Here Today... Gone To Hell!

France is 'enemy No 1'
27/09/2005 22:42? - (SA)?

Paris - An Algerian Islamist organisation, the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), has issued a call for action against France, which it describes as "enemy No 1", intelligence officials said on Tuesday.

"The only way to teach France to behave is jihad and the Islamic martyr," said the group's leader, Abu Mossab Abdelwadoud, also known as Abdelmalek Dourkdal, in an internet message earlier this month.

He was quoted as saying: "France is our enemy No 1, the enemy of our religion, the enemy of our community."

France was mentioned 15 times in the text and the Algerian government was also targeted, said the officials.

Nine people detained in a series of raids west of Paris on Monday are suspected members of the GSPC, officials have said.

They were being questioned for a second day on Tuesday at the headquarters of the DST domestic intelligence agency.

Interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy said on Monday the risk of terrorist attack in France is "at a very high level... There are cells operating on our territory".

The GSPC was created from a split in the Armed Islamic Group, the main force in Algeria's long insurgency, which was also responsible for a series of bombings in France in 1995.


http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,6119,2-10-1462_1807396,00.html

........And I always thought France was the most lenient on terrorism.

They're probably running out of countries to target.  :-\

Guess you were wrong on this one ... many people were arrested near Paris a week ago. And the banning of the islamic veil for  girls in schools wasn't well accepted in arabian countries ...

People always "forget" facts when it suits their needs......


(http://tinypic.com/ejwmyp.jpg)

Does it surprise you?. Yes France is a target, like every non-islamic state. It's a war. Nothing surprising. We've heard about possible terrorist attacks in France for years.

It doesn't surprise me at all.

And also, I don't think France has been the most lenient on terrorism. Particularly on the home front, France has arguably been more aggressive than America. Unlike Britain and America, which have handicapped themselves by caring more about terrorists' civil liberties than their citizens' right to life, French authorities don't have qualms about harassing people they suspect of being extremists. In the US, people would scream bloody murder that God forbid a middle easterner was "profiled" ::) We could learn a lot from Fracne when it comes to fighting terrorism domestically.

I have to agree for once, i think France's slightly less cowardly approach to dealing with terrorism is something the rest of the world could at the very least take a long hard look at

See my thread on profiling to get the liberal point of view of that Izzy. 

It would  never work here with leftist crying foul and the alcu protecting them as well.  I hope France is successful with their approach (I think they will be more so than the US if they can profile without being called racists). 

 

oh yeah, god forbid we profile.  ::)

here's a great editorial on this very issue, courtesy of Michael Smerconish. It appeared in yesterday's Philadelphia Daily News.


Michael Smerconish | CONGRESSMAN, PLEASE DO SOMETHING!


IF YOU agree with this, please clip it, sign it and mail it to your congressman or U.S. senator.

Dear Rep. ________________:

Washington, D.C. 20515

Or (cross out one)

Dear Sen. ________________:

Washington, D.C. 20510

I'm one of many people who believe that the forces of political correctness play too dominant a role in determining who is selected for secondary screening at airports. Current policy ignores the common traits of those who threaten the U.S. and wastes precious resources on individuals who pose no risk.

To make this point, I wish to share with you the details of the recent commercial travel of U.S. Army Capt. Adam Cubbage. After you have acquainted yourself with these facts, I would like to hear from you as to whether you agree with me that Capt. Cubbage's story is symptomatic of an airport-screening system that remains misguided four years post-9/11, and I would like to know what you are prepared to do to bring about change.

Capt. Cubbage is a 29-year-old soldier serving with the Army's 173rd Airborne Brigade. The 173rd is the smallest combat unit in the world but has played a frontline role in the war on terror. Nine of its 1,000 members have recently given their lives in service to our nation.

Cap. Cubbage and his fellow soldiers parachuted into northern Iraq shortly after the invasion began. The 173rd fought two divisions of Saddam's Republican Guard. It captured an air field and secured oil supplies. Capt. Cubbage was awarded the combat parachute badge and a Bronze Star for his service in Iraq. He and his unit have since been deployed to Afghanistan.

Capt. Cubbage was recently given two weeks' leave to come home to Philadelphia and celebrate the birth of his first child, Adam Jr., who weighed in at a healthy 7 pounds, 12 ounces.

