DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Why do people hate France?
Pages:  
Showing posts 101 - 125 of 145, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/23/2006 03:28:48 PM · #101
After a moment's further search:

//www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2005/0626leaked.htm

One leaked document was a Cabinet Office briefing paper for a crucial Downing Street meeting held on the day in question. It said the prime minister had promised Bush at the Crawford summit that he would “back military action to bring about regime change”. It added that ministers had no choice but to “create the conditions” that would make military action legal. The other document was the minutes of the actual meeting, chaired by Blair and attended by Straw; Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary; Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general; Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6; John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee; and Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, chief of defence staff.

Dearlove, who had just returned from Washington, said “military action was now seen as inevitable . . . the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action”. Straw agreed with Dearlove. He said Bush had “made up his mind to take military action. But the case was thin”.
 02/23/2006 03:59:28 PM · #102
hate =
To feel hostility or animosity toward.
To detest.
To feel dislike or distaste for

Is this how some poeple really feel?
Can someone explain what it feels like to hate someone/something to this extreme??

Sad, sad, sad

Message edited by author 2006-02-23 15:59:42.
 02/23/2006 06:19:00 PM · #103
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
A lot of countries did not support the illegal war in Iraq, including most of the people of the UK (the government lied to parliament in order to persuade them to approve going to war).

Am I correct in assuming that you can provide evidence that the war in Iraq is illegal? Or at least let us know by what authority it was found to be illegal? ( and I don't mean just because Kofi Annan SAYS that it was illegal - I would like evidence that the determination was a finding made by a recognized government body or world authority ).
Oh, and could you also provide evidence that the government lied to parliament? That is, provide evidence that the government told parliament something that they knew was false when they said it.
This little challenge should provide a great opportunity to prove that you really are a legalbeagle.


Luckily, Tony obtained some legal advice from the British Attorney General on this very question before invading.

//www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2003/0307advice.htm

There are lots of interesting issues raised questioning the validity of the war, but the important quote is at the end: "regime change cannot be the objective of military action"

George probably did not need to worry about getting US advice: the US has not ratified the Rome treaty creating the International Criminal Court, which would probably be the prosecuting body. Probably also why he has not shrunk from admitting that in the absence of WMDs, the purpose was regime change. There is a particularly good video of George and Tony in the US at a press Q&A when asked a question on the purpose of the invasion: Tony struggled for an answer, focussing on WMD and breach of the UN resolutions, and then George said it was "to get rid of Saddam" (to Tony's very obvious discomfort).

As for lying to parliament, at the very least I think that Tony's statements to parliament on the reasons for the war did not fully disclose this "reasoning": they could not, as any war initiated for that reason would be illegal.

There are a lot of other analyses of why the war was illegal - I do not have the time to re-do the research for you here, but Google is your friend.

Note: I do not deny that the position can be argued. It is, after all, a legal issue that would have to be tried. There is a fundamental uncertainty because in any question of international law, politics plays a large part. International law is unusual in that it is only as good as its adherents (eg the US has not signed up to the 1980 Geneva Convention on Biological and Chemical Weapons - if it had, its use of white phosphor weapons in Fallujah would have been an illegal use of chemical weapons (ironically in the circumstances) - but the US has not signed up to that treaty and so there is no effective illegality). I recognise that it is my opinion that the case for the war's illegality far outweighs its legality.

In other words, No, you can't provide any evidence that the war in Iraq was illegal - only that it is your opinion that it was illegal, albeit an opinion that you share with others. As for me, I must continue to assume that the war WAS legal, until it has been found to be otherwise by a governing body.
 02/23/2006 06:25:40 PM · #104
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
After a moment's further search:

//www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2005/0626leaked.htm

One leaked document was a Cabinet Office briefing paper for a crucial Downing Street meeting held on the day in question. It said the prime minister had promised Bush at the Crawford summit that he would “back military action to bring about regime change”. It added that ministers had no choice but to “create the conditions” that would make military action legal. The other document was the minutes of the actual meeting, chaired by Blair and attended by Straw; Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary; Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general; Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6; John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee; and Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, chief of defence staff.

Dearlove, who had just returned from Washington, said “military action was now seen as inevitable . . . the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action”. Straw agreed with Dearlove. He said Bush had “made up his mind to take military action. But the case was thin”.

