French refuse to help non-Jewish woman attacked on train

[takeo]

First, your comparison to Stalin and the US is so laughable its pathetic. GERMANY ATTACKED RUSSIA. Let me repeat. GERMANY ATTACKED RUSSIA.

and japan attacked the US, repeat, Japan attacked the US

Without the German invasion, the non-aggression pact stands, and no help from the Russians. The Russians helped out of self-interest - to save themselves.

why do you think did the us join the war?

It had NOTHING to do with France and the US and the UK. The US involvement in the European theater, OTOH, while in partial respone to Japanese aggression, was for a large part due to out "loyalty" to Western Democracies - a loyalty that France has never returned.

i don't think so, if so, they would have declared war when Poland was attacked, as france and GB did.

But for the presence of hundereds of thousands of American troops in Germany, not only WOULD france have worried about the Soviets as a direct military threat, but also GERMANY would likely have re-armed to counter this threat, and their would have been tensions there, if not another European war. But the US babysat, and like spoiled Children, France, like you, DON'T EVEN RECOGNIZE the help that was given, much less feel that you owe a major debt.

we had troops too in germany, it was a joint action. we weren't afraid of the Soviets, who didn't plan to invade Western Germany after all.




Meanwhile, French sell Arms to EVERY dictator and thug on this planet.

so did your country

Sure, the US sells to many also - but, frankly, US companies are less tied to the government than French companies in the quasi-socialist French political-economic system.

this is nonsense, most weapons producers in the us have links to the republican army and especially to Cheney.



Vietnam...France. Most of Africa and the problems that are there now.... France.

nonsense, the Brittish had as much part in it, as well as african bad self-governance.

The middle east drawn up nation states and the coddling and ARMING of brutal dictatorships ... FRANCE. Ok, so the US was invloved in some of this also....but, unlike France, the US was FIGHTING the cold war, whereas France was flirting with the USSR.

During the cold war the us made cosy relations with fundamentalists and genocidal regimes in central America. You didn't have to fight the Vietnamese to stop the Russians, this was just another nonsense like today in Iraq. we treated the soviets as just any other state, which was the right approach.


The US was, in its mind, choosing the lesser of the two evils.

so OBL was better than the Soviets?????????????????????? I prefere the Soviets over the fundamentalists, thank you.


And France, politically, remains so. And spoiled child and a prostitute, with no loyalty to anyone but itself. France will reap what is soes.

the us not only has no loyalty to other countries (such as France which helped you after 11th september in afghanistan) but behaves as a world dictator, we won't let it happen.



The US-USSR alliance was one of convenience

sure, so was the French-USSR alliance. You guys remind me of Mc cartney but instead of (supposed) communists you target supposed islamists.

[takeo]

Duh, you're French!
Oh by the way, do you rent apartments? if yes, chances are I called you, we called an estimated 70 people for apartments!! And met countless people who were very willing to help. Helped 2 Dutch filles lately?

No, i'm not so rich, but I can always help you to find cheap accomodation. ;)

[Olivier]

Olivier, do you live anywhere near Nantes?no (hey we already talked about it in pm).

Keep on searching fast - after all the students find accomodation in september you're cooked !

[Olivier]

You guys remind me of Mc cartney but instead of (supposed) communists you target supposed islamists.ROLF tak you went a bit fast on that one... the Beatles have nothing to do in this :p

edit that before they jump you :p

[MGB8]

Did the Japanese attack the Americans in WWI? Takeo.

You continue to prove my point.

Poland? Please. First, I said "Western Democracies". Second, the US is, at nature, an isolationist state. We don't really like to get involved abroad, even though we have been and continue to be over and over again. But, this was particularly true before WW2, where the US's standard policy was neutrality in European wars.

In this battle between our natural alliegance to Democracies and our desire to remain uninvolved, we went to bat for the democracies. We lost OUR Blood and OUR Treasure - to rescue YOU. We didn't have to invade Normandy like we did. There were other ways to destroy the 3rd Reich. But we went into France.

Your lack of greatfullness over the decades and decades - the blood and treasure that the US has expended on Western Europe's behalf....its amazing...and its telling.

The US not loyal to France? What did France do or need that required American loyalty?

OBL....in the 80's, he wasn't an international terrorist! He was simply fighting the Soviets. Vietnam? Um...didn't the US get involved TO HELP THE FRIGGIN FRENCH!?!