At the end of his leave, on Oct. 9, Capt. Cubbage arrived at Terminal D, Philadelphia International Airport, to begin his long journey back to Afghanistan. He was taken to the airport by his parents (his father, Patrick Cubbage, is himself a veteran of the 173rd).

These three members of the Cubbage family arrived two hours before Capt. Cubbage's 8 a.m. departure. The first leg of his journey was to be aboard a commercial flight on Air Tran.

Please picture this scene: Capt. Cubbage, proud new father in his BDUs (battle dress uniform), with his parents!

Capt. Cubbage presented his identification, orders and tickets at the Air Tran counter. He and his parents were given gate passes. In line, before reaching the next screening point, Capt. Cubbage again showed his ID.

Upon approaching the magnetometer, and after showing identification for the third time, Capt. Cubbage and his parents were told by a TSA representative that they had been identified for secondary, or random, screening! This American hero was then asked to remove his combat boots and outer garments to be fully "wanded."

I find the treatment of Capt. Cubbage to be appalling, driven by political correctness and disrespectful of the uniform this proud American was wearing.

You have to wonder who is NOT being subjected to secondary screening as time and effort are wasted on a man like Adam Cubbage.

The sad reality of 9/11 is that America was victimized by individuals who had ethnicity, gender and appearance in common. Capt. Cubbage possesses none of those characteristics. What possible justification can exist for subjecting a military man in uniform with his orders in hand to random screening?

It's time to stop the charade that is airport screening and focus on those who present a real threat.

I want to know what you intend to stop the selection of soldiers like Capt. Cubbage for random screening at airports, and I await your reply.

Sincerely,

? _________________________

Address:

? __________________________

? ________________________

I'll give ur neo-Nazi posts a miss i think :peace:

I am indifferent to profiling, but a mature approach to terroism seems to be beyond the UK/US so maybe France's ideas should be carefully assesed - they must have some sense after all as they didn't invade Iraq :P

Actually, it's not profiling if the police, or whatever law enforcing organisation is in charge, actually have evidence that the suspect is a member of a terrorist cell or there is evidence that the suspect may be involved in terrorist activity. The French authorities did indeed have such evidence to support their arrest and did not arrest them because of their appearence, nationality or skin colour. Read what you posted.


There was clearly efficient evidence, besides the suspects being Muslims, to support their suspicions.

I never said this was an example of profiling ::)

Don't try to make me look like a liar, you and other people commented on the French's tactics of counter-terrorism and claimed that in the US their methods would be classed as profiling. Despite what you may think I'm not a fool, I didn't just bring profiling up from nowhere.




Still feel like rolling your eyes?

No, I feel like ignoring you because you take things out of context, mix it up with things other have said, and you don't get the point of what we wrote in the first place.

I never said the 9 people arrested in the article I posted was an example of profiling. This isn't the only occurrence in history that the French have gone after extremists.

What am i mixing up? you and others blatantly brought up profiling. No two ways, mixing up, taking out of context about it, if you meant it in some other way or it's some little in-joke then don't bring it up. You got called out for something you said and now you're blatantly denying it. It's there in black and white.

everything

Since everything has to be spelled out for you, I was commending France's domestic efforts against terrorism, not accusing them of profiling ::) ::) ::) ::)

Profiling ? The results of the last arrests are due to infiltration in the extremist mosquees and months of invigilation. Profiling is arresting at random in the street because of the people's color or religion. That's clearly not the case so I don't understand why profiling was brought up.

And our civil liberties are not tainted by our method to counter extermism. We have a republic (since the third) in which it's forbidden to arbor religious signs in public schools. And we don't actually have the same notions of freedom of speech.

Yes, profiling clearly doesn't have to do anything with that last arrest. It was brought because I commended France for its "offensive harassment" policy against suspected extremists, which in the US would be decried as "profiling." But some people mistakenly thought I was talking about the Sept. 27 arrests.

