Tick tick, tick tick...

HGROKIT

Active Member
May 22, 2004
1,398
19
36
Federal Way WA, USA
...how soon until they cave?
(Link I provided earlier did not get you to the full story without registering)

TERRORISM
Hostages Urge France to Repeal Its Scarf Ban
By ELAINE SCIOLINO

Published: August 31, 2004


ARIS, Aug. 30 - Two French journalists held hostage in Iraq have urged the French government to give in to their captors' demand by revoking a law banning Muslim head scarves in public schools, the Arabic-language television station Al Jazeera reported Monday night. Otherwise, they said, they might be killed.

Advertisement


Quoting a written statement, the station reported that the Islamic Army of Iraq, the little-known group that kidnapped the two men, had decided to extend by 24 hours the deadline for Paris to lift the ban.

On Saturday night, the group gave France 48 hours to cancel the ban, although it did not issue a specific threat against the men's lives.

The journalists, Georges Malbrunot and Christian Chesnot, shown in a video broadcast by Al Jazeera on Monday night unshaven and seated together, urged the French people to hold protests to persuade the government to retract the law.

"I call on President Chirac and the French government to show good will toward the Arab and Islamic worlds by revoking the ban on wearing the Islamic veil immediately," said Mr. Chesnot, who works for Radio France Internationale and Radio France. "I also urge all French citizens to demonstrate against this law and demand its cancellation because it is wrong and unjust."

He added: "Failure to revoke it might cost us our lives. It's a question of time - maybe minutes - before we are among the dead."

His fellow hostage, Georges Malbrunot, who writes for the daily newspapers Le Figaro and Ouest-France, said, "I appeal to the French people and every Frenchman who appreciates the meaning of life to stage demonstrations demanding that the law banning the Islamic veil be revoked, because our lives are in danger and we might die any minute if this law, which I urge President Chirac to revoke, is not abrogated."

They spoke in English and their words were translated into Arabic.

The law bans conspicuous religious symbols from public elementary and high schools. It is scheduled to go into effect when schools open on Thursday.

The French government has begun an intense diplomatic effort to free the two men but made clear earlier on Monday that it would not allow the fate of the hostages to interfere with the enforcement of the new law.

The Foreign Ministry had no comment on the hostages' statements or the extension of the deadline. But the center-right government is unlikely to back down on a law that it says is based on republican values that hark back to the 1789 Revolution and preserve the country's secular identity.

On Monday, in a rare display of national unity before the Jazeera report was shown, French officials, opposition politicians and religious leaders joined in a chorus condemning the kidnappings and pledging to uphold the law.

"It is democracy that is attacked and the laws of the republic that are targeted," said François Hollande, the leader of the Socialist opposition.

Several thousand people gathered in Paris on Monday afternoon to demonstrate solidarity with the two journalists and the French state, chanting "Free the hostages," and singing "La Marseillaise."

In Cairo, Foreign Minister Michel Barnier began an emergency diplomatic mission to free the two men. Islamic groups inside and outside Iraq urged the kidnappers to release the journalists, noting France's opposition to the Iraq war and saying journalists were not combatants.

But Iraq's prime minister, Ayad Allawi, said the kidnapping proved that France's position on Iraq - presumably its opposition to the war and the absence of a troop presence - offered no protection from terrorism.

"Neutrality doesn't exist, as the kidnapping of the French journalists has shown,'' Mr. Allawi said in an interview with several European and American newspapers. "The French are deluding themselves if they think they can remain outside of this. Today the extremists are targeting them, too.''

That realization, that opposition to the American-led war in Iraq has not provided immunity from Iraq-related terrorism, appears to have sunk in here as well.

"Nobody is safe,'' said an editorial in Le Monde on Monday. "No diplomacy can claim to be any kind of Maginot line that would protect us better than our Spanish or Italian neighbors from the death wish that has been at work since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.''

Indeed, in an audiotape broadcast by a Dubai-based television channel in February, Ayman Zawahiri, the No. 2 figure in the terrorist network Al Qaeda, condemned France for defending the freedom of nudity and depravity and fighting chastity and decency with the scarf ban, adding that such anti-Muslim acts by the West should be dealt with by tank shells and antiaircraft missiles.

French Muslim leaders called the ban on religious symbols strictly an internal French issue and advised all outsiders to stay out.

"The hostage takers are crazy people, and what they are asking is madness,'' Dr. Thomas Milcent, a Strasbourg physician and convert to Islam who runs a popular Islamic Web site, said in a telephone interview on Monday. "We don't want anyone to tell us what to do.''

Still, the kidnapping has reopened the debate here on whether the ban is a necessary means to protect secularism or a violation of religious freedom.

Even as the center-right French government and many Muslim leaders called for the strict separation of church and state, some Muslim leaders were calling for Muslim girls to test the limits of the law by hiding at least some of their hair.

In an interview in Le Figaro, Lhaj Thami Breze, president of the conservative Union of French Islamic Organizations, denounced the kidnappers as enemies of Islam.

But he also said the law banned only conspicuous signs of religion.