While there is a veritable plethora of sliced and diced quotes in that article, it is by far more satisfying to read transcripts of the actual documents being referenced. In doing so, I find many, many references to the fear of Sadaam Hussein using his WMD's against others. For example, from the Downing Street Memo:

"For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."

Seems that if the government "lied" to parliament, they were, at least, consistent in carefully maintaining that same charade in all of their "secret" meetings, as well. If they "knew" that Hussein did NOT have WMD's, then why would they be discussing the consequences of his using them on day one, or against Kuwait, or on Israel?

Of course, I would infer from reading the above, that the speakers did NOT "know" that Hussein did not have WMD's at the time they were speaking. But that's just me.
 02/23/2006 07:01:50 PM · #105
not even gonna try to read all the stuff in this thread
but i do have an amusing link that might humor frenchies
french military defeats
amusingly, this site can also be reached by going to google and by typing "french military victories" and pressing "i'm feeling lucky"
 02/23/2006 08:16:13 PM · #106
Originally posted by RonB:
In other words, No, you can't provide any evidence that the war in Iraq was illegal - only that it is your opinion that it was illegal, albeit an opinion that you share with others. As for me, I must continue to assume that the war WAS legal, until it has been found to be otherwise by a governing body.


Essentially, you are saying that it is legal for anyone to invade another country, unless someone proves that it isn't legal.

The US and others, including my own country (to my shame), invaded a soverign nation. The action was not sanctioned by the United Nations, and it was not an act of self-defence or in response to an attack by that nation on anyone else. That sounds pretty illegal to me. Bush and Gonzales might like to convince themselves and everyone around them that it was legal, but that doesn't make it so.

How about we scale it down a bit? Suppose I marched into someone's house with a couple of friends, held the family at gunpoint, and started digging around for their secret stash of money? What if I said that I thought they had some guns and were planning to attack their neighbours? Then I didn't find any weapons, so I said they did it because they were harbouring a known fugitive? Then we searched the house and couldn't find the fugitive so I said that the family were nasty and once tried to kill my dad? In the meantime, I break one of the family kids' legs and do some other stuff to try and find out where the money and the guns and the fugitive they didn't have were?

If I did this, would everyone say what a great guy I was for standing up to these bad people? Or would they say that I had no right to take the law into my own hands and do what I'd done, even if the head of the family had been beating up on one of his kids, and that it was for the authorities to handle? Maybe the guy really was bad, but that doesn't give me a right to deal with them however I like - at least, not if I claim to live in a civilised democratic society.

France and Germany and other countries at least were willing to stand up and say that no matter how bad they thought Saddam Hussain was, invading Iraq without UN sanction was illegal. For someone to criticise a photo on this site that was recognisably of Paris because of this is beyond the pale. How would you like it if you posted an excellent portrait of George W. Bush in a challenge and my comment on your photo was "war criminal!"?

As an aside, I noticed early in this topic that a Kiwi defended France. New Zealand has far more justifiable reasons to hate France than the US does (French government aggression in NZ not many years ago, among others). If the Kiwi can get over it, then the Americans certainly should. "You're either with us or you're against us" is fundamentally stupid; who is the better friend, the one who always tells you you are right no matter what, or the one who can disagree with you when you might be wrong?
02/23/2006 09:27:05 PM · #107
Originally posted by paddles:
Originally posted by RonB:
In other words, No, you can't provide any evidence that the war in Iraq was illegal - only that it is your opinion that it was illegal, albeit an opinion that you share with others. As for me, I must continue to assume that the war WAS legal, until it has been found to be otherwise by a governing body.


Essentially, you are saying that it is legal for anyone to invade another country, unless someone proves that it isn't legal.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that one is not justified in saying that something is ILLEGAL unless a) qualifying the statement as opinion, or b) providing evidence that it has been determined to be illegal. The US judicial system operates under the premise that one is Innocent until proven guilty - not the other way around: Guilty unless proven Innocent. I can't say the same for ALL other countries, but many follow that same premise.

Originally posted by paddles:
The US and others, including my own country (to my shame), invaded a soverign nation. The action was not sanctioned by the United Nations
Please refer to UN Security Council Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441. In March, 2003, the British Attorney General, in a letter to Prime Minister Blair said:

"28. Nevertheless, having regard to the information on the negotiating history which I have been given and to the arguments of the US Administration which I heard in Washington, I accept that a reasonable case can be made that resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in 678 without a further resolution."

Originally posted by paddles:
...and it was not an act of self-defence or in response to an attack by that nation on anyone else.