Do you forget the "Domino theory". It may seem to have been incorrect...and we really don't know because of the amount of US opposition to those dominos falling...but ideologically it was rational and consistent.

And, of course, the HYPOCRISY of France. You STILL insist on the morality of France. But the only thing rational & consistent about French policy is absolute self-interest, a racist attitude towards other nations and ethnicities - not taking them seriously, and then, after dealing with whatever devil they deal with purely for French profits, they claim "but we are only being moral peoples!".

Spoiled, Hypocritical Prostitutes. That is French politicians.

[Mediocrates]

Let them argue about WW2. I expect them to claim soon that Russia and France were the only parties deployed against the axis.

[TDidier]

'George Bush is a doodyhead'

'-????'

I agree.

[takeo]

ROLF tak you went a bit fast on that one... the Beatles have nothing to do in this

edit that before they jump you

too late, so of course I mean Mc Carthy ... lol all those damn Irish and Scottish settlers! When searching on the internet I also found that he was anti-semitic and especially targetted Jews as being "communist"...


Poland? Please. First, I said "Western Democracies".

we were loyal to poland, a western ally, you weren't

Second, the US is, at nature, an isolationist state.

so now you prove the contrary of what you said just a few hours ago...

We don't really like to get involved abroad, even though we have been and continue to be over and over again. But, this was particularly true before WW2, where the US's standard policy was neutrality in European wars.

so was the policy of the USSR, they only got involved because they were forced to, as the US. Once involved in Europe, as the US, they didn't leave.


In this battle between our natural alliegance to Democracies and our desire to remain uninvolved, we went to bat for the democracies. We lost OUR Blood and OUR Treasure - to rescue YOU. We didn't have to invade Normandy like we did. There were other ways to destroy the 3rd Reich. But we went into France.

you went into France because you were afraid the Russians were advancing too rapidly, this has been confirmed by several WWII-specialists. You already went into Italy but from Italy it would have taken too long and difficult (the Alps) to reach germany. We are gratefull anyhow, of course, but we are gratefull to the Soviets as well. in France many streets are named after Stalingrad, where millions of Russians lost their life to fight nazism long before the invasion of Normandy. This is were the germans suffered their worst and bloodiest defeat. In the US I don't know if people are gratefull for this, even mill, WWII specialist, confirms this. In france the gaullist and communist resistence were equally strong and both fought the nazi's and the traitors.


The US not loyal to France? What did France do or need that required American loyalty?

we helped you big time during your war of independance, we gave large parts of the current US who were property of France, we also were on your side after 11th september and have troops in Afghanistan.


OBL....in the 80's, he wasn't an international terrorist! He was simply fighting the Soviets.

ah I get it, when he was killing Russians he was a freedom fighter, once he was killing Americans he became a terrorist, I get it!

Vietnam? Um...didn't the US get involved TO HELP THE FRIGGIN FRENCH!?!

the french were defeated and left Vietnam, they didn't ask the us to get involved, rather on the contrary, they adviced the US against getting involved in the region!


Do you forget the "Domino theory". It may seem to have been incorrect...and we really don't know because of the amount of US opposition to those dominos falling...but ideologically it was rational and consistent.

It wasn't, if Vietnamese choose to be communist so be it, your opposition to it and warcrimes only made their determination stronger. Vietnam and laos are still communist even today. Vietnam was not a strategical part of the world let alone for the US or Europe.
You also played the same criminal games in Central and South America, as if Nicaragua, Guatemala or chile were a big threat to us-security! It was more about US-dominance over the region than about communists according to me.


And, of course, the HYPOCRISY of France. You STILL insist on the morality of France. But the only thing rational & consistent about French policy is absolute self-interest, a racist attitude towards other nations and ethnicities - not taking them seriously, and then, after dealing with whatever devil they deal with purely for French profits, they claim "but we are only being moral peoples!".

how dare you to condamn us because we supposedly take other nations not serious, in the wake of the war against Iraq you took non of the many dozens of countries opposed to the war serious, neither the public opinion all over the world. Self-interest is part of our policy, it is the consistent part of your policy, and always was. (remember monroe-doctrine, etc.)


Spoiled, Hypocritical Prostitutes. That is French politicians.

i urgently remind you to stick to the rules of this forum.