"Discreet signs are authorized,'' he said. "We certainly insist on this point. We hope that the administrative heads will follow the path of compromise, accepting a discreet scarf rather than imposing rules exceeding the law.''
 
You mean they havent caved yet? A new french record. But again i thought France was on the terrorists side in the War on Iraq. I thought they didnt send any troops and tried to stop the US. Therefore the Terrorists would leave them alone.

Perhaps terrorists don't side with anyone. they merely attack those that they perceive to be weak. Imagine that. :rolleyes:
 
HGROKIT said:
...how soon until they cave?

Hostages Urge France to Repeal Its Scarf Ban
By ELAINE SCIOLINO

Published: August 31, 2004


ARIS, Aug. 30 - Two French journalists held hostage in Iraq have urged the French government to give in to their captors' demand by revoking a law banning Muslim head scarves in public schools, the Arabic-language television station Al Jazeera reported Monday night. Otherwise, they said, they might be killed.

Full Story

They won't cave. The French are stubborn and this is an internal matter.

Wade.
 
insein said:
You mean they havent caved yet? A new french record. But again i thought France was on the terrorists side in the War on Iraq. I thought they didnt send any troops and tried to stop the US. Therefore the Terrorists would leave them alone.

Perhaps terrorists don't side with anyone. they merely attack those that they perceive to be weak. Imagine that. :rolleyes:
The hostages are journalists. Sorry 'bout the link - got there from google and copied the URL, did not realize you had to sign up to read the story.
 
HGROKIT said:
Pfffffffft
I think wade is right. A lot of french blood was spilled for the republic, they would never give in for the black mail, especially then republic is concern.
Plus it is ridicules to assume that french or anyone else will let anyone tell them what to do about the internal policies of french republic.
 
insein said:
You mean they havent caved yet? A new french record. But again i thought France was on the terrorists side in the War on Iraq. I thought they didnt send any troops and tried to stop the US. Therefore the Terrorists would leave them alone.

Perhaps terrorists don't side with anyone. they merely attack those that they perceive to be weak. Imagine that. :rolleyes:
French just see the world a little bit different than us. Does not mean it is bad, just different. Plus all jokes aside, why would not french have a backbone when it count? They did not gave in to USA pressure about iraq.
 
drac said:
I think wade is right. A lot of french blood was spilled for the republic, they would never give in for the black mail, especially then republic is concern.
Plus it is ridicules to assume that french or anyone else will let anyone tell them what to do about the internal policies of french republic.

The pear King? Vichy France? :smoke:
 
drac said:
French just see the world a little bit different than us. Does not mean it is bad, just different. Plus all jokes aside, why would not french have a backbone when it count? They did not gave in to USA pressure about iraq.

Because their leaders would stab them in ze back. Chirac didn't give in because he was bent over like a pretzel sucking at Saddam's midnight river. :shocked: So shocked.
 
Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi is the one talking sense here. Neutrality is no protection against tyranny; nor is appeasement.

The wording used in the Le Monde editorial is proving ironic, since French diplomacy appears to have acted PRECISELY like a "Maginot Line" - that is to say - worthless. I'm surprised they even bring it up.
 
nbdysfu said:
The pear King? Vichy France? :smoke:
What? I have no clue what you mean, sry. You heard about french revolution in 1789, right? Vichy france, what does it have to do with my statement?
 
nbdysfu said:
Because their leaders would stab them in ze back. Chirac didn't give in because he was bent over like a pretzel sucking at Saddam's midnight river. :shocked: So shocked.
Yes... that might be it. He was sucking... how can where be any other explaination. :bs1:
 
musicman said:
Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi is the one talking sense here. Neutrality is no protection against tyranny; nor is appeasement.

The wording used in the Le Monde editorial is proving ironic, since French diplomacy appears to have acted PRECISELY like a "Maginot Line" - that is to say - worthless. I'm surprised they even bring it up.
very true
 
drac said:
French just see the world a little bit different than us. Does not mean it is bad, just different. Plus all jokes aside, why would not french have a backbone when it count? They did not gave in to USA pressure about iraq.

Because we were their allies. We were the ones asking for their help. They refused. Would they put up as much of a fuss if we showed up with tanks on their shores again only this time to take over?

Your analogy is ridiculous. Will they fold to direct threats against their citizens?
 
insein said:
Because we were their allies. We were the ones asking for their help. They refused. Would they put up as much of a fuss if we showed up with tanks on their shores again only this time to take over?

Your analogy is ridiculous. Will they fold to direct threats against their citizens?
And my point was that they most probably will not.
In terms of analogy, we were asking to help us without any concern for their needs, true allies do not do that. I also do not see arabs armies massing on the boarder of france. So your analogy is not perfect as well.
 
drac said:
And my point was that they most probably will not.
In terms of analogy, we were asking to help us without any concern for their needs, true allies do not do that. I also do not see arabs armies massing on the boarder of france. So your analogy is not perfect as well.

Was France concerned with our needs or our men when we helped liberate them from the Nazis? Your definition is not of an ally. Its more of a weasel. The "Whats in it for me" mentality for your supposed allies means that they arent really allies. They are opportunists. If France were attacked like we were on 9/11, who would be the first country to their aid? Thats all you need to know.