Self-defense is not always purely RE-active. Sometimes it is PRO-active, or Pre-emptive. Arresting a person found building suitcase bombs in his garage is neither defensive nor in response to an attack either, but I would wager that you would consider it to be a "legal" act.

Originally posted by paddles:
That sounds pretty illegal to me.

Fortunately, our judicial system, as well as that of most countries, relies on "evidence", not how something "sounds".

Originally posted by paddles:
Bush and Gonzales might like to convince themselves and everyone around them that it was legal, but that doesn't make it so.

You are correct. But then, just because legalbeagle and others like to covince themselves and everyone around them that it was ILLEGAL, doesn't make it so, either.

Originally posted by paddles:
How about we scale it down a bit? Suppose I marched into someone's house with a couple of friends, held the family at gunpoint, and started digging around for their secret stash of money? What if I said that I thought they had some guns and were planning to attack their neighbours? Then I didn't find any weapons, so I said they did it because they were harbouring a known fugitive? Then we searched the house and couldn't find the fugitive so I said that the family were nasty and once tried to kill my dad? In the meantime, I break one of the family kids' legs and do some other stuff to try and find out where the money and the guns and the fugitive they didn't have were?

If I did this, would everyone say what a great guy I was for standing up to these bad people? Or would they say that I had no right to take the law into my own hands and do what I'd done, even if the head of the family had been beating up on one of his kids, and that it was for the authorities to handle? Maybe the guy really was bad, but that doesn't give me a right to deal with them however I like - at least, not if I claim to live in a civilised democratic society.

Well, I would say that you had no right to take the law into your own hands. Then again, if you were a police officer, or a group of police officers, with a warrant ( meaning that you had the approval of your superiors ), then I would say that you might have acted on bad intelligence, but did so legally.

Originally posted by paddles:
France and Germany and other countries at least were willing to stand up and say that no matter how bad they thought Saddam Hussain was, invading Iraq without UN sanction was illegal.

In all my reading, I never saw any reference to them saying that. Could you provide a relevant link to where that was reported?

Originally posted by paddles:
For someone to criticise a photo on this site that was recognisably of Paris because of this is beyond the pale. How would you like it if you posted an excellent portrait of George W. Bush in a challenge and my comment on your photo was "war criminal!"?


This is a photo that I actually DID enter in a Challenge - for which I received the following comment:

"I am sorry anything with this guy in it can not get more than a 5 from me!".

Granted, it was not YOUR comment, but . . .is that the kind of biased comment you mean?
 02/24/2006 03:11:15 AM · #108
Originally posted by risu81:


You have listed several things that shape your perspective, but I do not believe that an American needs all or any of those things to have a perspective on what it means to be an American. I respect your right to share your opinions, but respectively, I have to disagree with your opinions.


I agree again.

I am not going to put some long, theorhetical, polital psycology into this post. I am only touching on an issue, I haven't gone though the whole thesis.

I agree that people have their own perspectives. Hell, I in the movie biz. Ya got to have perspective on the perspective, beleive me.

A homeless man, living in a card board box at night is definetly a 180 degree on my perspective. I wouldn't know what it must feel like to have one eye open at night to watch for other people to take the few thing I have in my shopping cart, and to watch for the occasional rat that runs past, making sure it doesn't want to cuddle next to me.

Even though we may be a 'super power', as a citizen, I don't feel 'super'.
02/24/2006 05:45:05 AM · #109
Originally posted by RonB:

In other words, No, you can't provide any evidence that the war in Iraq was illegal - only that it is your opinion that it was illegal, albeit an opinion that you share with others. As for me, I must continue to assume that the war WAS legal, until it has been found to be otherwise by a governing body.


Sadly, international law does not work in the simplistic manner that you suggest it should. There is no "governing body" and the rules are made up and enforced by nation states voluntarily. Treaties must be submitted to, and ultimately cannot be enforced without national co-operation or the threat of war.

Being a military superpower, the US cannot be politically co-erced or forced into compliance with otherwise broadly agreed international conventions. In some respects, it operates outside international law and cannot effectively be prevented from breaching international conventions that it has signed up to.

It is also not the case that principles of "innocent until proven guilty" apply in the same way in the international arena, nor is it normally necessary for a country to be "proven" guilty by an international body before recriminative actions are taken.

Even if those principles were applicable, it is not necessary for there to be a legal procedure commenced against a party for their actions to have in fact been illegal. If a murderer was never prosecuted, he would be no less guilty of the crime.