[Mediocrates]

You don't get to make the rules. Your fury at that is just so.....French. Tough darts.

[takeo]

fine well if the rules are not applied you can abolish them... oh wait, they are being applied but only for some people not for others... this is so typical American...

[Mediocrates]

Sucks to be you dude. Take out a UN resolution and/or strap a bomb to your and jihad the US embassy in Paris. Or come to America and do that. You might not be able to find my house because apparently your only knowledge of the US consists of the South Bronx.

[Olivier]

fine well if the rules are not applied you can abolish them... oh wait, they are being applied but only for some people not for others... this is so typical American...this enfocrement of rules is very flexible toward offenders.. as long as they hold the "politically correct" anti-french hatred opinion.

[Mediocrates]

I agree.


Wow. Pinch me. Your billiance is like a million suns.

[Mediocrates]

this enfocrement of rules is very flexible toward offenders.. as long as the hold the "politically correct" anti-french hatred opinion.

Two professional liars commiserating with each other like Beavis and Butthead.

[MGB8]

Oh wow...I describe French politicians and politics for what they are, compared to what you have said about Sharon et al, and you have the nerve to be up in arms?

French hypocrisy demonstrated once again.

France was "loyal" to Poland? Um...how about Czeckosolvakia? France wasn't loyal to Poland, it was worried about itself...of course, this worry extended so deep that the French rather let the Nazi's take over than resist so that the cities would be damaged and more people killed. LOL.

As for your history, eventually the French did advise the US to get out...but they also, if I recall correctly - in 1954 the French ASKED THE US TO COME IN AND HELP.

But why would you bother telling the truth?

You still miss the main point. The US action are logically consistent with ideology, even if the ideology may have been a bit eccentric.

That said, the horrors of communism in the USSR and in China...and we don't know what the world would be like if the US hadn't so strenuosly opposed the expansionist tendancies of Communism. Certainly France would have been at risk...imagine a unified COMMUNIST Germany next door!

Meanwhile, the US cited the French better late than never help in the revolutionary war as one of the reasons to get into WW1.

But the French, utterly selfish and morally unconcerned, well...France has proven itself as despicable and dishonest a nation as there is. Like I said, at least the Russians, the Germans, and the Chineese are honest about their interests and actions. Certain posters on this board are truly a credit to their nation.

[Mediocrates]

No one really cares about WW2. We care only about what they do now. That in and of itself is enough for an indictment.

[Ahava]

No, i'm not so rich, but I can always help you to find cheap accomodation. ;)

You can? What, are you Superman?!
Anyway, thanks, but I have found something!! (and via a Jew en plus!)

[Ahava]

no (hey we already talked about it in pm).

Keep on searching fast - after all the students find accomodation in september you're cooked !

Like I said, I found something. After a hectic week that was. I've never searched so much and worked so hard. I accomplished mission impossible. :)

[Olivier]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivier
this enforcement of rules is very flexible toward offenders.. as long as the hold the "politically correct" anti-french hatred opinion. Two professional liars commiserating with each other like Beavis and Butthead.So let me ask you.

Did you read the rules of the forum. Do you really respect them? Why are you promoted a moderator, then?

[Mil]

Posted by Takeo:


you went into France because you were afraid the Russians were advancing too rapidly, this has been confirmed by several WWII-specialists.


WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTT????????????!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! SOURCE PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's the first one. One June 2, 1944 the Red Army was still waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy from anywhere close to defeating the Wermacht.

In the US I don't know if people are gratefull for this, even mill, WWII specialist, confirms this.


I do confirm. Wermacht was defeated in the East. I do confirm that by 1946 or 1947, according to serious WWII specialists, USSR would have reached the Channel. However, I do not confirm that Overlord had anything to do with latter. On the contrary the Soviet Union was blead white - Stalin was demanding a Second front since June 22, 1941. The forces the Soviets would use to push onto the Channel would primarily come from the "liberated" countries - mostly from Eastern Europe.


In france the gaullist and communist resistence were equally strong and both fought the nazi's and the traitors.

The French resistance and the role it has played has nothing to do with reality and is overblown out of all proportions - in Hollywood movies, by the way. The resistance did not approach even close to the partisan and the underground movements in Yugoslavia, Russia, Belarus, Poland or Ukraine.

