The means by which France could defeat the terrorists are obvious: To compel the majority of French Muslims to turn against the terrorists, the French authorities would have to make them fear the French state more than they fear the terrorists. That is a nasty business involving large numbers of deportations, revocation of French citizenship, and other threats that inevitably would affect many individuals with no direct connection to terrorism. In the short term it would lead to more radicalization. The whole project of integration as an antidote to radicalism would go down the drain. The effort would be costly, but ultimately it would succeed: most French Muslims simply want to stay in France and earn a living.
As I said yesterday, this won’t have a pretty ending. For the first time since the Nazi occupation, French Jews were unable to observe Shabbat in their synagogues today. Because France has imported an ideology as bad as, if not worse than, the Nazis. In the banlieues, it is a new occupation.
[Update a few minutes later]
France rounds up 900 terror suspects.
Well, it’s a start.
[Saturday-morning update]
The (latest) exodus has begun:
Hang on to the West Bank, Israel, you’re going to need the room…They will also be subject to terrorist attacks in Israel, but there they can have a gun and shoot back. I hope they all leave. They can’t do any good there, the French can’t protect them and won’t let them protect themselves, but in their new countries they can be a hard-core element to stiffen resistance. It’s time for triage and France is in the walking-dead category, although they might have a miracle revival. However that France wouldn’t be a nice place for Jews either, if somebody like Le Pen is in charge.
They’ve been leaving for years, but I think this may be (or should have been) the last straw for French Jewry.
[Update in the afternoon]
Claire Berlinski: “I am a Jew, and I am not leaving“:
…if you want to talk about odds, I’ll tell you about odds: In my grandfather’s regiment of 1,250 men, only 250 survived. So don’t tell me about the odds: It just makes you sound like a hysteric with no sense of history or proportion.
And while we’re at it: Let’s remember who won that war.
I am Jewish. I am in France. And I am not leaving–not because of a handful of terrorist swine, and not even if there’s an army of them. This family of Jews will not be driven out of Europe twice. And as far as I’m concerned, the response a Jew should have to this outrage is the one we should have had before–when up against a far more fearsome enemy. We may die, but we’ll die fighting, and you’ll be amazed how many of you we take down with us.
So let me speak personally now to anyone who thinks he’ll get me out of here: We will always have Paris. I will always have Paris. As will all the people who belong here. You, however, will die.
I have much more to say. But there is one more thing that strikes me as more important than all the other things on my mind. There are also many terrified Muslims in France right now. And yes, some of them are my friends–and close ones.
They too are the victims of these savages. They are victims in a double sense: Terrorists are as eager to kill them as they are eager to kill anyone in France. One of the cops they killed happened to be as Muslim, as has widely been reported. And they are victims in the second sense in that they this is only country they have. They will be associated forever with those animals–but they are French citizens. They have no Israel to go to. They have nowhere else to go to. So they will stay here too.
[Bumped]
To stop the influx of radicals France woudl have to go back on about 30 years of EU Open-boirder Open-immigration policy. The EU will not like that. France will most likely knuckle under unless the government changes radically.
A Marine Le Pen government would be a pretty radical change.
That is also a change that would be more repellent to a large percentage of the French -people like the late Charlie Hebdo editors- than an occasional jihadi outrage. Seems a three-sided civil war may be in the offing.
Nah. You aren’t getting how the EU Schengen treaty works. France’s security problem is not with citizens of other EU countries moving to France. Their security problem is due to people coming from their former colonies in North and Sub-Saharan Africa and settling in France. Even if they weren’t a Schengen treaty member they would still have the same problem. The UK has a similar problem with Pakistanians and is not part of the Schengen area.
Also there are clauses in the Schengen treaty where you can clause the borders of the country for emergency reasons. If the government of France wanted to close the borders for an emergency situation they could still do it. Also there are extradition treaties and pan-European police force cooperation schemes available to counter something like this. They could give more funding to Europol but it would not have helped in this case.
I will give you an example. A couple of years back some EU countries closed the borders around the Netherlands to stop narcotraffic. There was some chaffing but the thing is the Schengen treaty under article 2.2 allows you to close the borders for a limited time.
However, where public policy or national security so require a contracting party may, fter consulting the other contracting parties, decide that for a limited period national border checks appropriate to the situation shall be carried out at internal borders. If public policy or national security require immediate action, the contracting party concerned shall take the necessary measures and at the earliest opportunity shall inform the other contracting parties thereof.
“Nah. You aren’t getting how the EU Schengen treaty works. ”
You aren’t getting how the EU works….
Ask yourself this question:
Why is it that anti-immigration rallies are denounced by Merkel?
NY Times:
DRESDEN, Germany — Defying appeals from an array of German institutions to stay away from anti-immigration rallies, some 18,000 people took part in a protest here on Monday, parading against what they call the Islamization of Europe and putting pressure on the authorities to defuse social tensions.