Your reference to para 28 of the AG's advice to Blair draws one paragraph out of context. A reasonable case can be made that the UN resolution 1441 is capable in principle of revisiving authorisation". But, very specifically not on the basis of regime change, which the Downing St Memos indicate was the purpose of the war long before the further UN resolutions were sought.

You may wish to wait for someone else to investigate the facts, and tell you whether the war was legal or not. However, it is highly unlikely that the US or the UK will be subject to significant sanctions or investigation for many years. You can choose to make up your own mind. A substantial amount of evidence has been made available through investigative reporting, which indicates that actions were taken at the very best on a very thin case for the war, and at the worst, in the knowledge that there was no legal case for the war.


02/28/2006 03:30:56 PM · #110
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
There is perhaps some truth to them, which was not meant to be inflammatory, but nonetheless may sting.


Not convinced. I have spent a decent amount of time in France and never noticed an issue on body odour.

The US intervention in WWII was principally UK intervention (unless your history lessons were based around Saving Private Ryan).

I have never noticed any significant rudeness when in France, but UK and US tourists make me cringe pretty much everywhere in the world that I encounter them.

A lot of countries did not support the illegal war in Iraq, including most of the people of the UK (the government lied to parliament in order to persuade them to approve going to war). No idea what French airspace rights were required to fly into Iraq, but it hardly seems to get to the nub of the issue.

France and England ruled most of the M.E. in the last 200 years. You can blame the UK for most of the problematic divisions following the break up of the Empire.

I have no idea what the reference to anti-semitism is to, but my understanding is the anti-semitism, in the form of the incitement of racial hatred, is generally prohibited across N. Europe, and is a restriction on the right to free speech. It is not, for example, in the US.

I am English. We have fought the French for a millennium. We have a traditional enmity, but if you are alleging that these stereotypes have some factual basis, I find this pretty offensive and baseless.


I hate to resurrect this but...

Are you telling me that the United Sates general presence in WWII wasn't a proximate cause of the Fall of Nazi Germany? Who "Saved" France in WWII? the Russians? the English? In fact, without the US, lets not even think of what may have become of Great Britain.

You can say whatever you want, and you can flatly deny what I say; but the truth is that you like to argue, a lot!

You can ask about my history books, (but I guess the English are essentially French or half French following 1066,) but what do your history books say about England's fabulous treatment of the Irish?

02/28/2006 06:17:16 PM · #111
Originally posted by blindjustice:
I hate to resurrect this but...

Are you telling me that the United Sates general presence in WWII wasn't a proximate cause of the Fall of Nazi Germany? Who "Saved" France in WWII? the Russians? the English? In fact, without the US, lets not even think of what may have become of Great Britain.


History cannot be pinned down to a single "saviour". But the US took two years to enter the war. The British Empire was significantly larger and its contribution in the struggle was greater than the US contribution. The British struggle in the Far East should not be overlooked in the Pacific war (as it all too often is). This is not to suggest that the US support was not critical: I am just trying to put it into perspective. The struggle was not won by any one country.

Originally posted by blindjustice:
the truth is that you like to argue, a lot!
agreed.

Originally posted by blindjustice:
You can ask about my history books, (but I guess the English are essentially French or half French following 1066,) but what do your history books say about England's fabulous treatment of the Irish?
subject for another thread, but they generally acknowledge the dreadful treatment. We are good about beating ourselves up for injustices we caused the very many nations that at various times were part of the Empire - probably because it ceased only comparatively recently and after the dawn of modern politics.

Hollywood tends to do the opposite and glorify the US involvement in history (eg U-571, which summarised the exploits of about 12 British expeditions and 1 US expedition using a US sub and US crew, and Saving Private Ryan in which there was not one English or Commonwealth accent to be heard...)

Message edited by author 2006-02-28 18:17:47.
 03/12/2006 12:12:09 PM · #112
Originally posted by bluenova:
Originally posted by The Dmachine:
That being said I appreciate the courage of the European press in printing those Muslim cartoons, something our North American press is too afraid to do.

You're crazy right? Please tell me you didn;t mean that. The cartoons were originaly published last summer, and people got upset, people apologised and it was all finished. Now these stupid papers re-publish it all again. Reall bad move, doesn't anybody respect other peoples faith anymore?


