Re: What happens to a dis-armed populace.

"Froggy" <hub666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131526270.686716.42370@g43g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...

> Of course you are aware that Saab is now US-owned?

And Chrysler-Benz isn't too foreign anymore.

Greg Mossman wrote:
> "Froggy" <hub666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1131526270.686716.42370@g43g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>
> > Of course you are aware that Saab is now US-owned?
>
> And Chrysler-Benz isn't too foreign anymore.

Yeah, but we tend to think of it as Chysler becoming European, rather
than the other way round. I certainly hope that it's the case for their
cars.

Cheers,

Froggy

"dazed and confuzzed" wrote

>>>>Like I said, Muslim.
>>
>>
>>>Not all of them are muslims (most probably are not).
>>
>>
>> The news here says most are muslims.
> They got around to using "Muslim" as a descriptor after what, 12 days?
>
> Prior to that it was "youths"

Hey, if I had millions of Muslims in my country who weren't part of a
problem that is already out of control, caused by the young of those
Muslims, I'd be careful how I characterized them too.

Lee

"Froggy" wrote

>> >> Like I said, Muslim.
>>
>> >Not all of them are muslims (most probably are not).
>>
>> The news here says most are muslims.
>
> In the sense that they have a muslim background, maybe. And if
> religious, they are probably more likely to be muslim rather than
> anything else.

Then let's call them what they are and forget about the sensibilities of
those who don't like the fact that it is their culture that is at the source
of the problem.

> By that measure you could also call a majority of the French population
> Christian, even though a fairly large proportion of these do not
> believe in God and go to church three times in their live (baptism,
> mariage, and funerals).

If I knew more about the French population, I might, in fact call them
Christian, particularly if the issues we were talking about were
characteristic of people of that faith in France and elsewhere in the world.

Once upon a time, it was the Irish who were most likely to be characterized
as terrorists because, wait for it, that's who the most significant
terrorists were. In recent years, the most significant terrorists around
the world have, consistently, been young to middle aged Muslims. It's the
truth. Deal with it.

> So the next time disgruntled workers take to the street, should the
> media write articles about "Christian demonstrators"?

It's been a common criticism of the Bush administration for years.

> IMHO these events have much less to do with religion than with the
> feeling of being second-class citizens.

Perhaps you are right, but the real issue is neither religion, nor class.
The real issue is the crimes being comitted. The real issue is that people,
whether their culture results from their origin, their color, their
religion, or any other personal characteristics, are violently breaking the
law and neither the government of France, nor the people of France have done
anything effective about it.

Lee

Lee Bell wrote:
> "Froggy" wrote
>
>
>>>>>Like I said, Muslim.
>>>
>>>>Not all of them are muslims (most probably are not).
>>>
>>>The news here says most are muslims.
>>
>>In the sense that they have a muslim background, maybe. And if
>>religious, they are probably more likely to be muslim rather than
>>anything else.
>
>
> Then let's call them what they are and forget about the sensibilities of
> those who don't like the fact that it is their culture that is at the source
> of the problem.

their culture isn't the source of the problem. As you said yourself: the
issues are not characteristic of people of that faith.


>
>>By that measure you could also call a majority of the French population
>>Christian, even though a fairly large proportion of these do not
>>believe in God and go to church three times in their live (baptism,
>>mariage, and funerals).
>
>
> If I knew more about the French population, I might, in fact call them
> Christian, particularly if the issues we were talking about were
> characteristic of people of that faith in France and elsewhere in the world.
>
> Once upon a time, it was the Irish who were most likely to be characterized
> as terrorists because, wait for it, that's who the most significant
> terrorists were. In recent years, the most significant terrorists around
> the world have, consistently, been young to middle aged Muslims. It's the
> truth. Deal with it.

One's a nationality, the other one a religion, that's quite a difference.

>
>
>>So the next time disgruntled workers take to the street, should the
>>media write articles about "Christian demonstrators"?
>
>
> It's been a common criticism of the Bush administration for years.
>
>
>>IMHO these events have much less to do with religion than with the
>>feeling of being second-class citizens.
>
>
> Perhaps you are right, but the real issue is neither religion, nor class.
> The real issue is the crimes being comitted. The real issue is that people,
> whether their culture results from their origin, their color, their
> religion, or any other personal characteristics, are violently breaking the
> law and neither the government of France, nor the people of France have done
> anything effective about it.

They did now.


--
Michael Wolf

-----

Cthulhu For President.
Why settle for the lesser evil?

remove stopspam to reply

Lee Bell wrote:
> "Froggy" wrote
>
> >> >> Like I said, Muslim.
> >>
> >> >Not all of them are muslims (most probably are not).
> >>
> >> The news here says most are muslims.
> >
> > In the sense that they have a muslim background, maybe. And if
> > religious, they are probably more likely to be muslim rather than
> > anything else.
>
> Then let's call them what they are and forget about the sensibilities of
> those who don't like the fact that it is their culture that is at the source
> of the problem.

