaganda offensive that the West launched against the anti-Zionist remarks of the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran”.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s open threat to Israel, saying it must be “wiped off the map”, drew international outrage and was condemned by the United Nations Security Council.

“The Iranian nuclear issue is another clear example of the French rulers’ hypocrisy”, the semi-official daily added.

Meanwhile, the daily Ressalat, close to the office of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wrote in a front-page article on Tuesday that the rioting in France began after policemen shot dead two black adolescents in Paris.

Paris police have said that the two teenagers were electrocuted.

The government-owned Fars News Agency wrote that the “Uprising against injustice in France” had spread to Germany.

“Some political analysts believe the wave of uprisings against racial discrimination and injustice in France will spread to other West European countries”, it said.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:
Well Blank, I never thought I'd see the day when you and the IRI were of the same mindset, but nothing suprises me anymore....you say the French deserve what they get, and I think the same is reflected by the IRI in the following.

.


Dear Oppenheimer,

What Blank says, completely different than IRI, the IRI is unhappy because France can not support them any more. Blank is referring to the facts regarding IRI and France relations in past 26 years.
To refresh our memory the short list might be as follows:
- When they gathered in Guadalupe to replace Shah with Khomeini, did they ever thought of its repercussions?
- When they allowed Shahriar Shafigh to be assassinated in Paris did they think of today??
- When they let Shapour Bakhtiar to be killed with such brutality did they think of today??
- When they let many Iranian opposition leaders to be killed with brutality, did they think of today??
- When they handed over the killers of Ghasemloo and Bakhtiar back to Islamic Regime did they think of today?
- When they gave safe heaven to Khomeini did they ever thought of today??
- When they leased Fighter Air Craft & sold Missiles to Ssadam, to be used against Iran, did they ever think of today?
- When they were massacring Algerians during Algerian independence war did they ever thought of today??
- When they were taking side with Saddam Hussain preventing the process of democratization of Iraq, did they even thought of today??
- When they were cutting deals with “Axis of Evils” did they thought of today??
- When they (France and Britain) promoted drug and prostitution in Iran, Vietnam, Lebanon, Syria did they ever thought for a moment??
..............
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you Cyrus for your response to Oppie. I will disregard his insulting statement.........because in many ways he is an extremely naive person.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

blank wrote:
Thank you Cyrus for your response to Oppie. I will disregard his insulting statement.........because in many ways he is an extremely naive person.


Dear Blank,
Oppie is a good guy.
We are here to exchange our ideas and have civilize exchanges and learn from each other.
Oppenheimer like other members are making good contributions. We should not expect everyone agree with each other all the time. Please avoid insulting each other, and focus on our real evil enemy and Islamist fanatics.
This forum should become good example of Free Society and free exchange of ideas and symbol of our unity from all sectors of Left, Right and center.
Regards,
Cyrus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blank, I knew what you were refering to as France's record of having ties with the mullah's, The mullahs are in a sense saying they "deserve what they get" for how they treated the Muslim population.

So you and the mullah's are saying the same thing, for different reasons.

That was my point. It wasn't to insult you that I made it, but to make you think about your statement, which I happen to believe is unjustified, and unworthy....it's like saying we Yanks deseved 9/11, or the Brits deserved 7/7, and these riots are every bit as much terroristic in nature, and in incitement.

Fact is at this point France is giving the IRI a real hard time over the nuclear issue, they stand fully in the EU against the IRI's human rights abuses, and so I say again, I objected to your saying they "deserve what they get." and if you have a problem with me, or think what I'm saying here is "naive", I would say that over a very long time Blank, I've read your posts, and I can say with confidence that you are biggoted, blind, and fail to see the truth because it doesn't fit with your pet perceptions about how the world works...

Have a nice day.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I would say that over a very long time Blank, I've read your posts, and I can say with confidence that you are biggoted, blind, and fail to see the truth because it doesn't fit with your pet perceptions about how the world works...


Oppenheimer, I couldn’t disagree with you more. I too have read many of blank’s posts, and the words “bigoted,” “blind,” or “untrue” have never crossed my mind. I find his thinking quite enlightened. I do see him take a firm stance on issues he believes in, and perhaps he is a bit less flexible sometimes than some other people, (which is not a bad thing), but that is far from being a bigot.

As you yourself pointed out, blank and IRI may agree on a concept, but their reasons and ideals differ significantly. If their basis for an argument is completely different, then I think this completely nullifies the premise that the two have anything in common. To even entertain that idea is, I think, ridiculous.

I could think of a few examples where the IRI and I share the same wish, but for entirely different reasons. For example, I do not want to see a US invasion of Iran, and neither does the IRI. My reason is that I don’t want Iran to be ravaged by another war, and to see my countrymen suffering. But the IRI’s reason is that they don’t want the party to end. As you see, our motivations are quite different, and not comparable.

Cyrus is absolutely right. We ought to concentrate our efforts for the common goals that we have, and avoid directing our frustrations at each other.

It is for that precise reason that I am writing this post. Your last post, Oppenheimer, is quite inflammatory, and would be a direct challenge to blank to respond in an even more retaliatory manner. For that reason, instead of allowing these commentaries to escalate, I am hereby asking blank to accept my response as his own, and to let this issue die.

Cyrus, blank, Spenta, Liberator, Espandyar, and Oppenheimer are the great contributors to this site. I give thanks to them all, and it would sadden me to see any grudges between any of them.
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Amir,

If I had a dollar(US) for everytime I've heard Blank use the word "ragheads" to describe Muslims in general, I'd be retired right now....chuckle....if you wish to call that "enlightened" thinking....I guess you have your opinion, and I have a completely different one that describes it...and "biggoted, blind, and fail to see the truth" are just very basic truth expressed in describing it.

