Why You Can Never Trust the French

dagmaraka wrote:

High Seas wrote:
dagmaraka wrote:
....... I don't care one iota "who started it" ......... While factually I would agree with Setanta, the style of posting is something i can't sign under.

Setanta's "style of posting" at least has the merit of distinguishing nuances between "iota" and "whit". Not that I hope to compete in that literary class - I just recognize it when I see it.

Very well, High Seas....Now try posting in a foreign language. Because English is a foreign language for me, you know.

Sorry Dagmar - I certainly never noticed it from your posts. The only reason I know something about languages is work in AI (artificial intelligence) and discovering how difficult it is to get a computer to know what you mean.

Unlike other languages, English has kept using multiple versions of foreign imports simultaneously; think, e.g. of "kingly" (German), "royal" (French), "regal" (Latin), all meaning exactly the same but used with different nouns or verbs. You have to explain to the machine to run a frequency analysis first. Sorry again to Dag, and sorry to all for this digression.

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

Setanta wrote:
There is no inherent conflict in believing that Israel, or any one or any group, may be adept at solving small problems, and maladroit at solving large problems.

But, quoting you, "I have always admired their perspicacity in solving small problems, and have equally been bewildered that they can be so clever in small matters, and pursue such bloody stupid basic policies when it comes to the big issues that really matter."

Doesn't "bewilderment" represent some level of mental conflict? Perhaps, we think differently in the English language. A regional difference, perhaps?

No, it doesn't mean that there is any "mental conflict," it just means that i don't understand why it is that they are so good in small matters, and so abysmal in large matters.

Quote:

You seem to leave out that the wars fought were defensive for Israel? Should they have lost the wars, and then there'd be no Israel? Wasn't that the Arab goal for each war, 1948 and onwards?

You seem to leave out that Israel created a casus belli for each war in which they fought, with the exception of 1956, which was not a defensive war at all. In 1956, the English and the French, responding to the overthrow of the Egyptian monarchy and the nationalization of the Suez Canal, sent in paratroops to take and hold the canal. At that time, Israel sent fast armored columns into the Sinai in an attempt to annex that territory. They backed down when Eisenhower sent a task force into the Eastern Med, and warned them off.

In 1948, although the Arab nations might have attacked without any provocation other than the mere existence of the state of Israel, we can never know, because Israel provided a provocation by violating the provisions of General Assembly Resolution 181 (November, 1947) and drove more than half the Muslim population of Palestine out of their homes. The population of the city of Gaza and the "Gaza Strip" exploded overnight. Tens of thousands of Muslim Palestinians fled to Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon.

In 1967, Israel occupied the Sinai, the Golan Heights and the west bank of the Jordan River. But more than that, they immediately began planting settlements in the occupied territories. Israel has on many occasions invaded the Lebanon. For whatever their grievances against the Muslim states which surround them may be, it can hardly be alleged that they have stood on a purely defensive posture when they have consistently invaded the territory of their neighbors, remained in the occupied territories after hostilities were concluded, and have even attempted to settle the occupied territories.

And that is stupid, and is as much as or more of a cause for the hostility directed toward them than the mere fact that Israel is a Jewish state.

0 Replies

Never, never trust the French.

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/AGF/2212~Baby-Raccoon-Posters.jpg

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

In 1948, although the Arab nations might have attacked without any provocation other than the mere existence of the state of Israel, we can never know, because Israel provided a provocation by violating the provisions of General Assembly Resolution 181 (November, 1947) and drove more than half the Muslim population of Palestine out of their homes. The population of the city of Gaza and the "Gaza Strip" exploded overnight. Tens of thousands of Muslim Palestinians fled to Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon.

Strange. I always heard that the "fleeing" Muslims were told on Arab radio to flee, so they wouldn't be in the way of the soon to be victorious Arab armies, and in two weeks they could return to Israel, and live in the homes that Jews formerly owned.

And, I also always heard that Israel pleaded with these Muslims to stay and be citizens of the new State of Israel.

But, let's not quibble. You can live with your version; I can live with my version.

