The Cease Fire (analysis from Stratfor)

[Momus--]

4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.

[Edbert1]

Originally posted by Momus--
Says the guy who was whining about personal attacks merely days ago. Brilliant.

Saying that France's internal security methods as quoted in the article of detaining people without charges and police checkpoints ("spot ID checks") are similar tactics to those used by the Nazis when France was occupied does not equal a personal attack. I guess the nerves over Hitler's famous walk through downtown Paris are still close to the surface for some, close enough for it to be taken PERSONAL instead of historical.


...and for the record, France's long history of colonialism around the world is NOT any sort of justification for terrorism...ever...period!

I did not think I'd have to say that "out loud", I just wanted to clear that up in case anyone else thought I was in any way justifying it. If a 'resistance' wants to form to fight against an occupying force, be it in Algeirs, Vietnam, or Bahgad then more power to them and I might even have some sympathy with their cause, since I would be the same way if another country were occupying mine. But when they direct their resitance against civilian "soft targets" instead of military assets then they lose any intellectual/moral/human sympathy whatsoever.

[straffo]

Originally posted by lukster
If you're referring to the LA riots of the 90's they were about perceived injustice and brutality of police against a minority race. If by "cristina" you mean "katrina" there was looting but no real rioting.

I think your recent rioting in France was very similar to the Rodney King riots in LA.

well I was thinking of Christians

[lukster]

Originally posted by straffo
well I was thinking of Christians

When did the "Christians" riot here in the US? Oh, I see what you're saying. Trust me, not all of those rioting in LA were christian. Islam is a fast growing religion among blacks in america.

[Momus--]

Originally posted by Edbert1
Saying that France's internal security methods as quoted in the article of detaining people without charges and police checkpoints ("spot ID checks") are similar tactics to those used by the Nazis when France was occupied does not equal a personal attack. I guess the nerves over Hitler's famous walk through downtown Paris are still close to the surface for some, close enough for it to be taken PERSONAL instead of historical.

No. You just labelled France as a totalitarian state and implied they used tactics comparable to the Nazis in a post directed at a frenchman while such a slur added nothing at all to the debate.

...and for the record, France's long history of colonialism around the world is NOT any sort of justification for terrorism...ever...period!

Who said anything about justification? You said the terrorism was a result of "French" colonialism.  I asked why you've got such a problem with the same thing being true in other parts of the middle-east? You haven't answered that yet. Why not?

[PonyDriver]

4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.

[Pooh21]

Originally posted by PonyDriver
See Rule #4

[Edbert1]

Momus, for some reason you are a particularly obtuse person to have a conversation with, I'm starting to question why I try.

Originally posted by Momus--
You just labelled France as a totalitarian state...

I said totalitarian paradise, meaning a place where folks who like living under totalitarian rule would not find objectionable. We here in the USA (most of us at least) would find such tactics objectionable. The same is true for my comment about being a socialist paradise, while there's a growing number of Americans who would like to see us join the ranks of socialist paradises, I am not one of them.

Originally posted by Momus--

...and implied they used tactics comparable to the Nazis in a post directed at a frenchman while such a slur added nothing at all to the debate.

The tactics are similar, truth does not equal a slur, and saying that such tactics are totalitarian does not equal a personal attack.

Originally posted by Momus--

Who said anything about justification? You said the terrorism was a result of "French" colonialism.  

Decades of colonial rule will often result in an uprising, it happened to your King as well (I am assuming you are from the UK, perhaps wrongly) when we were ruled via totalitarian techniques by colonial rulers, but when said resistance resorts to terrorism it looses all justification on intellectual/ethical/human grounds. What is so hard to figure out about that?

Originally posted by Momus--

I asked why you've got such a problem with the same thing being true in other parts of the middle-east? You haven't answered that yet. Why not?

Where in the middle east, nay...anywhere  is the USA engaged in colonialism, anywhere except perhaps Guam and Puerto Rico?

[Momus--]

Originally snivelled by PonyDriver
See Rule #4

Translation: Ponydriver has no argument....

Glad we got that cleared up then.

Originally posted by Edbert
I said totalitarian paradise, meaning a place where folks who like living under totalitarian rule would not find objectionable

And France isn't a totalitarian state or paradise by any possible stretch. Furthermore, no reasonable person would label it as such; therefore you're either unreasonably ignorant or trolling for effect. People can make their own mind up as to which..

The tactics are similar, truth does not equal a slur

See the point above.