I'm glad to see this kind of comments here, they're pretty rare. :)

I'm not a big fan of our Secretary of State (Domestic Affairs Minister in French), Sarkozy, but the other night on TV he said France would kick the fuck out of our country any foreigner who would publicly rant unrepublican (in the sense of against the Constitution) stuff, like fatwas and all that shit. He said foreign imams (muslim equivalent of priests) should learn to speak French and integrate France if they want to spread their teachings here, and I agree with him. But anti-American or anti-French or anti-West teachings and masses would not be allowed.

Yes exactly you said in the US their actions would be viewed as profiling, assuming you meant by liberals, I pointed out the fact that the nature of these arrests could in no possible way be classed as profiling as the French authorities had evidence that the suspects were members of a terrorist cell. I never meant to say you were accusing them of profiling what I meant to clear up, that despite what you and other posters think noone else is going to accuse them of profiling. You seem to have some ridiculous idea that anyone with liberal views is in some way sympathetic of terrorism and that the minute a terrorist is arrested we will cry foul. As long as there is evidence to support it, I have no problems, as a matter of fact, I support the arrest of terrorists, and simply did not want people like you misrepresenting my point of view by lumping everyone with similar moral standards as mine into one by saying every liberal is going to say this is an example of profiling.? ::)? ::)? ::)? ::)? ?::)? ::)? ::)? ::)? ?::) See we can all use obnoxious smilies to make other people look like liars.

Why are you putting words in my mouth? Using smilies can't make anyone look like a liar. It's your actions and/or ignorance that make you look like a liar. I never said anything about liberals. Your 'assumption' is wrong. In the US, civil libertarians would consider the offensive harassment policy profiling. Not all liberals are civil libertarians and many conservatives are, so this has nothing to do with liberals.  You are simply paranoid, I'm not out to get liberals. I'm also not against civil libertarians. I agree with them more often than not, but in some cases, like the war on terror,  I think they go overboard.

By what? Asking our prez to get the real terrorists?  :hihi:

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth, you and others mentioned profiling, simple as. As for my assumption being wrong, it most certainly seemed to be directed at liberals on the board because liberals and conservatives had been the only ones so far to post in this thread. Why would you voice your opinion towards a civil libertarian viewpoint if noone so far had expressed such viewpoints in this thread? I apologise for assuming that the mention of profiling was directed at me and other liberals, had me fooled, but even so, I still think you had no justification to direct such and insinuation towards anyone, of any political standing, that's as much putting words in people's mouths as you claim I am doing.

I'm gonna pretend I didn't just waste 30 seconds of my life to read this. This board can really use an "ignore" feature.

Here's something that actually IS directed at liberals, since Jamie is so intent on turning this thread into liberal v. conservative discussion:


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1588184,00.html
Self-delusion kills

Liberals will blame anybody else for atrocities rather than accuse murderous Islamic terrorists
Nick Cohen
Sunday October 9, 2005

Observer
There are plenty of signs that Paris could be next. French intelligence agents found a message on an Arabic website from the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, a demented Algerian outfit which is close to al-Qaeda. France was 'our first enemy', the terrorists said. The 'only way to discipline France is jihad, martyrdom and Islam'.

At the end of last month, French police arrested nine alleged Islamists in a suburb of Paris and claimed they were planning to bomb the Metro. Nicolas Sarkozy, the French Interior minister, said the risk of an attack was currently 'at a very high level'. Marc Hecker, from the French Institute for International Relations, said it was 'a real error' to believe that France would be left in peace because President Chirac opposed the Iraq War.

Indeed it is. But as it's impossible to blame Iraq, what or who will get the blame if the rucksacks start exploding at the Gare du Nord? Will the liberal world look Islamism in the face and see a cult of slaughter and self-slaughter powered by messianic faith, the Jewish conspiracy theory of European fascism, imperialist dreams of world domination and a loathing of democracy, pluralism, religious tolerance and the emancipation of women? I live in hope, but the record suggests everyone but the perpetrators will be held responsible.

If the French can't be blamed for their part in the downfall of Chirac's old friend, Saddam Hussein, then maybe their support for the Algerian government will be used to explain the killings. No? How about the ban of headscarves in French schools? My money is on the headscarves but, frankly, the favoured 'root cause' could be the effect of the Common Agricultural Policy on poor world farmers or the provocation given by bikini-wearing holidaymakers at Club Med resorts in North Africa or the behaviour of French paratroopers during the Algerian War of Independence in the 1950s.

