4th French Victim Dies After Saudi Attack

[MSgt]

A French teenager has died from injuries he suffered when gunmen fired on his car in the Saudi desert, bringing the death toll in the attack to four, France's Foreign Ministry said Tuesday.

The group was attacked Monday on the side of a road leading to the holy city of Medina in an area restricted to Muslims only.

All four victims were French. Two were expatriate employees of the electrical equipment manufacturer Schneider Electric, and one was a teacher in a French school there, the Foreign Ministry said. Their identities were not immediately released.
ABC News: 4th French Victim Dies After Saudi Attack

I don't normally start threads, especially in here, but I found this interesting. We have been told that this "War on Terror" is a "NeoCon" imagination or creation. Our allies in Europe have insisted that they are in danger simply because of our experiment in Iraq (And yes, considering the long Arab history, especially in the last 4 centuries, this is an experiment).

It is a fact that if we took mere law into account, the French are the most accepting of Muslim immigrants in continental Europe. It is also a fact that the French refused to stand beside us against Saddam Hussein and instead opted to stand between the Anglo-English speaking world and Iraq's former regime...... While the U.N. Security Council had agreed to inspections for WMD, the Administration began to add additional ideas. Administration officials called for "regime change" in Iraq, and the establishment of a democracy that would serve as a model and a spur for new representative governments throughout the Middle East. France and other governments balked at these added objectives.[/URL]

So if our critics are correct in their scoffing at us and dismissing of us regarding the Islamic terror issue and what has to happen in the Middle East, why then was it France that saw such violent civil riots and why are the targets in Saudi Arabia, French? By all acounts, the French should be safe from our "imagined" enemy.

 

[Navy Seal Patriot]

Your right, it doesn't look good for France's position on the Terrorist war issue and then again some muslims just see a white as a westerner and doesn't think, "I wonder if he's a Frenchie?" And then they just shoot.

 

[Hatuey]

Your right, it doesn't look good for France's position on the Terrorist war issue and then again some muslims just see a white as a westerner and doesn't think, "I wonder if he's a Frenchie?" And then they just shoot.

This has to be by far the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Muslims come in all colors shape and sizes. They're as black as Malcom X and as white as Russians. To even imply that they'd shoot you because of your skin color is without any logic. Dont make this a "race" issue. You'll be shot down quicker then a black hawk in Mogadishu.

 

[bub]

The facts: 4 French are killed in the middle of the desert by some *******

Gunny's interpretation: links to Arabia's history, a 33-pages-long file from the French embassy, french interior policy, the war in Iraq...

Isn't it just a random attack on white foreigners? They could have been Brits!

Ah yes, you try to show that your war on terror is legitimized...mmmh...but they also take part on counter-terror operations, don't they? Aren't they leading in Lebanon?

You're right they should invest more, but that does not mean they should be in Iraq nor be paranoiac like you. OK, 4 frenchies have been gunned down, and then? In the meantime, hundreds of Africans, Chechens, Sri-Lankese people have been murdered!

 

[Kandahar]

I think you're all jumping to conclusions. First of all, were these French teenagers white boys named Jacques and Pierre? Or were they second-generation Algerian immigrants named Mohammed? The article doesn't say.

Second of all, was the attack motivated by their nationality, or was it just some random crap that could happen anywhere in the world?

 

[MSgt]

The point here was to show that this is a war which is carried out by Islamic Radicals upon all of the west, whether our critics wish it or not. No amount of appeasing or bribery will suffice.

The French pretend to assume a measure of security because they try to cater to their Muslim population (rather belatedly) and oppose ousting Saddam Hussein. Yet riots commenced, of which Islamic Radicals were fueling, and they are as much a target as anyone else for simply walking in "their land."

And what exactly did the Danes do? Merely practiced their rights to free speech and printed a cartoon. The same type of cartoon any religion would be victim to. Yet, many people died over it and buildings burned.



See the theme here? People talk about the wonders of the information age and how globalization is bringing us all together and how this will automatically push the urge to war against each other that much less plausible. They are wrong. The age we live in is thrusting our civilizations together at a pace that is infuriating those that refuse to remove themselves from hardened concrete. Someone is going to have to budge. Either we restrict some of our freedoms (and no amount will be enough to suffice our hardened enemies) or they progress beyond their self-prescribed cutural frozen world.