Have you ever heard of freedom of the press?
 03/12/2006 12:17:44 PM · #113
Originally posted by bluenova:
Originally posted by The Dmachine:
Originally posted by bluenova:

You're crazy right? Please tell me you didn;t mean that. The cartoons were originaly published last summer, and people got upset, people apologised and it was all finished. Now these stupid papers re-publish it all again. Reall bad move, doesn't anybody respect other peoples faith anymore?


There was a South Park recently that had the Mother Marry menstruating, I find this offensive, but if we have freedom of press it shouldn't only cover offending people Christian or Jewish faith.

The difference is pictures of Mary is allowed, although as a Christian I find that south park does cross the line quite often, but drawings or images of the Prophet Muhammad is a BIG no no, it's simply not allowed in the faith. People just don't realise how offensive this really is, as most people don't know much about the real French culture. Many people could benefit from reading up a bit more on the things they are trying to put an argument against, as many people seem to have an opinion without finding out what it's all really about.


So now you are saying that all publications are subject to sharia law? Am I allowed to have a ham sandwich for lunch? Islam has not yet taken over the world, and thankfully they will not do so in what is left of my lifetime.

Message edited by author 2006-03-12 12:18:18.
 03/12/2006 12:19:21 PM · #114
i must add this thread is simply useless and some of replies here are not "normal" :-)
 03/26/2006 04:52:41 PM · #115
Because of events taking place during both the World Wars, where France demonstrated their lack of backbone, many people have held a grudge against the French and their ways.
 03/26/2006 06:30:15 PM · #116
Originally posted by The Resplendent Snippycat:
Because of events taking place during both the World Wars, where France demonstrated their lack of backbone, many people have held a grudge against the French and their ways.


I think the French were the only smart nation during ww2 not counting Iceland ofcourse..

the French nation knew about the destruction all over Europe so they decided to let the Germans come without a fight so France wouldn't be destroyed like other countries... smart move :)

but the main reason people hate France is because there are too many French people there.. and they all speak French.. and we just don't understand them ;)
 03/27/2006 01:12:25 PM · #117
Originally posted by DanSig:
Originally posted by The Resplendent Snippycat:
Because of events taking place during both the World Wars, where France demonstrated their lack of backbone, many people have held a grudge against the French and their ways.


I think the French were the only smart nation during ww2 not counting Iceland ofcourse..

the French nation knew about the destruction all over Europe so they decided to let the Germans come without a fight so France wouldn't be destroyed like other countries... smart move :)


Yes, it was smart of them to leave the other free nations of the world to fight their war. Had Britain done the same as France, the world may be a very different place than it is today.
Although the French in the past were very cool. Napoleon for instance, he's a rad fellow.
 03/31/2006 11:51:25 AM · #118
In this day and age of politics for personal gain it's hard to answer such a question. As an American I don't hate the French, I don't blame them for staying out of the Iraq invasion. Does anyone blame Brazil for stayng out of it? No.

A common, and easy tactic in politics, is to 1) make people afraid of something [Iraqis, Terrorism, mice] 2) blame someone for it [Iraqis, Terrorists, mice] 3) Anyone that isn't for your cause is against it [France]

We didn't support nor directly help Isreal when they invaded the Sudan and Gaza strip EVEN though the Egyptians were posed to invade Isreal and Jordanians has a militar alliance with Egypt.

They did it TWICE!

This hate the French deal is only based upon pride and ignorance.

I was taught raised and told to hate the Russians during the cold war. When the Berlin wall fell - I was in the Navy. Soon after a Russian ship pulled into Norfolk harbor and some Russian sailors wanted to tour local ships, which we encouraged. I was standing as Petty Officer of the Watch on the Quarterdeck when our visitors arrived. And I was COMPLETELY shocked! They were just like us - they weren't old mean bastards who demanded 'your papers please!' They were kids and men just like you and me.

You all remember the advertising campaign that showed a peasant woman walking a dirt road carrying firewook in a black peasant looking dress? The gist was that was how it was in Russian. But after the above episode, I started realizing that was propoganda - that we have people here in the US, doing the same thing, and we romantisize them, the Amish - living a simpler life.

-Rick
 12/16/2006 08:43:32 AM · #119
This thread started with a question of why so many US Americans apparently \'hate\' France. I am tempted to postulate envy of a nation that posesses both history and culture, but that wouldn\'t be nice.