If you think I'm exaggerating, consider the attempts to show that the bombs in Bali were the fault of liberal democracies. Before a single fact on the motives of the killers was available, the Independent on Sunday declared: 'There can be little doubt that the bombs in Bali are linked to issues surrounding the war. It is no coincidence that Australia, whose citizens are likely to be the majority of the victims, is fully committed in Iraq.'

Actually, there could be a great deal of doubt, not least because the majority of the dead were Indonesian Hindus, who I assume the Islamists were happy to designate as pagans before murdering them.

Pamela Nowicka of Tourism Concern, which campaigns for eco-friendly holidays, had doubts of her own. She decided that what mattered was that the dead tourists were tourists rather than Australians. 'Many in the global south regard tourism as a new form of colonialism and cultural imperialism,' she wrote in the Guardian. 'While that may be hard for the suntanned holidaymaker to take on board, for the millions of ordinary people servicing their needs - the waiting staff, room cleaners, receptionists, shop workers, guides, massage ladies and taxi drivers - the linkage is clearer.'

Except that the bombers weren't disgruntled room cleaners and taxi drivers. They were members of a totalitarian movement which is against every principle Ms Nowicka professes to support. The first economic consequence of their killings will be to put cleaners and taxi drivers out of work.

I could go on - Mark Curtis, a historian from the Noam Chomsky school, wrote a piece which blamed the bombs on British support for General Suharto's coup a mere 40 years ago - but what needs saying is that no mainstream commentator mentioned that we have the grievance of Indonesian Islamists on the record. It has nothing to do with the foreign policy of the first Wilson administration or stingy tipping in Bali's restaurants. After the 2002 explosions in Bali killed 200, Osama bin Laden declared: 'Australia is the one that we have warned before not to participate in Afghanistan, not to mention its continued awful chapter in East Timor. They ignored our warning and they woke up to the sound of explosions in Bali.'

My guess is that people don't want to look at al-Qaeda's condemnations of Australia's role in saving (largely Catholic) East Timor from destruction by the militias of (largely Muslim) Indonesia. It's too frightening to contemplate; it takes you into the darkness to confront Islamism's impossible and therefore unappeasable demand for a caliphate and reminds you of its imperial urge to dominate Muslims and subjugate all others.

Avoidance of what al-Qaeda stands for began in 9/11 and has become endemic since. My favourite piece of victim blaming was after the Madrid bombings. For a few hours, there was a rumour that they were the work of ETA and Eddie Mair, the presenter of Radio 4's PM news show, duly had a go at a representative of the Spanish government, alleging that Madrid's refusal to talk to Basque nationalists was the root cause of the atrocity.

By the next day, it was clear that Islamists, not Basques, had attacked Madrid. Without pausing for breath, Mair duly wanted to know if the presence of Spanish troops in Iraq was the root cause of the atrocity. The identity of the bombers was irrelevant. The Spanish had to be the cause of their own suffering.

Perhaps it is too easy to mock. When confronted with an ideology which mandates indiscriminate killing on an industrial scale, it is natural to seek rational explanations of the irrational; to pretend that Islamism is merely a reasonable, if bloody, response to legitimate concerns which could be remedied if we elected wiser leaders.

Yet the masochism - 'Kill us, we deserve it!' - the subliminal dislike of democracy and the willingness to turn al-Qaeda into the armed wing of every fashionable campaign from sustainable tourism to the anti-war movement will in the end disgrace the liberals by making them ridiculous.

Charles Clarke should learn that clarity doesn't begin at Home

The Home Office is attempting the revolutionary tactic of treating the British public as adults. This may be foolish. The only adult thing about millions of British voters is that they are over 18.

None the less, it was cheering to see Charles Clarke publish vast amounts of supporting evidence last week to explain why he wanted to hold suspects without charge for three months. For years now, the government has felt no need to justify its assaults on civil liberties. It has simply dismissed its critics as 'BMW-driving, civil-liberties lawyers' and other decadent dilettantes. The act of writing out a justification destroys self-delusion by forcing you to be clear. I'm not sure if it will help sell other Home Office policies.