This will get worse. And it will be worse for those that need a few 9/11s to occur on their soil. America's got two oceans. What does continental Europe have?

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

I don't normally start threads, especially in here, but I found this interesting. We have been told that this "War on Terror" is a "NeoCon" imagination or creation. Our allies in Europe have insisted that they are in danger simply because of our experiment in Iraq (And yes, considering the long Arab history, especially in the last 4 centuries, this is an experiment).

It is a fact that if we took mere law into account, the French are the most accepting of Muslim immigrants in continental Europe. It is also a fact that the French refused to stand beside us against Saddam Hussein and instead opted to stand between the Anglo-English speaking world and Iraq's former regime...... While the U.N. Security Council had agreed to inspections for WMD, the Administration began to add additional ideas. Administration officials called for "regime change" in Iraq, and the establishment of a democracy that would serve as a model and a spur for new representative governments throughout the Middle East. France and other governments balked at these added objectives.[/URL]

So if our critics are correct in their scoffing at us and dismissing of us regarding the Islamic terror issue and what has to happen in the Middle East, why then was it France that saw such violent civil riots and why are the targets in Saudi Arabia, French? By all acounts, the French should be safe from our "imagined" enemy.

Just because 4 French citizens dies doesn't mean France will start a world war or nuke Guatemala.

 

[MSgt]

Just because 4 French citizens dies doesn't mean France will start a world war or nuke Guatemala.

It doesn't? Perhaps that is why I didn't state as much.

But on that note, it will take far more than 4 French teenagers and some riots to whip up the smelling sauce.

 

[bub]

Gunny, did you know that the riots in France have nothing more to do with Islam than the LA riots in '92?

 

[MSgt]

Isn't it just a random attack on white foreigners? They could have been Brits!

This was exactly my point.

Ah yes, you try to show that your war on terror is legitimized...mmmh...but they also take part on counter-terror operations, don't they? Aren't they leading in Lebanon?

A forced endeavor. The issue in Lebanon was (is) Hezbollah, not baby sitting two forces that needed an excuse to pull back.

We, as well as the French know without a doubt who the enemy is. Small adventures that do not direct its attention upon that enemy is not facing the threat. In time, the UN forces in Lebanon will have given Hezbollah its needed time to reorganize and they will commence to fester the border when the UN pulls out. The UN forces will have just ensured another round of hostilities.

 

[MSgt]

Gunny, did you know that the riots in France have nothing more to do with Islam than the LA riots in '92?

Haha. Of course it didn't....to a point. The riots were about social discrimination of immigrants. This was the overwhelming complaint. But this is where the French government begins it trip down denial lane and where the European media danced on egg shells while the American media barely gave it a glimpse (but let this be the L.A. riots and all of Europe is lining up for the polls about how they feel about America). The French government and European media were always careful not to mention the Islamic issues inside the riots. Always opting to use the word "youths" rather than "Muslims." For a while there, people of the world didn't have a clue what was going on with thses French "youths." Denial has always urged the illusion of French security.

1) Do you know of the warnings prior to the riots by the Algerian Islamist group GSPC to the violence? On September 14, 2006, al-Qaeda announced it will will join the GSPC in their fight against France. They plan to attack France, the United States, and their allies.

2) Did you know that amongst the rioters, chants of "Allahu Akhbar" was heard as trying to organize the angry?

3) Did you know that a leading Islamic leader tried to bargain with Chirac with an idea that a local "Muslim Brotherhood" would satisfy the masses? Chirac wisely declined.

You see, it doesn't really matter why these "youths" were rioting. The point is that the enemy knows exactly what they have to work with and as time goes by, it will be easier to turn such events into what the French government denies today.

But on that note...what does a few embassy bombings in Africa have to do with a future 9/11? Refusing to face the music encouraged the latter. France is walking our path right now.

 

[Moot]

The point here was to show that this is a war which is carried out by Islamic Radicals upon all of the west, whether our critics wish it or not. No amount of appeasing or bribery will suffice.