Your apparent vehement anti-Israel postion does arouse my curiosity as to what your basic politics/ideology is, since there is so much injustice in the world, yet it seems Israel is a favorite topic of yours?

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

[........]

Strange. I always heard that the "fleeing" Muslims were told on Arab radio to flee, so they wouldn't be in the way of the soon to be victorious Arab armies, and in two weeks they could return to Israel, and live in the homes that Jews formerly owned.

And, I also always heard that .................

Surely you can't expect anybody else here to account for the fact that you claim to have "heard" or "read" some fantasy, but are completely unable to trace it to anything resembling a reliable source?

On the alleged Arab radio broadcasts I, personally, know nothing, but I do know plenty about the theft of the Mirage plans from Switzerland, which, according to your specific fantasy on that subject, never happened!

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

High Seas wrote:
Foofie wrote:
[.....]
Does anyone remember that before Israel bought U.S. fighter planes they were flying French Mirages?

The blueprints of that aircraft were stolen by the Israelis from Switzerland.

It was, technically, the Swiss version of the Mirage. Nobody here said that Israel only steals from the U.S., if that's what you're driving at.

I never heard the above. I thought the jets were purchased from France. I believe I read that in some newspaper when they got them?

And, you needn't guess at what I may be "driving" at. Don't empower me with the intelligence to drive at anything. I only say literal thoughts.

As I'll be off this forum for a while due to travel overseas, I'm re-posting this pearl (on the previous page) in case Foofie can't recall posting that particular fantasy.

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

Setanta wrote:
In 1948, although the Arab nations might have attacked without any provocation other than the mere existence of the state of Israel, we can never know, because Israel provided a provocation by violating the provisions of General Assembly Resolution 181 (November, 1947) and drove more than half the Muslim population of Palestine out of their homes. The population of the city of Gaza and the "Gaza Strip" exploded overnight. Tens of thousands of Muslim Palestinians fled to Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon.

Strange. I always heard that the "fleeing" Muslims were told on Arab radio to flee, so they wouldn't be in the way of the soon to be victorious Arab armies, and in two weeks they could return to Israel, and live in the homes that Jews formerly owned.

As HS has already pointed out, without a reliable source for this, there is no reason to take such hearsay into consideration when viewing the historical results of Israeli government actions. Furthermore, you have done quite a job of "quote mining" here--you have completely failed to address the issue which i brought up of Israel practicing military imperialism by occupying the territory of its enemies, and then settling its own citizens in the occupied territories. I can think of few more flagrant examples of a justified casus belli in human history.

Quote:

And, I also always heard that Israel pleaded with these Muslims to stay and be citizens of the new State of Israel.

Oh, puh-leeeeze . . . that is one of the most hilariously ridiculous claims i've ever read on this topic. Got a source for that one?

Quote:

Your apparent vehement anti-Israel postion does arouse my curiosity as to what your basic politics/ideology is, since there is so much injustice in the world, yet it seems Israel is a favorite topic of yours?

You are completely incorrect to describe my attitude as "anti-Israel." I have been very careful to point out that i consider the policies of the government of Israel to be stupid. To be "anti-Israel," i would have to object to the very existence of the state of Israel. The state of Israel is an accomplished fact, and i am a believer in realpolitik--you can't put the genie back in the bottle, so any consideration of the problems in the former Mandate of Palestine and the Transjordan, which today is the state of Israel and the state of Jordan must start with fact of the existence of the state of Israel.

I consistently criticize the actions and policies of the United States government. I did this when Clinton was the President just as i do now that the Shrub is squatting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. That would certainly not be sufficient cause to assume that my favorite topic is the United States (the corollary to your remark above). I am not obsessed with the issue of the policies of the government of Israel, i do not confuse the government of Israel with the state of Israel, and i don't confuse the government of Israel with the Israeli people. Similarly, i don't equate the government of the United States with the United States of America themselves, nor do i equate the government of the United States with the American people.

It seems incredible to me that the nickel hasn't dropped for you, but my favorite topic is history.