[takeo]

Sucks to be you dude. Take out a UN resolution and/or strap a bomb to your and jihad the US embassy in Paris. Or come to America and do that. You might not be able to find my house because apparently your only knowledge of the US consists of the South Bronx.

I'm not such a violent intolerant su*ker as you are, I don't care for personal vendetta's because I don't like your opinion. YOU are the genocidal extremist in here, your hate against France is only comparable to the hate of Al-Quaida against the US. You wouldn't mind if someone would commit a terrorist act against France.




Oh wow...I describe French politicians and politics for what they are, compared to what you have said about Sharon et al, and you have the nerve to be up in arms?

i can say about Sharon anything I like as you can say anything you like about Chirac, problem is that you generalise against the entire nation and insult our nation.

France was "loyal" to Poland? Um...how about Czeckosolvakia?

noone was loyal to Czechslovakia, it was sacrificed in Munich by all western nations.

France wasn't loyal to Poland, it was worried about itself...

I can say exactly the same about US-involvement in wWII.



As for your history, eventually the French did advise the US to get out...but they also, if I recall correctly - in 1954 the French ASKED THE US TO COME IN AND HELP.

yeah but 1954 was long before the Vietnam-war really started. We learned from history in vietnam, you didn't.

But why would you bother telling the truth?

anything not corresponding to your truth is a lie, i noticed that many members on this forum have a very intolerant totalitarian attitude, comparable to the mc carthyism of the '50's.


You still miss the main point. The US action are logically consistent with ideology, even if the ideology may have been a bit eccentric.

so which ideology prescribed the support for genocidal regimes, military dictators and fundamentalists?

That said, the horrors of communism in the USSR and in China...

I would prefere a communist regime anytime over fundamentalism, and the people in Central Asia really really miss the Soviet Union, I can assure you. communists were harch but they had really a consistent policy and have attained a lot.


and we don't know what the world would be like if the US hadn't so strenuosly opposed the expansionist tendancies of Communism.

I don't know, perhaps the cold war would have been over much quicker, since social-democracy and communism were not as different as tought before. most communist parties in Eastern Europe reformed into social democratic parties with exactly the same people and now once again rule many Eastern European nations. Russia is ruled by the former KGB.



Certainly France would have been at risk...imagine a unified COMMUNIST Germany next door!

I don't think the risk was very large, western Germany didn't have a strong communist movement on the contrary to france and especially Italy. In Italy the us played some dirty tricks with the maffia and ultra-right groups to prevent the largest political party to take power. as I told you, in france most rightwing people were more afraid of the internal communists than of the soviet-Union.



But the French, utterly selfish and morally unconcerned, well...France has proven itself as despicable and dishonest a nation as there is. Like I said, at least the Russians, the Germans, and the Chineese are honest about their interests and actions. Certain posters on this board are truly a credit to their nation.

we are honest too about our interests, we have publicly admitted that our interests in Iraq were among the reasons to oppose the war, you claimed this war was all about safety and WMD's, a clear hypocritical lie. Now you claim it's about democracy and human rights, another clearcut lie.



You can? What, are you Superman?!

I have friends


Anyway, thanks, but I have found something!! (and via a Jew en plus!)

oh really, where exactly? :p

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTT????????????!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! SOURCE PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

enough sources, I'll give you some sources, wait a moment

That's the first one. One June 2, 1944 the Red Army was still waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy from anywhere close to defeating the Wermacht.

waaaay? They were advancing very rapidly and already in Eastern prussia if I'm not mistaken... But it's true that operation overlord has even accelerated their advance.



I do confirm. Wermacht was defeated in the East. I do confirm that by 1946 or 1947, according to serious WWII specialists, USSR would have reached the Channel.

I like to debate with you, you remain committed to the facts whatever your ideology.

However, I do not confirm that Overlord had anything to do with latter. On the contrary the Soviet Union was blead white - Stalin was demanding a Second front since June 22, 1941.

In 1941, of course, in 1941 the Soviets were really having a hard time and desperately waiting for a second front. But they already mostly defeated the Germans before the second front opened.

The forces the Soviets would use to push onto the Channel would primarily come from the "liberated" countries - mostly from Eastern Europe.

there were still enough reserve troops in the ussr, for example the ones stationed near vladivostok waiting in vain for a Japanese attack that never happened.