I find your statement somewhat amusing considering congress will soon be investigating why Bush has been illegally diverting and covertly giving money to Al Qaida sympathizers in Lebanon. :shock:

The New Yorker : fact : content

YouTube - Seymour Hersh on planned invasion of Iran

It sure is disappointing to find out that Cheney has been appeasing Al Qaida simply because they are Sunni and with Bush's blessing. It makes one wonder whose side our low life leaders are really on, ours or the terrorists? I bet our military leaders and Britain are wondering the same thing.

The French pretend to assume a measure of security because they try to cater to their Muslim population (rather belatedly) and oppose ousting Saddam Hussein. Yet riots commenced, of which Islamic Radicals were fueling, and they are as much a target as anyone else for simply walking in "their land."

France was proven right to oppose the ousting of Saddam. It was after all, Saddams secular Iraq army that stood between Iran and Israel and kept the ME safe from sectarian civil war between the Shiites and the Sunnis.

As far as the French Muslim population are concerned, you might want to read up on history and learn about the French occupation in Algiers during the 1950s and the hard lessons they learned there. Although better late than never, Bush recently read a book about this very topic (Battle of Algeirs) so that he too might learn a thing or two about Muslim resistance.

what exactly did the Danes do? Merely practiced their rights to free speech and printed a cartoon. The same type of cartoon any religion would be victim to. Yet, many people died over it and buildings burned.

More people died from boredom than from that stupid Muslim cartoon. What does this have to do with the French teenager getting shot in Saudi Arabia? Do I detect a bit of "the only good Muslim, is a dead Muslim" stero-type thinking here? Hmmm?

See the theme here? People talk about the wonders of the information age and how globalization is bringing us all together and how this will automatically push the urge to war against each other that much less plausible. They are wrong. The age we live in is thrusting our civilizations together at a pace that is infuriating those that refuse to remove themselves from hardened concrete. Someone is going to have to budge. Either we restrict some of our freedoms (and no amount will be enough to suffice our hardened enemies) or they progress beyond their self-prescribed cutural frozen world.

"Restrict some of our freedoms?" Spoken like a true Nanny State, Jiiadi, Talibani, Sharia Law lover. Is it just me or is it getting harder and harder to tell the good guys from the bad guys?

Jeez GySgt, if giving up freedom is your idea of protecting it, then you might be better suited serving a country that already restricts some freedoms. Such as China or North Korea. :roll:

This will get worse. And it will be worse for those that need a few 9/11s to occur on their soil. America's got two oceans. What does continental Europe have?

It is extremely naive for anyone to think that Europe isn't fully aware of what is really going in the ME and how it is and/or will effect them. Why I'll bet a hamburger Europe knows a heck of a lot more about the ME and Muslims, than you will ever hope to know.

"Two oceans" didn't stop a small group of twenty Saudis from carrying out the largest attack on US soil in history, so what is your point? That it won't happen again on US soil? With Bush cutting FDA funding for the monitoring our nations food supply and the recent deaths from salmonilla in the peanut butter and Ecoli in the spinach......who needs terrorists when we have the free market?

It is because of France and Britains meddling in the ME that they now have a growing Muslim population in their own countries. Sooner or later, the US will have to bear the burden of its own meddling in the ME, just like Britain and France had to do. It is now estimated that the US will have to give 2 million Iraq refugees asylum before this war is over.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Our allies in Europe .

Aside from poodle Blair, you don't have any.

So if our critics are correct in their scoffing at us and dismissing of us regarding the Islamic terror issue and what has to happen in the Middle East, why then was it France that saw such violent civil riots

Frustration at the failures of capitalism, which despite recent falls in unemployment, continues to ignore the needs of the poor, just as in your ghettos, just as in your even more inequitable society (let us not forget what Katrina stripped bare for the world to see - poverty that would be unimaginable in Europe in the world's "richest" nation, BEFORE the hurricaine struck! Something ain't working - capitalism!) White French protested alongside black, Arab, Chinese etc. It was neither a race nor a religious issue. You are confusing issues, probably because you live in a nation where your news is distorted.