Now I appreciate the fact that both you and Cyrus wish to keep things on a unified track against the IRI, but when someone who is a part of this forum, and a member of the opposition is posting an inflamatory statement that is beyond the pale (that "the French deserve what they get.") I'm going to address that malfunction precisely because it creates unneccesary division and distraction....and so it's perfectly sound judgement on my part to take him to task for such a patheticly stupid statement....It isn't a matter of "being flexible"...it's a matter of Blank not understanding the ramifications of his statement....and that's why I drew the comparisons, so he'd think about it some...


"As you yourself pointed out, blank and IRI may agree on a concept, but their reasons and ideals differ significantly. If their basis for an argument is completely different, then I think this completely nullifies the premise that the two have anything in common."

The commonality is that both statements justify the actions that are ongoing in France regarding the riots.

"I could think of a few examples where the IRI and I share the same wish, but for entirely different reasons. For example, I do not want to see a US invasion of Iran, and neither does the IRI."

Really? Seems to me the only way the IRI can gain the support of the population is to have a war, which is precisely what they've been pushing the west for for some time. Does Antar's "wipe Israel of the map" statement give you reason to think otherwise?

Oh, yeah, the justification is that the "zionist" regime "deserves what it gets". Does that make it an "enlightened" thought process? and let's not forget the US was also included in that call for destruction. Along with any Muslim nation that recognizes the "zionist entity".

Let me just say in conclusion, that if the Iranian opposition wishes to reach common goals, it cannot be done via statements of the like that I'm responding to by Blank, that completely lacks common sense.

I would add one other thing that is simply a matter of observation over time. And it concerns the MEK.

This org, has no real credibility with Iranians at large, claimes to be the "main" opposition group....and had had a lot of support by western legistators to be removed off the list of terrorist org's....why is that they have more credibility now than they should?

I'll tell you what I've observed....actually the observance of absence of criticism of the EU, US, or any nation that has had any dealings with the mullahs either through trade or otherwise over the years.

Call it what you will, but that lack of criticism was a smart public diplomacy move on the MEK's part, and it has had its intended effect.

Food for thought.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Oppenheimer,

Again, I disagree. Blank is no bigot. I don’t think he uses the term “raghead” loosely to describe all Moslems. The only times I’ve seen him use that term is to describe certain particular Islamists, with a specific antagonistic mindset. The ones that think IRI was God’s gift to Iran. The ones that view Khomeini as a holy man, instead of a murderer. The ones that chant “death to America and Israel.” Or, ones who post here with the avatar of a dude with literally, a rag, attached to his head. I’m sorry, Oppenheimer, but those people really are ragheads.

Again, because of the context that blank put his comments regarding France, I don’t view it in the same light as you. He was simply demonstrating the presence of poetic justice. You know, karma. The Buddhist that you are, I’m sure you know what karma is. To me, blank’s statement simply meant “France received some of its own bad karma.” Nothing less, nothing more. Oppenheimer, it is my observation that you sometimes take things a little too literarily, changing its intended context. Of course I would never rejoice in view of violence, suffering, and injury. And I don’t think anyone else in this forum, including blank, does either. If I have misunderstood blank, I’m sure he will point that out to me. But I’m simply trying to explain how I (and probably most other people) interpret his comments.


But moving on to politics….

I understand your interpretation that IRI is looking for a war, a war that will unite the country behind it. If you look at it logically, as I think you are doing, the “Destroy Israel” speech would only lead down a path of war with the US. If IRI were to attack Israel, or continue with this rhetoric, there will be a high likelihood of armed conflict with the west.

However, I look at this with a slightly different opinion. I don’t think Monkey Nejad is following any particular logic. He is clearly mad, and has greatly underestimated his foes. This is how I see it:

Monkey Boy is trying to rally a mass behind him, in his “crusade” against Israel. All the die-hard Moslems, either inside or outside of Iran. He is furthermore trying to divert attention from the shortcomings of this incompetent regime by finding an enemy to use as a scapegoat. For Iranians to forget their troubles by focusing on this “Satan.” I think that at the least it is rhetoric, and at the most he is seeking confrontation with Israel. I don’t think he has made the logical connection that the west will seriously intervene; thereupon lies his folly.

Because, if the US attacks militarily, Iran has no chance of repelling it. Though Iran’s military is stronger than Iraq’s was 3 years ago, it is no match for the US. The cost of such a war would be quite immense to the US, though it would surely prevail. And once Iran’s armed forces fold, the government will quickly fold after that. Can you say “Bye Bye IRI?” It will be a huge mess, and costly for both sides, but ultimately the IRI will be destroyed. And if the IRI goes, so do all the Mullahs, so does their power, so does the oil money, etc…party’s over. And I think the IRI’s number one priority is to make "the party" last as long as possible; to let the good times roll. So, if they were inviting a war with the US, they would be inviting an end to their "partying." I don’t think they want that. I think Monkey Boy thinks the US is not willing to commit to such an expense, and that’s why he is carrying on as he is. This is his miscalculation.

I realize that the alternative explanation is that he is miscalculating on a different level. That he does think the US will attack, but thinks that he can somehow prevail by having Iran unified behind him. But somehow I don’t think so. Again, this is my opinion so far. Perhaps as further events unfold I may find that his miscalculation was the latter, not the former.
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Noteworthy Discussion Threads All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group