Decades of colonial rule will often result in an uprising, it happened to your King as well (I am assuming you are from the UK, perhaps wrongly) when we were ruled via totalitarian techniques by colonial rulers, but when said resistance resorts to terrorism it looses all justification on intellectual/ethical/human grounds. What is so hard to figure out about that?/

That's a great statement on...well, whatever it was about. I'm not quite sure which point it is addressing though...

Where in the middle east, nay...anywhere is the USA engaged in colonialism, anywhere except perhaps Guam and Puerto Rico?

I'll repeat the question from earlier that you still haven't answered.

I also find it interesting that you're happy to attribute terrorism against France to the consequences of their actions in Algeria but have trouble acknowledging that the Iraqi insurgency is a consequence of anglo-US actions in Iraq[....] Care to explain the logic of that apparent contradiction?

When you've done with that one, how about another you still haven't answered?

Which terrorists does France support, and how? Details please, with sources.

Whenever you're ready..

[weaselsan]

[Edbert1]

Originally posted by Momus--

That's a great statement on...well, whatever it was about. I'm not quite sure which point it is addressing though...

I'm trying to explain to you the difference in nuance between "result" and "justification", you have asked repeatedly and I've tried repeatedly. one more time....nahhhh....I am finished trying. Enjoy your trolling, cya.

[straffo]

Originally posted by Edbert1
Momus, for some reason you are a particularly obtuse person to have a conversation with, I'm starting to question why I try.

My sole reaction reading your post was "C'est l'hopital qui se moque de la Charité" (I think the correct translation is : "the pot calling the kettle black")

And I skipped the rest

[Momus--]

Funny Edbert,

You label a major democracy a totalitarian and terrorist-supporting state then dance around the fact that you can't back it up for a few posts, and then you call me a troll for calling you on it?

[wetrat]

Originally posted by Rolex
Is it because they are Arabs and Arab Islamics are the "fear de jour?"

Yes. It also doesn't hurt that there are far more economic interests in the region for the US than there are in Asia and Africa. Thus, the middle east gets the media coverage, while the west gives a collective "tough ****" to Africa.

[Edbert1]

Originally posted by straffo
And I skipped the rest

Don't feel bad, he did too, all the while saying I was not answering him. That is assuming he's not so dense as to not see me answer or elaborate, over and over and over. Maybe it was the use of complex sentences that made it hard to understand. Let me try to make some simple and short statements that he can understand, not that it will help...
===================================

France uses techniques at home that would be unconstitutional in the USA.

Such techniques are considered to be totalitarian by many, inlcuding liberals.

Such techniques were used by the Nazis.

I object to such totalitarian techniqes.

The term "totalitarian state" implies there is no freedom.

I do not beleive France is a totalitarian state.

I beleive that colonialism breeds contempt among the colonials.

The USA is not a colonial power, in fact is was once a colony itself.

I beleive that the majority of the violence in Iraq today is not an insurgency.

I beleive the majority of the violence in iraq is a civil war.

I beleive the people of Iraq are not ready/willing/able to have a peaceful democracy any time soon.

I do understand why they want the US military out of their country, we want that too.

I do not understand why they choose civil war.

They are more afraid of the terrorists than they are of us.

I do beleive that the USA has mishandled the post-war situation in Iraq.

I beleive that Lebanon/Iran/Syria are states which sponsor terrorism.

I beleive Hezbollah/Hamas/PLO/AlQuaeda are terrorist organizations.

I beleive there are secular Arab governments in the ME who are not state-sponsors of terrorism.

I beleive terrorists live in those states that do not sponsor it at the state level.

I beleive there can be no negotiation with terrorists.

I don't beleive we should try to understand them.

I do not beleive they can be redirected from their jihad.

I beleive the only way to defeat them is to kill as many of them as possible.

I beleive that France is not willing to confront the threats of terrorism in the ME.

I beleive that France has sided with Hezbollah and Iran in the recent flare-up in Lebanon.

I beleive that France is putting short-term economic interests above the long term defeat of Islamofacists.

I beleive that France is willing to let their grandchildren deal with the problem.

I want the terrorists dead or marginalized before my time on earth is passed so my grandkids wont have to.

I beleive that the USA has let Israel down by not holding off the UN brokered rearm plan for Hezbollah.

I beleive Olmert has failed to destroy Hezbollah, he blinked.

I beleive there will be another conflict between Hezbollah and Israel in Lebanon.

I beleive other members of the UN-SC want the rearm period because they sell arms to Hezbollah.

I beleive most of the second page of this thread should have been in the "France sides with Hezbollah" thread.

I beleive that when you ignore someone's answer to your questions and ask the question again you are trolling.

I beleive he's trying to get this thread locked like the other one.

I will not respond to any more trolls from Momus.