 

[MSgt]

I find your statement somewhat amusing considering congress will soon be investigating why Bush has been illegally diverting and covertly giving money to Al Qaida sympathizers in Lebanon. :shock:

The New Yorker : fact : content

YouTube - Seymour Hersh on planned invasion of Iran

It sure is disappointing to find out that Cheney has been appeasing Al Qaida simply because they are Sunni and with Bush's blessing. It makes one wonder whose side our low life leaders are really on, ours or the terrorists? I bet our military leaders and Britain are wondering the same thing.

I know you have this love affair thing going for President Bush, but you should take a closer look at Washington. Everyone in the Middle East is connected to something else one way or the other, so it is easy to find the dispicable path critics are always looking for. And besides, when it comes to the Middle East, we can only understand a limited pile of the confusion. Remeber our brief but highly exaggerated "support" for Saddam Hussein in the 80's? Well, we also gave weapons to the Iranians against Saddam during the same period.

However, what is of twisted irony is our long time determination to cling to an "ally" that is mostly about intellectual habit. Our "allies" in the Middle East are Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and at one brief uncomfortable time, Saddam's Iraq. They are the Sunni. Our enemies have been Iran and Lebanon. They are the Shi'ite. Now, because of our oil thirsts, rubbing shoulders with Saudi Arabia made natural alliances with Egypt and Jordan. But look at the situation over the past two decades. Over 90 percent of the Islamic terrorist thorn for America has been of Sunni blood and the "House of Saud" is the greatest motivator for this Arab fundamentalism. While we allowed the lords of terror to use us as scapegoats for oil as they effectively destroyed their culture, we also ignored the Iranian democracy which has held a presence since Khomeini died. And until Ahmenadejad, their elected was progressively liberalizing the Iranian society. Now we have the Lebanese democracy coming to life and the Shi'ite and Kurd majority in Iraq seeking the survival of their democracy. We have always shared more in common with the Shi'ite than the Sunni and today's events are proving it. The Sunni are begrudgingly moving towards democracy in Saudi, Egypt and Jordan, but the Shi'ite have been heading with full speed in that direction. Still, we insist that we have a good relationship with the Sunni governments.

While this is an oil man's White House, this is a Washington issue that spans a multiple of Presidents. Intellectual habit has blinded us to who our allies in the Middle East should be. President Bush is making the same mistake those before him made. But what really is of American interest? Doing the right thing or making sure their life styles (which relies heavily upon oil on every level) are secure? The problem here is that short term security (oil) continues to drive our motivations. But our long time security involves the issues of the day that critics don't like. This is why Saddam Hussein was allowed to eturn to Iraq after the Gulf War. This is why we continue to be "allies" with Saudi Arabia. This is why so many things that have brought us to today's reality. But "ally" is just a nice diplomatic word for mutual interests. There are few real allies in this world.

The Middle East is determined to be the Middle East and Washington is determined to be Washington.

France was proven right to oppose the ousting of Saddam. It was after all, Saddams secular Iraq army that stood between Iran and Israel and kept the ME safe from sectarian civil war between the Shiites and the Sunnis.

And this is precisely a part of that intellectual habit that made us support Saddam and Khomeini during the Iran/Iraq wars in the 80's. The same intellectual habit that allows us to protect the worse Arab regimes inSaudi Arabia. All of this was about "stability" at all costs. The price of which is to be made a target for an already frozen and failing civilization in the desert.

Supporting the dictator as long as he kills selectively is not the answer. The French were wrong and they will suffer for their denials. The only one proven wrong was Rumsfeld's answer for peace after Baghdad fell.

As far as the French Muslim population are concerned, you might want to read up on history and learn about the French occupation in Algiers during the 1950s and the hard lessons they learned there. Although better late than never, Bush recently read a book about this very topic (Battle of Algeirs) so that he too might learn a thing or two about Muslim resistance.

I'm well aware, but thanks. All the more reason that places France in the same pickle we are in whether they want to be in it or not. It doesn't take much for this civilization to rise up and vent their anger against foreign devils. The booming population in France has become increasingly secular against their host nation. A great number no longer want to be assimilated anymore than their host nation wants them assimilated. Hence the riots. This, all across the Muslim third world, is exactly where religious terrorism is coming from. France is on its way to a very big problem and the Radicals are just standing by.

More people died from boredom than from that stupid Muslim cartoon. What does this have to do with the French teenager getting shot in Saudi Arabia? Do I detect a bit of "the only good Muslim, is a dead Muslim" stero-type thinking here? Hmmm?

