Explaining French anti-americanism (an attempt to)Follow

The "let's appease them by leaving Saudi Arabia and invading another Muslim country" part. Or, more accurately, I do "get it", and think it's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. You know as well as me it doesnt make any sense whatsoever. And as for the "its the *real* reason"... Ha. So how come it took them 3 years to come with that one? Cos it was a secret? No, because these are all ad-hoc justifications from an administration that's run out of excuses for the crap they got the US into. You're just following their stupid propaganda like a little poodle.



Hehe. So, have you interviewd "every single one of them"? Or are you just talking out of your *** again?

Mujahaddens care about Iraq, you mindless drone. Otherwise they wouldnt have turned the place into the hotbed of terrorism and militant Islam, would they? And we can all perfectly see how Iraq is now a "regional" issue. Obviously.

If you had the slightest understanding of Islam, you would know that they consider themselves to be all brother, and to belong to teh nation of Islam. So Iraq/Saudi, same difference for difference. Both are Muslim countries. If you think Islamists will be appeased by the withdrawal of troops from Saudi Arabia because of an invasion of another Muslmi country, then all hope is lost for you to understand how these people think.



Not because of Saudi Arabia. Nor Palestine. Once again, these are excuses, just like your "leaving Saudi Arabia" excuse. It's bullsh*t thats used to justify actions which had other causes.



No, it wasn't. Don't fool yourself. 9/11 took 30 people to plan and execute. And some money, but not even that much. If you think that because you withdraw from Saudi Arabia then Islamic terrorist attacks will stop, then you are completely desillusional and ignorant on this issue. If only it was that simple.

Then, it obviously wasnt US troops on Iraq soil that caused 9/11, cos you werent there yet. Ever heard Bin Laden's (or his henchmen) recent statements? Well if you did, you'd find out, amazingly that Iraq has become the number 1 preoccupation for these @#%^ers.



Hehe. If only it was that simple. You're wrong, and you'll find it out the day US troops leave Saudi Arabia and nothing will ahve changed. When it wont be Saudi Arabia, it will be Palestine. Then Iraq, then Chechnia, then the ban of the veil in France, then the Egyptian governemtn, then the Algerian one, etc... These nutcaes have a billion jsutification for their action and if you think you can boil it down to one, then the world must be a simple and happy place for you.




The why didn't the Republicans just withdrew their troops from Saudi Arabia without invading Iraq? Post them in Kuwait instead. Or Jordan. Or Egypt. Your argument is the stupidest in a long line of stupid arguments to jsutify the Iraq war. Even more so when you make it sound like its the *real* one.

Iraq had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism before the invasion. Saddam Hussein was a Baathist, an Arab nationalist, his biggest regional ennemy was Iran. Saddam Hussein biggest internal threat was... Islamic Terrorism! So please, read some non-Fox-sponsored books on the subject. Just once.

But I dont really expect you to understand the complexities of the region.




It's not rocket science, but it's still wrong. I have read and heard many thing on the subject, and once again, US troops on Saudi soil was no more than an excuse amongst lots of other stupid ones.

Once again, Islamic terrorism does not have a single cause. And if it has, its poverty, not @#%^ing US troops on Saudi soil. For people to blow themselves up, they must be pretty @#%^ed up to have been brainwashed like this, and must be pretty desperate.

Now, most Muslims are unhappy about Palestine, about US troops on Saudi soil, about Chechnia, about the corrupted despotic governements of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Algeria. But they wont blow themselves up over it. To cross that line, it takes more than a few US boots in the desert.

By the way, read up about what the US did with the Pakistani secret services during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Like, the small business of how they helped to arm and train the Talibans, for exemple. It wont fit into your simplified dumbed-down theory, but it might be sueful nonetheless.

Edited, Jun 20th 2006 at 5:14am EDT by RedPhoenixxxxxx

As a minor hijack: I never did understand why people argue with gbaji. He is always so self assured and comes across as such a believer in what he writes that at first you too believe what he says but read into and think about what he says and you will come away wondering what the hel he has been smoking. He is either the biggest (re:gullible) Republican apologist and shill most of us will ever run across outside of a Fox 'news' program or he is the wiliest troll to, well, troll these parts. I vote for the former, if it was the latter why wouldn't he troll a political forum rather than waste his time here?


In other words ignore the ****. He's a believer. You are just wasting your time and feeding his ego.

The problem with this situation, is that these people vote, and they vote in quantities that matter! The more moderate (generally younger) voters who tend to lean toward modern values and could potentially remove the Dubya gang often times can't be bothered to turn in their ballots. However, "believers" like Gbaji are generally whipped into action by their churches and right wing organizations. If you are interested, here is a link to the voter demographics from 2004:

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/004986.html

Here are a couple of interesting points from the page:



(Whitey tends to be more conservative)



(Older frequently = conservative)



(Do I need to comment on this one?)

Please note that I can't currently support the comments in parentheses with data. (I tried a few sites but couldn't find demographic data that connects to party affiliation and don't have that much time at the moment) Anyway, I hope I have made the point that people like Gbaji may be fun for debate, but can do serious damage when voting.

Yeah, I don't doubt it. We all saw in 2004 in the US, and in 2002 in France when we had Jean-Marie Lepen at the second round of the presidential election.

But, all this is like a pendula. It swings one way until it goes too far, and then swings the other way. Hopefully younger voters will realise that if you dont vote, you leave the door open for nutcases like these.