The French resistance and the role it has played has nothing to do with reality and is overblown out of all proportions - in Hollywood movies, by the way. The resistance did not approach even close to the partisan and the underground movements in Yugoslavia, Russia, Belarus, Poland or Ukraine.

you are right of course compared to the heroic self-liberation of Yugoslavia, Greece, the occupied soviet-territories, French resistence was rather weak. But compared to the Netherlands, Scandinavia and other western European countries French resistance was strong and numerous.

[Mil]

Posted by Takeo:

enough sources, I'll give you some sources, wait a moment


I can save you time searching - there aren't any. There aren't any.

waaaay? They were advancing very rapidly and already in Eastern prussia if I'm not mistaken... But it's true that operation overlord has even accelerated their advance.


No. On June 2, 1944 East Prussia, aka Kenigsburg/Kaliningrad, was not stormed yet - that was later in the fall. The real advance started with Operation Bagration on June 22, 1944 (destruction of Army Group Center and the liberation of Belarussia) and later with Konev's push on Brody in the South. Overall German losses in Bagration were over 350,000!!!! in just under 7 days plus 50,000 prisoners.

However, Overlord had nothing to do with competing with the Soviets.

In 1941, of course, in 1941 the Soviets were really having a hard time and desperately waiting for a second front. But they already mostly defeated the Germans before the second front opened.

No. On the contrary Werchmacht was in no way defeated on June 2, 1944. The Germans lost their operational capabilities - Yes, the German's were on the defensive - Yes, however, was the German army destoryed - NO. German military productions were at its highest level as were the mobilization numbers. By 1944 Germany had over 18,000,000 mobilized.

In 1944, the Soviets, were scraping the barrel of their reserves where most soldiers were immediately recruited from the liberated areas both Soviet and in Eastern Europe. For example by winter 1945 the first Polish Army was 100,000 strong - considered one of the strongest and best equipped formations in the RKKA.


there were still enough reserve troops in the ussr, for example the ones stationed near vladivostok waiting in vain for a Japanese attack that never happened.


Not enough in any way to accomodate Soviet requirements. The Eastern military district could account up to around 500,000 men - not enough for the size of Soviet operational requirements. In any case the Eastern military district had a real job - guarding the Soviet Eastern border against the Japanese. The Kwantung army in the neighboring China counted over 1,000,000 and was the strongest formation in the Emperial army. In August 1945 the Soviets in just under 12 days destroyed the entire Kwantung army where most of the manpower came from the Eastern military district.


you are right of course compared to the heroic self-liberation of Yugoslavia, Greece, the occupied soviet-territories, French resistence was rather weak. But compared to the Netherlands, Scandinavia and other western European countries French resistance was strong and numerous

For a 40 million large country the resistance, compared to the East with much smaller national populations, was all but non-existent.

[TDidier]

Wow. Pinch me. Your billiance is like a million suns.

thanks

[MGB8]

I am still amused at Takeo's idea of multiple "truths." Now, there are mutliple perspectives, but only one truth.

But Takeo is trying very hard to justify his "I will believe what I want to believe" approach.

In fact, it is takeo who doesn't take into account contingencies. It is takeo who doesn't take the Arabs or Iranians at their word when they are speaking to each other. Instead, he believes their propagandists, like the infamous Baghdad Bob or Saeb Erekat, regardless of whether their actions are consistent with the words they speak.

Its a silly, adolescent idealism without any pragmatism.

Moreover, certain statements above are simply not true. France, politically, HAS NEVER, NOT ONCE, admitted the impact of their business & political interests on their drive to oppose the war in Iraq. Meanwhile, there is NO EVIDENCE that the US did not truly believe that Saddam had WMD. As I demonstrated to Takeo in another thread, FRENCH INTELLIGENCE contributed to this - they believed that Saddam sought Uranium from Niger. They believed that Saddam's unnacounted WMD existed, and that more were in production.

Takeo, you live in your own dream world, but you don't have the luxury of having the lies that you hold as truth be let alone on this forum. They will be confronted, one by one, and you will be confronted. Because, Takeo, people don't believe things in a vacuum. They believe things because they WANT to believe certain things for certain REASONS. It is those reasons that are the true judge of character. And you are being judged, takeo, you are being judged.

[takeo]

I can save you time searching - there aren't any. There aren't any.

when have time, I will search it and post in a personal message, ok? I read ithis analysis somewhere on the net, will try to find it.