Somewhere down the thread the reverse question arose as to why the French don\'t like America. I certainly noticed in Normandy that the whole place was bending over backwards to include and recognise US visitors, so that calls the assumption into question. Even so, I think there is a general perception of the US as an exporter of culture that is mostly tasteless and has an overall tendency to polute and weaken native culture. Although I have no direct reference other than recent hearsay, I heard the other day that the intention of the US in the aftermath of WWII was to break France up into various areas, each being a separate state. I\'m not sure how serious the plans were, as they involved restructuring silly little things like Belgium as well, but in any case De Gaulle put a stop to it. While, on the one hand, the American intervention in the war was decisive for the liberation of France, the US military absolutely refused to include a well-informed and well-organised resistance in their plans or actions. The liberation of Paris by General LeClerc, aided and abetted by a resistance-organised general strike of police and transport, was very much contrary to US wishes. The French were, are and will eternally be grateful for the Allied invasion and liberation of the European mainland. There really were some huge efforts to spoil that though.

I think the recent wave of French hating may have to do with their official opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Oh my.

Borders with Spain, Italy, the UK, Germany, Belgium and Switzerland along with a Mediterranean coastline and Alps and Pyrenees - history - art - food - wine - it\'s probably the best country there is. All the other countries in the list above have some or all of the qualities listed along with them, but France has the aadvantage of being central.
 12/21/2006 01:19:01 PM · #120
There is a long history of differences bewteen France and the US, as well as allied moments. One difference is seen in the following; where arguments were made against the address of radical Islam and Frances position of choosing not to engage as an Ally in Iraq, yet they are the target as equally as the US and Britain.

France targeted by Al Queda

“French worries
Intelligence officials and analysts said the number of European Muslims who have become radicalized has escalated in recent years, especially since the Iraq invasion and the wars in Lebanon and Afghanistan. But they also cited factors closer to home, including rising anger among immigrants and later-generation Muslims who feel marginalized in European society.
Zawahiri's recent remarks have particularly concerned French counterterrorism officials. They have warned of a heightened risk of attacks because of a newly declared alliance between al-Qaeda and an Algerian-based network, the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, which has developed an extensive collection of cells in France and elsewhere in Europe.
In September, Zawahiri announced the formation of the partnership and urged the Algerian network to become "a dagger in the hearts of the French traitors and apostates." On Wednesday, he repeated the command, predicting that the Algerians would soon defeat the "secularist sons of France."
French officials said this week that they have arrested 76 suspected members of the Algerian network since June 2005 in connection with three separate plots, including alleged plans to bomb the Paris subway and Orly airport.
Jean-Louis Bruguiere, France's chief anti-terrorism judge, said that France had become "the main target" of the Algerian group and that the risk of attacks had increased over the past six months. "We consider the threat level to be very high," he said in an interview published Wednesday by the International Herald Tribune. "What is new is that this organization has formally pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda."
In his statement, Zawahiri also criticized the radical Palestinian movement Hamas for taking part in elections in January and failing to insist on an Islamic constitution. In earlier messages, he has called on Islamic fighters to go to the Palestinian territories to fight alongside Hamas.”

If the US/Britain were targeted by Al Queda due to their involvement in Iraq, then why is France, who clearly choose not to be an engaged ally, still targeted?

Because the movement is about Islamic domination - period. Yet many STILL do not get it.

Message edited by author 2006-12-21 13:21:56.
 12/21/2006 01:39:25 PM · #121
Because they are french.
 02/20/2007 10:42:27 PM · #122
I find it really sad the hate placed on France. I myself am French, born and raised thank you. People before have posted things saying that French people hate the US just as much as US hates the French which is completly untrue I do not hate the US i actually do not know one french person that does, we may not agree on their decisions sometimes but that doesnt mean we hate them. France would NOT be the US oldest ally if we hated them, we helped them defeat the british for goodness sake!

Another thing is how people say the french are rude. I'm sorry we don't bend over backwards to suit the needs of every tourist that comes into the country expecting us to meet their every need. If they made an effort to try and speak the language and be polite then they would get the same thing back.

Message edited by author 2007-02-20 22:43:25.
 02/20/2007 11:35:31 PM · #123
Originally posted by The Dmachine:
Heres why I dislike France and most of Europe for that matter, I find the people to be rude and condescending. I live in China (im Canadian) and come across Europeans travelling very often, most of them are smug and arrogant, with the exception of Norway (Norwegians in my experience are usually pretty cool) and the French are the worst.