That's the problem.

There is no single proper word to "call them what they are". In France
the term "youths", used in a certain context, and notably "suburb's
youths" would be used as a byword to describe
young-people-often-of-immigrant-descent-living-in-impoverished-suburbs-exhibiting-violent-or-deliquent-behavior.

By using the term muslim to describe them, the message is that "it is
their [Muslim] culture that is at the source of the problem", which is
inaccurate (IMHO).

<snip>
>
> If I knew more about the French population, I might, in fact call them
> Christian, particularly if the issues we were talking about were
> characteristic of people of that faith in France and elsewhere in the world.

Well, burning cars night after night is not "characteristic of people
of that faith in France". Otherwise, with 5 million people that could
be called "muslim" by your definition, there would not be a single car
left here.

<snip>

> > IMHO these events have much less to do with religion than with the
> > feeling of being second-class citizens.
>
> Perhaps you are right, but the real issue is neither religion, nor class.

> The real issue is the crimes being comitted. The real issue is that people,
> whether their culture results from their origin, their color, their
> religion, or any other personal characteristics, are violently breaking the
> law

Yes.

> and neither the government of France, nor the people of France have done
> anything effective about it.

In France it is not considered acceptable to use deadly force to
protect property (at least not to protect cars).

So far the death toll has remained relatively low (easy to say when you
are not among the victims, of course).

And there's some kind of undertanding that it would take very little
for things to spin out of control (a rioter being shot by the police or
by an upset citizen, or conversely a cop being killed). Then we would
able to see whether gun control laws are really effective here.

Therefore the police has show some restraint in the use of force, which
has limited the casualties on either side, and we can only be glad that
the "people of France" have not reacted violently either.

Cheers,

Froggy

"Froggy" wrote in message
news:1131631244.523655.227960@g47g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> In France it is not considered acceptable to use deadly force to
> protect property (at least not to protect cars).

Oh well, then I guess you deserve what you get...

> Therefore the police has show some restraint in the use of force, which
> has limited the casualties on either side, and we can only be glad that
> the "people of France" have not reacted violently either.

I read that as, "Even when their shops and cars are being destroyed, they
don't have balls enough to stand up for what is right"...

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 06:22:23 -0500, "Lee Bell"
<pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote:


>They are what they are. It's a cultural thing and, according to the reports
>we're getting, those at the heart of the problem are Muslim. Perhaps those
>that are Muslim that do not agree with the approach being taken, should get
>off their butts and do something about those at the heart of the problem.
>
>It's easy to blame Americans for problems around the world because it can be
>seen that a lot of the people involved are Americans. Why isn't it equally
>easy to blame Muslims for problems when most of the people involved are
>Muslims?

So what's the root cause of the problem? Is it that some, perhaps
many, of them are Muslim, or is it because all of them feel that
French society isn't providing for them fairly? If it's the second, as
all media accounts seem to suggest, then the Muslim connection is
coincidental, something dredged up by those with a hatred for Muslims
generally.

World affairs are too convoluted as it is without the confusion of
coincidental issues but hate being what it is, we'll probably always
have the convolution.

JF

It's not easy being modest when you're the
greatest. -- Mohammed Ali

Grumman-581 wrote:
> "Froggy" wrote in message
> news:1131631244.523655.227960@g47g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

> > In France it is not considered acceptable to use deadly force to
> > protect property (at least not to protect cars).
>
> Oh well, then I guess you deserve what you get...

You mean a lower level of property crime, a lower murder rate and less
people in jail?

Well, that's a small price to pay.

> > Therefore the police has show some restraint in the use of force, which
> > has limited the casualties on either side, and we can only be glad that
> > the "people of France" have not reacted violently either.
>
> I read that as, "Even when their shops and cars are being destroyed, they
> don't have balls enough to stand up for what is right"...

Not necessarily.

Remember that the rioters are essentially trashing the very place they
live in.

The inhabitants may realize that the people who do that may be their
relatives' sons, or that their own kids could have been amongst the
rioters had things been marginaly different, etc.

It may be that, having experienced it themselves, they understand (at
least in part) the frustration of anger of these youths, and are
willing to let it pass (in a way) on account of their youth.

It may also be that they have enough respect for human life to accept
that their (insured) car is not worth a kid's life.

And they may also realize that violence would only breed violence.

As for the police, I would think that it takes much more balls (and
brains) to be able to show restaint in front a violent mob, than to
just shoot kids.

Cheers,

Froggy

"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:BbGcf.12084$Dk.1451@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

> Once upon a time, it was the Irish who were most likely to be
> characterized as terrorists because, wait for it, that's who the most
> significant terrorists were. In recent years, the most significant
> terrorists around the world have, consistently, been young to middle aged
> Muslims. It's the truth. Deal with it.

Not Irish, but Catholics. Catholics were the terrorists.

Most domestic terrorists in the U.S. today (i.e. abortion-center bombings,
federal building bombings) are Christians. What can we do about the
Christian problem?