No. On June 2, 1944 East Prussia, aka Kenigsburg/Kaliningrad, was not stormed yet - that was later in the fall. The real advance started with Operation Bagration on June 22, 1944 (destruction of Army Group Center and the liberation of Belarussia) and later with Konev's push on Brody in the South. Overall German losses in Bagration were over 350,000!!!! in just under 7 days plus 50,000 prisoners.

that's right

However, Overlord had nothing to do with competing with the Soviets.

how do you know so sure?

No. On the contrary Werchmacht was in no way defeated on June 2, 1944. The Germans lost their operational capabilities - Yes, the German's were on the defensive - Yes, however, was the German army destoryed - NO. German military productions were at its highest level as were the mobilization numbers. By 1944 Germany had over 18,000,000 mobilized.

ok, German industry wasn't yet defeated but they lost incredible amounts of people as well as material, they had to recruit even among 16-year old children to cope with those losses.

In 1944, the Soviets, were scraping the barrel of their reserves where most soldiers were immediately recruited from the liberated areas both Soviet and in Eastern Europe. For example by winter 1945 the first Polish Army was 100,000 strong - considered one of the strongest and best equipped formations in the RKKA.

I don't think they were at the barrel of their reserves, but indeed the liberated areas provided new possibilities. however, the soviets were afraid to use Hungarians or Romanians who had been too cosy with the nazi's.


Not enough in any way to accomodate Soviet requirements. The Eastern military district could account up to around 500,000 men - not enough for the size of Soviet operational requirements. In any case the Eastern military district had a real job - guarding the Soviet Eastern border against the Japanese. The Kwantung army in the neighboring China counted over 1,000,000 and was the strongest formation in the Emperial army. In August 1945 the Soviets in just under 12 days destroyed the entire Kwantung army where most of the manpower came from the Eastern military district.

The chinese were poorly equipped and trained, on the contrary to the japanese. however indeed Stalin had plans in Eastern Asia, that's why he kept them there.

For a 40 million large country the resistance, compared to the East with much smaller national populations, was all but non-existent.

compared to the east even Brittish and American sacrifices and losses in the war were small.

I am still amused at Takeo's idea of multiple "truths." Now, there are mutliple perspectives, but only one truth.

yes, but yours is a perspective, not the truth.


In fact, it is takeo who doesn't take into account contingencies. It is takeo who doesn't take the Arabs or Iranians at their word when they are speaking to each other. Instead, he believes their propagandists, like the infamous Baghdad Bob or Saeb Erekat, regardless of whether their actions are consistent with the words they speak.

no, their actions are not always consistent with their words, but exactly the same can be said about Bush.

Its a silly, adolescent idealism without any pragmatism.

no, I'm realistic, you're believing in the ideology of Bush.

France, politically, HAS NEVER, NOT ONCE, admitted the impact of their business & political interests on their drive to oppose the war in Iraq.


t has, certainly in the national press many articles have been published about this subject.

Meanwhile, there is NO EVIDENCE that the US did not truly believe that Saddam had WMD.

come on, there are dozens of evidences and they had lots of information at their disposal from different sources which clearly doubted the existence of wMD in Iraq, but they choose to ignore those.

As I demonstrated to Takeo in another thread, FRENCH INTELLIGENCE contributed to this - they believed that Saddam sought Uranium from Niger. They believed that Saddam's unnacounted WMD existed, and that more were in production.

come on, this story was never accepted as truth, not even by France, even before the war started hans Blix and al-baradei publicly said this document was false. The reports indicated Saddam cooperated with the weapons inspections and that so far they didn't find any prooves of wMD in Iraq.
Many people all over the world, millions, didn't believe the existance of WMD's in Iraq (because of all those indications), if you believed it it was because you really wanted to believe it, it was the only excuse you had for invading Iraq.
All the rumous about Iraqi WMD's came either from American government sources, Brittish government sources or the Iraqi opposition, there were no credible ones among them, even the "evidences" demonstrated by powell in the unsc were extremely vague and unconvincing. according to Clarke, who was at the core of foreign decision-making during that time, Bush woiuld have searched for any excuse to invade Iraq.


Takeo, you live in your own dream world, but you don't have the luxury of having the lies that you hold as truth be let alone on this forum. They will be confronted, one by one, and you will be confronted.

they are no lies, I can proove them, you can't.