The nicest people I meet travelling are Americans, Canadians, and some Australians. I can't stand the European Union, I can't their politics, Canada was on a road to follow the EU with it's left wing liberal BS, thank God we have a new conservative Prime Minister. Basically Europe (with the exception of England) has been turned into a big weak joke. Pandering to Muslims and Homosexuals rather than standing up for whats right in this world.


I'm also Canadian, and my views are pretty much diametrically opposed to these.
 03/21/2007 01:49:00 PM · #124
I'm American and I love France. I also hate France. It's truly a love-hate relationship. Let me try to explain. The only thing I hate about France is that they lead the world against the U.S. in the war against Iraq. It's fine if they don't want to come along and fight with us. That's their right. But I'm convinced that Jacques Chirac turned the strategic tide against us.

Now, why do I love France? Let me count the ways! It is one of the most stunningly beautiful countries I have ever seen -- and I have seen a lot. The people are wonderful -- not rude. I've heard all the stories about how the French are rude; but I think they come from people who only visit Paris. Yes, Parisians can be rude. But Paris is the New York of France. And you know that New Yorkers are rude. So let France off the hook if you've never been there or anywhere but Paris. Let me tell you about two wonderful experiences I had in France. One night, at a cafe in Paris, I saw an old, stereotypical Frenchman sitting at the table next to us. He even had a beret. He had brought his own tablecloth made out of a French flag and an American flag sewn together. He asked us "Excuse me, where are you from?" We told him that we were Americans. "Has the waiter taken your order yet?" he asked? "No. But we just arrived." He stood up and yelled across the crowded cafe: "Waiter! Serve these people now! They are Americans. They saved our country! When I was a boy, the Nazis occupied my village. They were dug-in in fortified positions. It would have been suicide to try to attack them; but the Americans did it! They saved our country! They are wonderful people! Serve them now!" The waiter promptly took our order.

The second wonderful experience I had was in the city of La Rochelle, on the Atlantic coast. I was traveling alone and stopped into a bar outside of the tourist area. I sat at the bar, ordered a beer, and spilled it. The bartender, a woman, cleaned up my mess, re-filled my beer for free, and said "You're allowed to spill one beer." She then asked me where I was from. I told her that I was American. All my drinks were free for the rest of the night. We had a nice conversation and she told me that France does have some American things to do, like American football. I replied that I only had a few more months in France and that I would rather spend my time experiencing French things. I could play American football when I returned to the States. "Did you hear that?" she announced to the bar. "This foreigner says he wants to do French things! This is a good foreigner." A big guy came over and slapped me on the back and asked me how I'd enjoyed France so far. I told him it was great. He asked me how I'd enjoyed the French women. I told him they were very nice. He clarified that he was asking me how they had been in bed. I answered that I had never had sex with a French woman; so I couldn't answer that question. He was appalled! He immediately turned to a very beautiful woman next to him and began to explain to her that it was her patriotic duty to take me home to her bed because, in a few months, I would return to the United States and my friends would ask me how the French treated me and I wouldn't have anything good to say because no French woman had had the common decency to take me to her bed. As you can imagine, I was quite interested in how this would turn out. I thought she would slap him (an American woman would have). Instead, she acknowledged that it WAS her patriotic duty to sleep with me but that, since I was a stranger, it didn't seem right. She was actually apologetic. She KNEW he was right, that she SHOULD sleep with me out of hospitality, but, she couldn't bring herself to have sex with a stranger.

Or maybe I'm just ugly.

But THAT is why I love France.

Also because the food is so damn good.
 06/20/2008 09:53:56 PM · #125
I've lived in Picardie (a region in the northern size of France) for almost three years, and i have to say that my experience there as a non-french-born has been just TERRIBLE. Most of the people there are bigots, racists and xenophobes. Just check how many people there vote for Le Pen's so-called National Front (Front National in french), an ultra-right wing party that just does not admit nazi crimes or hollocaust itself (just to name 2 examples of what they pray as the basis of their ideology). Of course, there are a few (very few) nice people there, but i have to say that most of the french people ive met in France are false, hypocrites, arrogants ('chauvinists') and absolutely not nice at all (except when they pretend to look polite). So i think that's why they have so many historical controversies with all of their neighbour-countries (Belgium, UK, Germany, Italy, Switzerland and Spain), and thats why many people not only in the US but also in Europe dont like them at all.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 09:28:45 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 09:28:45 PM EDT.