0 Replies

So Set, when are you moving out?

Seriously, get the **** out of the USA or die trying.

0 Replies

Translation: Anyone who doesn't sign on to your brain-dead agenda, which includes hating the French because they wouldn't join the criminal war in Iraq, and kissing Israeli ass, among other idiocies--is an unpatriotic American, and should leave the country.

Bite me, dickhead.

0 Replies

I'd do more than bite you if I could ya stinkin hippy.

0 Replies

French Families Adopt U.S. Graves in Normandy
by Eleanor Beardsley

Morning Edition, May 26, 2008 · Eight years ago, a French couple founded an organization that adopts graves of American servicemen who died during the Normandy invasion of World War II. The volunteer group encourages French families to lay flowers on the graves when the Americans' own families can't do it.

High on a bluff above Omaha Beach, the American cemetery at Colleville-sur-Mer is a place of stunning beauty and tranquility. Rising from thick, manicured grass, rows of white crosses and stars of David face westward, towards America.

It's hard to imagine that 64 years ago, war raged here. But there are the 10,000 graves to prove it.

Among them is the uncle of a North Carolina NPR listener, Jenny Malcolm. Walter Malcolm was killed near here, two month after D-Day. Last summer, while investigating her uncle's death, Jenny Malcolm came across the French volunteer organization, Les Fleurs de la Memoire, or Flowers of Memory.

Malcolm said she mustered up her best French and asked if flowers could be placed on her uncle's grave. Two months later she received a photo of his grave in the mail. "It was quite an emotional experience," she says.

Malcolm was particularly touched because her uncle's immediate family are all now dead, and no one had ever visited his grave. MarieTherese La Vieille, who founded the organization eight years ago with her husband, says its important that each soldier be remembered when their own families cant come anymore.

"When we joined, we promised to visit the grave once a year and to lay flowers on the grave," she says. "Sometimes people take flowers from their own gardens. And they say it is like a son, like a cousin, like a brother. It is a member of the family."

This year dozens of members of Les Fleurs de la Memoire have shown up at Colleville-sur-Mer for the annual Memorial Day ceremony, which begins with a flyover by U.S. fighter jets in the missing-man formation.

A French priest recites the Lord's Prayer, then a rabbi chants the Kadish. And a French military band plays the "Star-Spangled Banner."

But behind the grand ceremony, a simple tribute unfolds at the back of the cemetery. Jean Michel Miette, 50, kneels in front of the grave of Jenny's uncle, Pvt. 1st Class Walter C. Malcolm. Miette is the one who adopted Malcolm's grave and he has come from Paris this morning to honor him.

Miette, like Jenny Malcolm, discovered Les Fleurs de la Memoire last summer. He says the organization has enabled him to honor the American soldiers who sacrificed their lives for his country and for liberty.

"With enormous emotion in my heart, I want to say thank you, Walter," Miette says. "I will never forget you or your heroic compatriots."

Since Les Fleurs de la Memoire brought them together, Jean Michel and Jenny Malcolm now speak regularly on the phone. She says she feels her uncle finally has family to visit his grave.

I hesitated to post this on a sick thread like this, but, what the heck. I'm an optimist. - edgarblythe

0 Replies

High Seas wrote:

I wish someone would explain to me why, if the enemy is Al Qaeda, we first invade Iraq (no connection whatsoever with AQ) and...

To understand this, you may wish to consult the dozens of quotations from the beginning of the decade in which President Bush gave as a reason concern that Iraq had not suspended its WMD research programs. You're right, it is a completely separate issue from our opposition to Al Qaeda.

0 Replies

That's nice Edgar but until the French government stops negotiating with organizations on the terror list I won't back down.

The French cannot be trusted. I will say Sarkozy is better than his predecessor.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

The French cannot be trusted. I will say Sarkozy is better than his predecessor.

At least (nearly) one out of 64,473,140 French who isn't thaaaaat untrustful. (Though the French themselves think in their majority differently. Just proves that they can't be trusted.)

0 Replies

Why You Can Never Trust the French

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know