Careful. You might just p$ss me off again with your simplistic views of the world. The cartoon was another example of how little the West has to do to anger this Radical crowd. While people try in vain to maintain an erroneous belief that our action against Saddam and the Tali Ban is why Muslim rage exists, nations like France are feeling the heat and didn't participate and the Danes merely printed a cartoon.

"Restrict some of our freedoms?" Spoken like a true Nanny State, Jiiadi, Talibani, Sharia Law lover. Is it just me or is it getting harder and harder to tell the good guys from the bad guys?

Jeez GySgt, if giving up freedom is your idea of protecting it, then you might be better suited serving a country that already restricts some freedoms. Such as China or North Korea. :roll:

Is this on purpose or are you actually having difficulty? Restiricting our freedoms is not going to happen, although media channels in Europe have already catered to the sensitivities of the Muslim world to avoid more complications. Your reply enforces my point about what we are facing. Our enemies want our freedoms gone, because our freedoms offend them. But their culture is also set in concrete. This is that "clash of civilizations" I stated.

Try to discuss these matters with a measure of integrity, huh?

It is extremely naive for anyone to think that Europe isn't fully aware of what is really going in the ME and how it is and/or will effect them. Why I'll bet a hamburger Europe knows a heck of a lot more about the ME and Muslims, than you will ever hope to know.

Read more about Europe. Then reflect on what you consider naive.

"Two oceans" didn't stop a small group of twenty Saudis from carrying out the largest attack on US soil in history, so what is your point? That it won't happen again on US soil? With Bush cutting FDA funding for the monitoring our nations food supply and the recent deaths from salmonilla in the peanut butter and Ecoli in the spinach......who needs terrorists when we have the free market?

First, an attack on American soil will happen again no matter what we do.

Second, our Muslim immigrant base is tremendously more healthier in our society than Europe because of our acceptance, toleration, and individual opportunity.

Third, because we do have two oceans protecting us, we are safer than Europe.

This isn't hard stuff here once you stop obsessing on President Bush.

 

[MSgt]

Aside from poodle Blair, you don't have any.

I am aware you mean to trivially insult, but this is more correct then you probably want to admit. And this has always been the case for most people on both sides of the ocean. The world's security and freedom has always owed its thanks to the anglo-english speaking alliance, not a Fanco-Germanic world view, of which the EU centers around. Looking at continental Europe as an "ally" has always been simple intellectual habit. Aside fomr mutual interests, the core countries of Europe have never done a thing for us.

This is a large part on why I insist that when your ill treated tens of million of Muslims (which are booming in population) become such a problem for European governments that they are rolling tanks down their streets against rioters and violent protestors and fighting begins to break out, America sit back and just watch. We need to learn a lesson that spilling our blood on European lands was yesterday's solution to the global mess. We need to turn our attention to the third world (Africa and South America), where popular will is moving societies forward and has emerged from the Cold war and the colonial period before it.


Hey Bub......remember that element of anti-Americanism that European studies reflect on and you deny exists? Here's yet another representative.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

I am aware you mean to trivially insult, but this is more correct then you probably want to admit. And this has always been the case for most people on both sides of the ocean. The world's security and freedom has always owed its thanks to the anglo-english speaking alliance, not a Fanco-Germanic world view, of which the EU centers around. Looking at continental Europe as an "ally" has always been simple intellectual habit. Aside fomr mutual interests, the core countries of Europe have never done a thing for us.

Aha, you are part of the whole new mindset that the white English race are the best, good luck with that, Hitler failed that 60 years ago, except they were German.

Europe have done nothing for America? Except making it wealthy, contributing to 70% of their export and most of their import? What nations are in Afghanistan as support of the US? What nations are in Iraq as support for the US? These nations are not there to support the dead cause, they are there to show support of YOUR nation.

Without continental Europe, the US would be nothing, so don't claim lies when you are completely unaware of the reality.
What have the US done for continental Europe? Nothing except the same trade, most of European trade is with the US.. And of course, I will say it before you say it, that America alone saved Europe from Nazism, its so nice to hear that all the time. Brag about your one good deed in history, congrats.