Because, Takeo, people don't believe things in a vacuum. They believe things because they WANT to believe certain things for certain REASONS. It is those reasons that are the true judge of character. And you are being judged, takeo, you are being judged.

so are you, so is Bush, I heard the latest polls show a slight majority of Americans would vote for kerry because they are not happy about the war in Iraq. Way to go!

[Mediocrates]

I just realized that all of this sh**t is in the wrong folder.

[Mil]

No sh****T.

[Mediocrates]

anyway she got convicted today - some probation some counselling. case closed.

[Mediocrates]

It's the Jew's fault the victim was not Jewish.

Lies and assumptions betrayed

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/700/op2.htm

A young French mother fabricates an attack by "dark-skinned" youths and all hell breaks loose. Then she apologises, not though, writes Azmi Bishara, to the real victims


A 23-year old French mother admitted to having lied when she said that she had been attacked on Friday, 9 July, by a gang of six youths whom she described as "dark-skinned, from North Africa and between 15 and 20 years old". Marie-Leonie LeBlanc apologised, but let's take a closer look at her statement: "I apologise to the president of the republic and to Minister Nicole Guedj and to all the people who came out to demonstrate in support of the lie I told. I am sorry for what I have done and I apologise to all those I have offended."

There's something very odd in that apology, something that just doesn't sit right. And that is because there is something that isn't right. She did not apologise to Arabs, Muslims, dark-skinned people or North Africans, unless these peoples managed to deduce that they were included in the all-embracing "all those I have offended". The only parties she apologised to by name were the president, who trumpeted his outrage for fear of the "beating" he would get if he didn't, the minister of state for victims' rights and the demonstrators against anti-Semitism in France whom she had misled. These are the people, in her opinion, or the opinion of the person who composed her apology, and perhaps in the opinion of the media that relayed it, who were the victims of her lie. As for the Arabs, a frank apology to them might get them thinking they're innocent and it wouldn't do to let that go to their heads. In all events, Arabs and Muslims were merely an incidental component of Marie's story, as we shall see, which is why they were so tangential in her apology.

The young French mother's story has a certain entertainment value. But then she appears to have had plenty of practice. According to the French police she has a long history of reporting assaults and attempted rapes and supplying evidence that has yet to lead to the discovery of the alleged perpetrators. This time, however, her fabrication, aided by her boyfriend, involved drawing a swastika on her belly -- the perfect illustrated story, taken right out of the textbook. The attack was said to have taken place on an RER suburban railway. There were six vicious Arab hooligans and 20 passengers none of whom made a move to help her as the gang tore her clothes, slashed at her with their knives, cut off her hair and knocked over the baby carriage carrying her 13-month-old child. These were truly brutal, heartless beasts.

To the Arabs and other minorities in Europe the story evokes those urban transit carriages packed with drunk and rowdy football fans and the nightmare of unprovoked attacks by skinheads and yobbos against Arabs, blacks and foreigners in general, and sometimes against the elderly and infirm. In Marie's story the image is reversed, with the Arabs cast as skinheads or neo-Nazis. Not bad for starters. Then to top it, the 20 passengers who remained passive or indifferent in the background become the metaphor for the silent European majority at the time of the rising tide of Nazism and the carting off of Jews to the concentration camps and gas chambers.

After the parade of politicians stepping forward to voice their condemnation of the crime, to demand the harshest penalties for the offenders and to deplore the continued existence of anti-Semitism in France, the French newspapers outdid one another in their commentaries and analyses. Editorial writers are always keen to be the first to hit upon that essential element that they believe has eluded everyone else. In this case we have one analyst who locates the crux of the issue in the passivity of the 20 passengers and another who expounds on this theme, condemning the 20 for failing to take action and not even attempting to call the police. It never occurred to these writers that those 20 mute accomplices did not speak out in their own defence because they existed only in European history, which had been summoned to have its conscience purged at the expense of hypothetical Arabs.

The Communist Party staged a demonstration on Wednesday and all organisations working against racism, including the League of French Muslims, denounced the atrocious crime, and atrocious it was as it was described. Sympathisers with the Arabs and their causes, and activists against racism directed against the Arabs and Muslims, took the occasion to affirm their opposition to all forms of racism, including anti- Semitism. And so they should. If a Jew is attacked because he is a Jew we should take a clear and unequivocal stance, without a hint of stuttering or the slightest reservation. The opposition to racism can brook no "buts". However, the problem is that the assault on "the train of hatred", as Le Figaro called it, was different. It never occurred.