I understand young voter's apathy though. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. It often feels like you're choosing between the lesser of two evils. And I also think the American system does not give enough choice. Two parties, both funded by corporations, both constantly under pressure from lobbyist and donours, does not make for a healthy political system in my opinion. And I guess voting can make you feel like you are passively legitimising the system.

But still, gbaji is the dark side of the force, and its interesting to see how it thinks, sometimes.

Edited, Jun 20th 2006 at 11:36am EDT by RedPhoenixxxxxx

Hmmm... So Red totally disagrees with me, but not because I'm factually wrong but because not very many people in France agree with me? That's kind of a strange argument to make.


Here's an interesting page

This is one of those gems you can find out there on the internet. It's pre-9/11. Of interest is the interview Bin Laden gave in 1998. Some bits:



But it's not about Saudi Arabia is it?

Just in case you're *still* confused, here's the bits about his Fatwas



Heck. The freakign title of his second Fatwa isn't exactly confusing is it? How much proof do you need before you'll accept that 9/11 happened because the US had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia? Sheesh!


I've got cold hard fact on my side. Bin Laden's own words stating why he's calling for the killing of American's. What do you have?

Edited, Jun 20th 2006 at 9:07pm EDT by gbaji

''

Edited, Jun 21st 2006 at 12:16am EDT by paulsol

Red, let me explain something: we don't give a rat's *** what you frogs think.

The mistake we made was in getting involved in WW1 and giving you bastards the illusion you'd won. We should have let you fight and fight until all sides admited no one could win that war. But no - we handed you victory, like idiots.

Did you create a lasting peace? Fugg no. WW1 was a fuster cluck of monumental proportions, an ego duel - everyone was guilty. But you frog bastards wouldn't admit to it - had to make the krauts the culprit - had to punish them into economic ruin - you frogs created Hitler. And what did we do? We came back a second time and literally saved your asses. You would be speaking German if we Americans were the kind of mamby-pamby candy asses you, furiously and futilely waving your little fairy wands, wish you could turn us into now.

You can't stand it that instead of punishing the conquered nations after WW2, we forgave them and allowed them to flourish. Without any help from from you party poopers, we held the Soviets out of Europe and eventually wore them out.

You had your day in sun, frog, and you blew it.

You frogs can't stand it that you're no longer an important country, that as each year goes by you slip further and further into insignificance.

Yeah, I'm stickin' it to you, frog, stickin' it right through your amphibian spleen! You're no friend of ours. You never have been, and you never will be. So again, I say we don't give a rat's *** what you frogs think. Kindly go to hell already. Save all your posturing and your psuedo-intellectual bullcrap.

This is a pissing contesnt, and you've been hosed.

Well, what do you expect from a country whose high-water mark came while enslaved to a Corsican midget?

Talk about rhetoric! So Dems are ultimately responsible for 9/11?




Could the similar be said to an outsider looking into the local psyche of the US?

Edited, Jun 21st 2006 at 3:25am EDT by Rimesume

To be honest, it's not working out that bad. The first generation of Muslim immigrants were very Westernised. They left oppressive regimes,like Morrocco and Algeria, and integrated very well: Women stopped wearing the veil, men worked hard in ****** jobs, it was all pretty good. Then they had kids, and its those kids that are the problem. They dont feel French, cos they're not white and dont feel integrated, and yet they're not Aglerian/Morroccon either. So they're lost, poor, and therefore pissed off. The fact that the French states refuses to acknoledge the problem makes it even worse.

So yeah, it's pretty ****** up. But it's not so much a problem with Islam as such. Islam has tens of different branches, all very different. Clustering them up into "Muzzos" doesn't help, nor is it accurate. Islam, and religion in general, is nothing but what the people make it. Puritans, fanatics, murderers, stupid customs, you're ve got those in all religions. At the moment its the Muslims, but yesterday it was the Christains, and tomorrow **** knows what it'll be.

Though, rioting is an integral part of French culture, so at least the kids are trying.

And you are speaking on who's behalf exactly? America as a whole? Or should that "we" be replaced by "I"?

In which case, next time, just dont open the thread, don't read it, save the few braincells you have left, and have your oh-so-tough-and-macho pissing contest with your friends at the special kids unit.

If at some point, however, you manage to write more than the usual incoherent, non-sensical, stereoids-fuelled, five-year old bullcrap you've just spewed, then I'd be happy to talk.

Until then, enjoy your projected nationalistic-greatness which must surely compensate for your tiny ***** and your miserable state of mind.

Edited, Jun 21st 2006 at 5:11am EDT by RedPhoenixxxxxx

RACK Middle Eastern kids rioting just to fit in. Perhaps we could send you South Central LA's disquieted youth in a cross-cultural rioting exchange program? I understand the homies and chulos are up to date on the latest car burning techniques.

Totem

Wow. You really have your head far down in that sand, dont you? Those are called quotes. What the hell am I supposed to do? We're debating the motivations of OBL and Al-queda in the context of the 9/11 attacks. It would seem like quoting OBL himself and the words in the Fatwas he wrote, which directly spell out why he's directing his people to attack us would seem to be supremely relevant to the topic at hand.


I'm curious. What would be better? Cause I just can't see how anything can be more proven then that.

I've posted links. I've provided quotes. What have you got? Nothing but blind faith in your belief. But I don't understand the issue. Got it. Sheesh!




How liberal of you to assume it's all about apeasement. Why am I not surprised...?