Intellectual habit, yes, probably, America is a young nation and dont have the experience and intellectuality that Europe has about whats really important and whats not. The US is almost in the same state as Germany was in 1939, I just wonder why, what will they use it for? Maybe the US should learn from history as well.

This is a large part on why I insist that when your ill treated tens of million of Muslims (which are booming in population) become such a problem for European governments that they are rolling tanks down their streets against rioters and violent protestors and fighting begins to break out, America sit back and just watch. We need to learn a lesson that spilling our blood on European lands was yesterday's solution to the global mess. We need to turn our attention to the third world (Africa and South America), where popular will is moving societies forward and has emerged from the Cold war and the colonial period before it.
Hey Bub......remember that element of anti-Americanism that European studies reflect on and you deny exists? Here's yet another representative.

Whats your problem with reality? Do you know how many people live in Europe? Now its 480 million people, 10 million Muslims is nothing, its 5%. These muslims are mostly second generation, or they came to Europe decades ago.
The protests in Paris was because of high youth employment(almost 20%), it had absolutely nothing to do with Muslims. It was all kind of young people who were sick of their situation.

Europe have their problems, America have their problems, I think Americans really need to sit down and think about whats going on in their country and how the whole government - media - people relationship is working and what the US, once a great nation is doing. The people of the US need to take action so that certain people in their government don't completely ruin what their country has built, especially the last 300 years.

 

[PeteEU]

No no Maximus Zeebra you are totaly wrong.

There is no racisim or discrimination in the US. Its all nice and peacefull. Immigrants are all living in perfect bliss and intergrating 100% in the US, there is almost no unimployment, no poverty and the economic on everything is much better than that of Europe or any other nation. Also the US won WW2and WW1 and many other wars they were not part off and it invented everything we use today, car, jet engine, paper, ink, printing press, tv and so on. They also invent and produce all drugs use in healthcare and "sacrifice" themselvs so we can get cheaper drugs over in poor Europe.

We uneducated, racist, chauvanistic, anti semite, pro muslims and anti muslim, anti christian and anti everything else, pinko commie liberal Europeans just have to accept such facts and bow to the total superioirty of the US and its people.:roll:

 

[MSgt]

Aha, you are part of the whole new mindset that the white English race are the best, good luck with that, Hitler failed that 60 years ago, except they were German.

Not the best. Simply the main positive players and shapers in history. And you do realize that when I speak on continental Europe's Franco-Germanic problem, Hitler is a good example?

It is true that Britian contributed to Europe's colonial period, but it is also true that they were by far the most humane.

It is true that America's pioneer era saw the slaughter (genocide) of countless Native Americans, but we have made the slightest bit of effort to move on from such behavior as it went on to welcoming immigrants from all corners of the earth and liberating people in places like the Phillipines, Caribbean, Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. (And we are finally seemingly turning our overdue attentions to Africa)

It is true that all of Europe participated in WWII, but it is also true that it was the American/British forces that hit the beaches in force in Normandy and in the deserts of Africa to finally begin the drive to Germany.

It is true that America gave itself a black eye during the Cold War beating the Soviet Union to poor countries and dictators who had their hands out, but it is also true that this was a brief period in American history.

And it is true that many civilians have died in Iraq that would not have had we a better plan to begin with, biut it is also true that the forcees that face todays enemies are largely from Britian and America.

America with the assistance of Britian is the greatest force for good in history. And who speaks French in the world but waiters and dictators?

 

[MSgt]

No no Maximus Zeebra you are totaly wrong.

There is no racisim or discrimination in the US. Its all nice and peacefull. Immigrants are all living in perfect bliss and intergrating 100% in the US, there is almost no unimployment, no poverty and the economic on everything is much better than that of Europe or any other nation. Also the US won WW2and WW1 and many other wars they were not part off and it invented everything we use today, car, jet engine, paper, ink, printing press, tv and so on. They also invent and produce all drugs use in healthcare and "sacrifice" themselvs so we can get cheaper drugs over in poor Europe.

A tad childish don't you think?

We uneducated, racist, chauvanistic, anti semite, pro muslims and anti muslim, anti christian and anti everything else, pinko commie liberal Europeans just have to accept such facts and bow to the total superioirty of the US and its people.