How would an honest description of its ban on the incitement to religious hatred read? 'We are so worried about religious extremists that we want to give them the chance to send their critics to prison.' A bit windy, perhaps. Let's try: 'We'll fight religious bigotry by protecting religious bigotry.' Nearer the mark, I think, and more succinct.

On identity cards, intellectual clarity would demand that Mr Clarke begins: 'We're so worried by crime, terrorism and illegal immigration that we want to impose a new law-and-order tax on the public. Our estimate is it will raise ?6 billion. Others say ?18bn. Let's split the difference and call it ?12bn.

'OK. Now we won't spend it on capturing criminals, terrorists and illegal immigrants. That would be mad. Rather than wasting money on new police officers, we will force people who aren't criminals, terrorists and illegal immigrants to carry an expensive piece of plastic.'

Does it work for you? Me neither. I don't think the new openness will last. As a true friend of the Home Office, I advise it to go back to its traditional policy of always complain, never explain.

Guardian Unlimited ? Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

Yeah, I bet you'd love an ignore feature, then you'll never have to know when people are calling you out, proving you wrong, or making you look like a fool. If you want to ignore everything I say and just launch a blatant personal attack, such as above, that's fine by me, it's only making you look like an idiot.

Not really, because I'll only ignore the clowns with empty accusations, meaning just you. What have you proven me wrong about?

Right, this a game they will play.

They'll use everything in the book to define something (i.e., treason, liberal etc) and then when you point it out, they claim they never said the "actual word". But they might as well have said it, as it is obviously implied.

Besides you were right anyway, and that is why he clung onto the whole "you put words in my mouth" fiasco. To change the subject and get you arguing about THAT instead of the original point you made.

They feel that all they have to do is muddy the argument to win it. If you are put on the defense over something trivial (Usually always about use of word or words) then your well made point is now buried under 2 pages of posts.

If somebody distorts what I say to attack me, of course I will point that out? ::) Only the types who lie and distort what others say will have a problem with that. So I'm not surprised that you of all people are coming to Jamie's defense.


Muddying the waters sure didn't work for you in your conspiracy theory arguments. And I doubt it will work for people who twist what I say to attack me.

Jamie, four-hunnert n' turty-tree

Popmetal....zip.

(http://tinypic.com/erctu1.jpg)

LOL!

What's that supposed to be the score of?

The number of baseless attacks launched at me that allegedly make me look like a "fool"?

Well, at least I'm glad I didn't make any against myself  :hihi:

I didn't use what you said to attack you, I took an accusation you made, with regards to profiling and pointed out that nobody, even those you claim, could possibly believe the subject being disscussed was a case of profiling, despite your assumptions, you were the one that started the personal attacks, not me.

The problem with that is I never said that the subject being discussed was a case of profiling. I already explained to you that I was referring to France's "offensive harassment" policy. How many times are we gonna go in circles here?

And don't try to avoid the question, where was it you have proven me wrong?

Well, times you specifically have been proven wrong on this board, I can't recall, I don't keep records or anything. Just search through a few pages of threads in the Jungle and you'll find many, many threads where others like you have been proven wrong and have restorted to name calling, racism etc. to make it look as though they're right.

You can't say where you have proven me wrong, because it never happened, so you bring in the entire posting history of 'others like me' ::) , and you start throwing the 'racist' labels. That's just so pathetic. :hihi:

But you wanna bring in other threads? Fine by me.
How about this one here:
http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22779.msg399475#msg399475

You said the Tibetans were "wiped out by people claiming to be 'working for God'" This is one of the most ignorant statements ever made on this board. It looks like you're on a vendetta against me now because I was the one who called you out on it. That's the only way I can explain why you've pounced at me in this thread, like you have, for no apparent reason. I was actually praising France. Well, you only succeeded at making yourself look worse.

To be honest, I didn't even remember that thread until you just brought it up, and I'll say it right now, as I did in that thread that I made a mistake when I didn't specify that I felt the process I outlined in that thread worked in two different ways. You pointed out my mistake and I accepted so, I didn't turn it into a big bitching match, I was mistaken and I accepted it. Now with that thread as evidence when I realise I have made a mistake I accept, here, I still feel I am in the right, it is pure arrogance on your part to think I hold some kind of grudge with you over a mistake I made.