What happens now that all those statements are echoing out there in the social, cultural and political space? Senior politicians have taken positions that were not even founded upon the woman's claims or prefaced by, "If what she said is true". But now they can't just retract their positions, which would have been proper if the crime had in fact occurred. Moreover, just as the woman did not apologise to Arabs and Muslims in general for her offence, the politicians cannot abandon a campaign that is morally sound, even if it was triggered by a lie. So what choice do they have? They now face that unpleasant task of having to justify not making any retractions. So that no one, God forfend, takes the fact that the woman lied to mean that anti-Semitism in France is also a lie, the task involves creating a climate that implies that anti-Semitism is an ever-lurking danger. Thus, they maintain that what they said still stands, regardless of the fact that the woman lied which, they say, is a separate issue for which she should be punished. Some have gone further and suggested that even if she did lie, a crime such as she described could have taken place.

There are undoubtedly remnants of anti-Semitism in Europe. However, the prevailing form of racism in France and elsewhere in Europe is directed against Arabs and Muslims. The fact is, therefore, the woman's lie is not a separate issue. Not when a young mother, or any other young man or woman, can provoke such paroxysms of anger and anxiety in a country -- indeed, several countries -- if she chooses her subject right. Not given the media, sensationalism and the mysterious way things become news. If the woman had reported that she had been attacked, without mentioning Muslims, Arabs and Jews, her story would not have sent such tremors through a society that was shaken not so much by the brutality of the alleged attack, but by who did it and why.

When we take into account that the woman was not Jewish and that she had no political or celebrity- seeking motives for lying, but that her reasons were purely personal, we begin to realise the full magnitude of the plight of Arabs and Muslims in the West. These minorities are now no more than obvious props in the fiction a depressed consumer created to vent her anger. Marie had purchased a car from a friend of her boyfriend but could not afford her monthly instalment, so she invented a tale of assault and theft, rather than having others think of her as irresponsible. But a mere theft was not good enough, because such things happen every day. She therefore felt that she had to be more convincing, and the "most believable" lie she could think of was that because she "looked Jewish" she was attacked by Arabs who thought she was Jewish.

What a fertile imagination! The tragedy is that the racist twist was purely an embellishment; what mattered to her was her car. She had not deliberately set out to incite hatred against a people whose barbarity she took for granted, just as she automatically presumed that Jews would be the natural victims of that barbarity. She also instinctively knew how broadly her assumptions were shared and how easily, therefore, people would believe her story. Perhaps, too, she assumed that this all was so much in the natural order of things that no one would give it a second thought. That's how successful the brainwashing against Arabs and Muslims in Europe has become. In all events, it just so happened that Marie's invented attack took place on the same day that an official report was released, stating that incidents of violence against Jews in France were higher in the first half of this year than in the same period last year.

Amidst the rush to condemn the alleged assault a prominent Zionist activist in France was far from comforted by the scope and fervour of the campaign against anti-Semitism and the "train of hatred".

"I fear that after this assault, non-Jews will once again blame us for their problems because they are attacked on the assumption that they are Jews."

The Arabs in Europe are really dangling and twisting in the wind. How are they to deal with these layers upon layers of racial attitudes and politics?

As for Sharon's appeal to French Jews to immigrate to Israel, this was the only official statement that had nothing to do with the non-existent assault, the lie and the apology. Such things are immaterial matters to Sharon. Sharon belongs to that generation of founding Zionist ideologues in Israel who want Jews of the diaspora to feel guilty for not having emigrated to Israel. This generation regards anti- Semitism not as a danger but as a natural given, and it regards the prosperity and well-being of Jews elsewhere in the world as a danger to Israel and Zionism. What is surprising about Sharon's appeal, then, is that it actually came as a surprise.

[Olivier]

anyway she got convicted today - some probation some counselling. case closed.
"case closed", but not "propangada closed".

For example the title of this thread is false. The funny thing is it's been modified but so that it is still an outright lie.

Semsem's thread, as usual. But impossible to spare even a little lie .... adding up to tons of anti-french hatred.