You shouldn't be so hard on your region. You bring up great points, but they are a little extreme.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

America sit back and just watch. .

I wouldn't be so smug with your twin towers in ruins.

 

[MSgt]

I wouldn't be so smug with your twin towers in ruins.

That's just it. It's not about being smug. It's about being fed up. Americans rebuild and move on. It's why we prosper beyond so many others who mire their systems in socialism, religious monopolism, communism, and dictatorships to the point where Americans have to cross the oceans to spill our blood and spend our treasure.

The fact remains. America is relatively safe from the religious fanaticism building in the Middle East and festering in parts of Europe. No matter how many attacks we prevent, our enemies are sure to get a blow in here and there, but the oceans act as a natural barrier. Our Muslim base is made up of great representatives of good Americans. They have every opportunity for employment, education, and equality. They have no restrictions placed on them with regards to religion. It is true that European counties are making efforts to make laws and bring attention to moods of equality, but this may be too late and continuing this notion that religion should be hid away will not suffice Islam (which is a culture, not just a religion). The current charade Europeans put themselves through with the help of your governments and controlled media, will only blind you to what may be ahead.

If it took the Swastica to walk past your door steps, it will take extreme civil unrest encouraged by Islamic radicalism to wake you up again.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

If it took the Swastica to walk past your door steps, it will take extreme civil unrest encouraged by Islamic radicalism to wake you up again.

No darling, it will take McDonalds and Hollywood to make us sick of United Statesian cultural hegemony. People are starting to open their eyes. Burger King didn't have to pull out of France for nothing. Their falling sales said it all.

Have a nice day now:2wave:

 

[danarhea]

I don't normally start threads, especially in here, but I found this interesting. We have been told that this "War on Terror" is a "NeoCon" imagination or creation. Our allies in Europe have insisted that they are in danger simply because of our experiment in Iraq (And yes, considering the long Arab history, especially in the last 4 centuries, this is an experiment).

It is a fact that if we took mere law into account, the French are the most accepting of Muslim immigrants in continental Europe. It is also a fact that the French refused to stand beside us against Saddam Hussein and instead opted to stand between the Anglo-English speaking world and Iraq's former regime...... While the U.N. Security Council had agreed to inspections for WMD, the Administration began to add additional ideas. Administration officials called for "regime change" in Iraq, and the establishment of a democracy that would serve as a model and a spur for new representative governments throughout the Middle East. France and other governments balked at these added objectives.[/url]

So if our critics are correct in their scoffing at us and dismissing of us regarding the Islamic terror issue and what has to happen in the Middle East, why then was it France that saw such violent civil riots and why are the targets in Saudi Arabia, French? By all acounts, the French should be safe from our "imagined" enemy.

I have to disagree with most of what you said, although I do agree with some of it.

1) Fighting against terrorism is not a "Neocon" concept as you suppose. Invading the wrong country was. Let us not forget that 19 out of the 20 hijackers who caused 911 were from Saudi Arabia. bin Laden himself is a Saudi national, although in exile. Also, al Qaeda did get some of its money from various Saudi royals.

2) The Saudi government is walking a fine line at this time because there is a fine line between Wahabism and terrorism itself. Thus, the government must be careful not to make it appear that they are suppressing the national religion, lest they are overthrown by the population as a result. Thus, their ability to provide security is somewhat limited, despite their crackdown on terrorist activity.

3) al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia no longer has a centralized hierarchy, but is very much spread out among many small groups, thus adding to the complexities of enforcement. Once again, if the government pushes too hard in attempts to find out who all the various groups are, they risk being overthrown by a populace which may see them as suppressing religion.

But, rather than looking at all these issues, the Bush administration is spending its time attempting to win an unwinnable war which it started against a country that had no part in 911.

 

[oldreliable67]

We uneducated, racist, chauvanistic, anti semite, pro muslims and anti muslim, anti christian and anti everything else, pinko commie liberal Europeans just have to accept such facts and bow to the total superioirty of the US and its people.

Hey, congrats, PeteEU! You finally got it right!

 

[Moot]

..Remeber our brief but highly exaggerated "support" for Saddam Hussein in the 80's? Well, we also gave weapons to the Iranians against Saddam during the same period.