Your ignorance to the situation shows with your second comment. Obviously you are not aware of terrorist warfare. A terrorist can bring down a country that is willing to appease them with a mere threat of violence. Threatening to chop off Frenchmen's heads to repeal a headscarf ban. Bombing a train to alter an election. Taking school Children as hostages to change a foreign policy stance. They attack where they have the advantage. They are small and lethal. 1 hidden terrorist can be more dangerous than an army of thousands coming straight at you. 19 unsuspecting terrorists on 4 planes killed 3000+. 4 or 5 terrorists killed several hundred when they bombed the USS cole. Less than a dozen killed thousands in the African bombings of US Embassies. They don't target the military. They target people, any age, any race, any gender. As long as they are not Muslim (and sometimes even that doesnt save you), they are targets.

If france caves in to these demands, prepare for a more of the same from the terrorists. Once they know they can succeed with terrorism, they will continue to go onward until they are pushed back and beaten down.
 
insein said:
Was France concerned with our needs or our men when we helped liberate them from the Nazis? Your definition is not of an ally. Its more of a weasel. The "Whats in it for me" mentality for your supposed allies means that they arent really allies. They are opportunists.
Are you saying france was doing nothing during ww2? Yes USA alone saved the world in ww2. I would not go there if i were you. Plus, lets stick to today world and today events. Cause you know in the same manner we should not go around and tell people "shame on you, you must help me cause i helped you 60 years back". Please do not put words in my mouth. My statement has nothing to do with "Whats in it for me", read it again.[/quote]

If France were attacked like we were on 9/11, who would be the first country to their aid? Thats all you need to know.
True, but iraq did not attack us as far as i know.

Your ignorance to the situation shows with your second comment. Obviously you are not aware of terrorist warfare.
I was demonstrating that your analogy is not exactly 1-1 and not describing terrorists mode of operation. If you have problem with it address the issue. I will not reply to your post if you come down to personal attacks again. Your choice. If you believe france does not backbone than argue that.

If france caves in to these demands, prepare for a more of the same from the terrorists. Once they know they can succeed with terrorism, they will continue to go onward until they are pushed back and beaten down.
very much agree with this.
 
drac said:
Are you saying france was doing nothing during ww2? Yes USA alone saved the world in ww2. I would not go there if i were you. Plus, lets stick to today world and today events. Cause you know in the same manner we should not go around and tell people "shame on you, you must help me cause i helped you 60 years back". Please do not put words in my mouth. My statement has nothing to do with "Whats in it for me", read it again.

You said that we need to consider "Whats in it for France" when we ask them for help instead of simply asking for their help as any ally would do to us.

True, but iraq did not attack us as far as i know.

Again the ignorance pours through. Iraq harbored terrorists. In particular of the many groups they did harbor, Al Queda was one of them. Did not Al Queda attack the US openly on Sept 11th as well as many other occassions during the 90's? Would a country that harbors those that attack us not make them our enemy?

I was demonstrating that your analogy is not exactly 1-1 and not describing terrorists mode of operation.

Ok say a radical group of Americans decided to hold French men hostage in exchange for them to give into their demands. Sound better.

If you have problem with it address the issue. I will not reply to your post if you come down to personal attacks again. Your choice. If you believe france does not backbone than argue that.

Have i not? Where did i personally attack you? I said you are ignorant to the situation of terrorism if you belive what you typed. That is not a personal attack. That is merely pointing out that you are not aware of all the facts and therefore are ignorant to the sitaution. You need to lighten up if you feel your being attacked by not knowing all of the facts. You'll be in for a hard time in life.
 
drac said:
What? I have no clue what you mean, sry. You heard about french revolution in 1789, right? Vichy france, what does it have to do with my statement?

You stated "it is ridicules to assume that french or anyone else will let anyone tell them what to do about the internal policies of french republic."

I gave you two examples in which the post ancien regime french governments submitted to outside power.;

"Vichy France (French: now called Régime de Vichy or Vichy; called itself at the time État Français, or French State) was the French state of 1940-1944 which collaborated with Nazi Germany, as opposed to the Free French Forces, based first in London and later in Algiers. It was established after the country had surrendered to Germany in 1940 (see also: World War II). It takes its name from the government's capital in Vichy, south-east of Paris near Clermont-Ferrand."
-wikipedia

"Louis XVIII [a.k.a. pear king](November 17, 1755- September 16, 1824) was King of France from 1814 until his death in 1824. ... In 1814, he gained the French throne with the assistance of Charles Maurice de Talleyrand after Napoleon's downfall. Eventually, he fled Paris on the news of the return of Napoleon to Ghent, but returned after the Battle of Waterloo had ended Napoleon's rule of the Hundred Days."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XVIII_of_France

And yes I heard about the french revolution of the 1790s, which was basically an opportunistic coup in which french nobles used xenophobia and drought to incite mob rule. Of course that same mob eventually turned on them and then itself...
 

Forum List

Back
Top