France threatened by Islamists

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ce_threat_dc_6

Don't want to be pessimistic but we're having elections on sunday ...

Ponrauil

Who will save France now? Not even intense disaccord with the United States over Iraq means squat to these people. I highly doubt we will be rushing in to offer assistance if it happens. I hope France's military is up for the challenge. Interestingly, I was just about to post this article I found. Ironic.



Mark Steyn: These guys want to kill us anyway

March 15, 2004
"THE bombs dropped on Baghdad exploded in Madrid!" declared one "peace" protester in Spain. Or as Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty put it, somewhat less vividly: "If this turns out to be Islamic extremists . . . it is more likely to be linked to the position that Spain and other allies took on issues such as Iraq."

By "other allies", he means you – yes, you, reading this on the bus to work in Australia. You may not have supported the war, or ever voted for John Howard, but you're now a target. In other words, this is "blowback". This is what you get when you side with the swaggering Texas gunslinger and his neocon Zionist sidekicks.

There are three responses to Commissioner Keelty:

1) Not necessarily.

In his penultimate public appearance, the late Osama bin Laden, broadcasting from his cave in the early hours of the Afghan campaign, listed among his principal grievances "the tragedy of Andalusia" – that is, the end of Muslim rule in Spain in 1492. That's 512 years ago, but the al-Qa'ida guys are in no mood to (as the Democrats used to urge Republicans in the Clinton impeachment era) "move on". After half a millennium, even Paula Jones would have thrown in the towel. But not these fellows. They're still settling scores from the 15th century. They might not get around to Johnny-come-lately grievances such as Iraq until the early 2600s.

2) Commissioner Keelty could be right.

The question then is what does a nation have to do to avoid being targeted by the Islamists. Canada refused to take part in the war on Iraq, but whoever makes Osama's audio tapes these days still named the disinclined dominion as one of al-Qa'ida's enemies. Ireland did no more than allow American aircraft to continue their practice of refuelling at Shannon but that was enough for Robert Fisk to volunteer them for a list of potential Islamist targets.

Turkey refused to let the US attack Iraq from its territory, but they made the mistake of permitting the British to maintain consular and commercial ties, so a bunch of Muslims in Istanbul got slaughtered anyway. France was second to none in the creative energy and elegant deviousness they brought to the undermining of Bush and Blair vis a vis Iraq, and the only thanks they got was the detonation of their oil tanker off the coast of Yemen.

Maybe you could avoid all that by overthrowing the Bush poodles and installing John Pilger as prime minister. But I wouldn't advise it. Before he became a born-again Baathist urging on the Iraqi resistance, Pilger's big pet cause was independence for East Timor, which seemed like a smart move at the time but has since been cited by the Islamofascists as one of the reasons they blew up Bali.

And that brings me to the best response to the commissioner:

3) It makes no difference.

Even if you'd avoided Iraq or Andalusia or British banks or Pilger or any other affront to Islamist sensibilities, you'd still be a target. As the PR guy for the Islamic Army of Aden said after blowing up that French tanker: "We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels." Commissioner Keelty is confusing old-school terrorism – blowing the legs off grannies as a means to an end – with the new: blowing the legs off grannies is the end. Old-school terrorists have relatively viable goals: They want a Basque state or Northern Ireland removed from the UK. You might not agree with these goals, you might not think them negotiable, but at least they're not stark staring insane.

That kind of finely calibrated terrorism – just enough slaughter to inconvenience the state into concessions – is all but over. Suppose you're an ETA cell. Suppose you were planning a car-bomb for next month – nothing fancy, just a dead Spanish official plus a couple of unlucky passers-by. Still want to go ahead with it? I doubt it. Despite Gerry Adams's attempts to distinguish between "unacceptable" terrorism and the supposedly more beneficial kind, these days it's a club with only one level of membership. That's why so many formerly active terrorist groups have been so quiet the past couple of years. In that sense, Bush is right: It is a "war on terror", and on many fronts it's being won.

If Islamic terrorism were as rational as Irish or Basque terrorism, it would be easier. But Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, summed it up very pithily: "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." You can be pro-America (Spain, Australia) or anti-America (France, Canada), but if you broke into the head cave in the Hindu Kush and checked out the hit list you'd be on it either way.

So the choice for pluralist democracies is simple: You can join Bush in taking the war to the terrorists, to their redoubts and sponsoring regimes. Despite the sneers that terrorism is a phenomenon and you can't wage war against a phenomenon, in fact you can – as the Royal Navy did very successfully against the malign phenomena of an earlier age, piracy and slavery.

Or you can stick your head in the sand and paint a burqa on your butt. But they'll blow it up anyway.

Mark Steyn is a columnist for Britain's Telegraph Group and the Chicago Sun-Times.

The title of this topic is a little misleading. Not only have the true perpetrators of the attack not been positively identified (they still aren't 100% sure its Al-Qaida), but France is neither threatened, nor is it threatened by the "islamists." France suffered a recent tragedy, I'll admit. But to say that one bombing constitutes an ongoing threat...is, well, ludicrous. Also, "Islamists" (I think they're called Muslims) did not attack France. Even if Al-Qaida attacked France, just because they're Muslim does not mean France is threatened by Islam or anything. A religion cannot attack or threaten anything, and Al-Qaida is fringe-Islam anyway. They're acting without the approval of their religious peers.

Adrian

"Islamists" rofl

and yah, as people pointed out the war on terror has to nothing to do with it, its "we're (extremist) muslims, you're western infidels"

Have you read the article Adrian? France has received a letter clearly threatening it of terrorist acts such as the ones in 1995 in the Paris underground.
France hasn't suffered a recent tragedy, Spain has.
Islamists are muslim extremists/integrists, there's a huge difference with "normal" muslims. I know perfectly well that their religious peers condemn violence as much as anybody else, and I do not make any amalgam here and do not feel threatened by Islam.

Ponrauil

Not wanting to say i told you so but in the run up to the war I was constantly sayign that wether you support the war or not, you're a target.

If you live int he West, you are a target. Simple as that.

And I pointed out the exact same thing to KRB. The IRA wanted home rule for Northern ireland, ETA want a seperate Basque region. All these filthy bastards want is the annihilation of the West.

Tellign you people, get yourself armed cos it's going to go downhill in the near future.

Ok, really stuck my foot in my mouth there...humblest apologies... I thought the article about how the "Bombs dropped in Baghdad exploded in Madrid" WAS the article, just reprinted. Really sorry... (and yes, I know Madrid is not in France...wow do I feel stupid now...and with good reason)

RIGHT ON!!! I don't think we as a whole have anything to fear from an all-out blitzkrieg by muslim fanatics (though armed citizens would've made short work of the 9/11 hijackers), but we do have something to fear from the people who would try and stop the "terrorists."

Adrian

errr Adrian, Jim is one of those people :]

damn right man and why the **** not?

Foer the greater good i say.

Same goes to all these fanny's that try to protect the bastards "human rights"

human shields around Saddams palaces... nice one lads ;d