Yes, I know. Its called the Iran-Contra scandle. History is repeating itself....

"....The Bush Administration’s reliance on clandestine operations that have not been reported to Congress and its dealings with intermediaries with questionable agendas have recalled, for some in Washington, an earlier chapter in history. Two decades ago, the Reagan Administration attempted to fund the Nicaraguan contras illegally, with the help of secret arms sales to Iran. Saudi money was involved in what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal, and a few of the players back then—notably Prince Bandar and Elliott Abrams—are involved in today’s dealings"....read link in my first post.

History is repeating itself because the same people from Iran-Contra are once again covertly aiding and abetting enemies of the US.

...We have always shared more in common with the Shi'ite than the Sunni and today's events are proving it. The Sunni are begrudgingly moving towards democracy in Saudi, Egypt and Jordan, but the Shi'ite have been heading with full speed in that direction. Still, we insist that we have a good relationship with the Sunni governments.

I think you are missing an important fact in your analogy. The fact is that the US actually has more in common with the Saudi Royal Family and Prince Bandar than it does either the Sunni or the Shiite. You might want to make that distinction in the future, since its a major one.

The Middle East is determined to be the Middle East and Washington is determined to be Washington.

It seems Washington is also determined to make the ME be Washington. Therein lies one of the major objections a majority of Arabs have against the US.

Supporting the dictator as long as he kills selectively is not the answer. The French were wrong and they will suffer for their denials. The only one proven wrong was Rumsfeld's answer for peace after Baghdad fell.

As others have attempted to enlighten you, the riots in France were about poverty and NO JOBS and not Islam.

..."Protesters told The Associated Press the unrest was an expression of frustration with high unemployment and police harassment and brutality in the areas. "People are joining together to say we've had enough," said one protester. "We live in ghettos. Everyone lives in fear." [16][17] The rioters' suburbs are also home to a large, mostly North African, immigrant population, allegedly adding religious tensions which some right-wing commentators believed contribute further to such frustrations. However, according to Pascal Mailhos, head of the Renseignements Généraux (French intelligence agency) radical islamism had no influence over the 2005 civil unrest in France. [18] 2005 civil unrest in France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"...which some right-wing commentators believed contribute further to such frustrations"

So who to believe, the rightwing commentators or the French Intelligence Agency? Hmmm, I think I'll go with the French Intelligence Agency over the rightwing spin machine lest I appear ignorant.

I'm well aware, but thanks.

I don't think you are well aware enough or you wouldn't keep trying to blame Muslims for everything wrong in the ME and Europe.

... A great number no longer want to be assimilated anymore than their host nation wants them assimilated. Hence the riots. This, all across the Muslim third world, is exactly where religious terrorism is coming from. France is on its way to a very big problem and the Radicals are just standing by....

You just can't get past blaming Muslims, can you?

Careful. You might just p$ss me off again with your simplistic views of the world. The cartoon was another example of how little the West has to do to anger this Radical crowd.

Yes, it only took one radical Muslim cleric in Denmark three years to get enough Muslims worked up over the cartoon for a photo op. What was Islams response to the cartoon? Anti-US Israel cartoons of course. This clash of civilizations is a laugh a minute.

...Our enemies want our freedoms gone, because our freedoms offend them. But their culture is also set in concrete. This is that "clash of civilizations" I stated.

If their culture is set in concrete, then how come you also claim they are adapting to democracy?

Second, our Muslim immigrant base is tremendously more healthier in our society than Europe because of our acceptance, toleration, and individual opportunity.

The sheer size of the US renders the Muslims less noticable and less concentrated than they are in European countries. But more importantly, the US didn't try to colonize the Muslim world like Europe did, so they haven't migrated here enmasse to the US like they did in Europe. But they will soon enough now that the US destroyed.. er uh... colonized Iraq.

Third, because we do have two oceans protecting us, we are safer than Europe.

I repeat, an ocean didn't stop 9/11.

This isn't hard stuff here once you stop obsessing on President Bush.

Anyone reading this would think you're the one having a love affair with Bush, not me. But you're right, this stuff isn't hard once you stop obsessing that it's all the Muslims fault and wishing for a culture clash.