The turnout more or less equaled that of late December, before Chancellor Angela Merkel urged Germans in her New Year’s address to shun the rallies and their organizers, who she said had “prejudice, coldness, even hatred in their hearts.”
When you have the accurate answer to that question get back to us.
The passage you quote is madness, the conclusion: “The effort would be costly, but ultimately it would succeed: most French Muslims simply want to stay in France and earn a living” insanity. A state creating fear and hatred amongst an internal population to achieved peace has never worked anywhere, unless the state is willing to go to the most extreme of tyranny and slaughter.
“France already has lost the capacity to police part of its territory” is simply crap.
““France already has lost the capacity to police part of its territory” is simply crap.”
Is it? I would like to know more if you have a link.
The only evidence I can find that “France already has lost the capacity to police part of its territory” is Goldman’s claim that’s the case, I’ve chased the reports on some of the riots, they were pretty small and attributed to youths facing unemployment and falling incomes.
From what I can find the “no go zones” are about keeping these areas from falling into slums through assistance and tax relief, not areas of danger to the general population.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3305/france-no-go-zones
Sorry I was mixing up PSZ and SUZ, but my points still stand, these areas are being policed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_France#Priority_Security_Zones_.28PSZ.29
In August 2012 the French Government announced the creation of fifteen Priority Security Zones (PSZ) in an effort to target crime hotspots. Extra police, riot police, detectives and members of the intelligence services are to be mobilised. Social services, educational bodies and charities also put extra resources into the selected areas.
Among the areas granted extra resources are neighbouhoods in Marseille, which are blighted by gun crime, and part of Paris’ 18th arrondisement district, where drug dealing is rife. The Moulins quarter in the northern city of Lille is under focus, as are three towns in the French oversees territory of Guyana.
The Neuhof area of Strasbourg was selected because of a need to tackle violent crime, and the historic rural town of Chambly to the north of Paris is being focused on because of rising burglary rates and car theft. The northern quarter of Amiens in the Somme region and areas of Seine-Saint-Denis to the north of Paris, which witnessed fierce rioting in 2005, are priority zones because of widespread drug dealing and a rampant black market.[1]
@Andrew_W
A ruling class that is disloyal to its people has lost its Mandate of Heaven. Marine Le Pen and her party seems to be the only French elites that are still loyal to the French.
“France already has lost the capacity to police part of its territory” is simply crap.
Really? What a compelling argument.
They have not policed the banieues for decades. What do you imagine will happen when they first attempt to?
“They have not policed the banieues for decades. ”
Not from what I can find, got a link?
Paris France had police in front of Charlie as the attack unfolded, but policing is not what happened.
Regular police officers are not armed to handle criminals with AK-47s and RPG-7s. The perps shot police officers when they were trying to escape. The policy basically slowly encircled them and called special forces to deal with them.
What else you would expect?
I wasn’t aware that the role of police was to be fodder. The policy allowed for 10 people to be shot, plus a few officers, then another half dozen people to be held hostage, and then an attempt at an arrest. It’s a policy for sure, but I would expect better.
As sensible as this:
The means by which America could defeat the black gangs are obvious: To compel the majority of black people to turn against the gangs, the American authorities would have to make them fear the US state more than they fear the gangs. That is a nasty business involving large numbers of prison camps, revocation of American citizenship, and other threats that inevitably would affect many individuals with no direct connection to gangs. In the short term it would lead to more radicalization. The whole project of integration as an antidote to radicalism would go down the drain. The effort would be costly, but ultimately it would succeed: most black Americans simply want to stay in America and earn a living.
The black gangs continue to exist because the Federal Government protects them from the armed militias and armed shopkeepers.
You forgot the biggest way government supports them. By continuing the WOD thereby giving them (the gangs) a convenient way to finance their “rumbling”; i.e. by selling illegal narcotics.
One of these things is not like the other. You seem to live on a different planet down in New Zealand.
Interesting comment, I’ve been thinking that the only people who advocate tyranny are the tyrants, and those happy to see in imposed in someone else’s country.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Interesting comment, I’ve been thinking that the only people who advocate tyranny are the tyrants, and those happy to see in imposed in someone else’s country.
Interesting and complete non-sequitur. Which seems to be your specialty, since you seem to be unable to respond to things people actually write.
Goldman advocates using State powers to intimidate the Muslim population into fearing the state, in the hope that doing so will undermine the terrorists, even though the vast majority of those subjected to this state terror have no links to the terrorists.
Rand, if you don’t see that as fascism in everything but name you need to look at what your principles mean to you, and at how cheaply you sell them.
Here’s some pointers Goldman and his ilk might find useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_legislation_in_prewar_Nazi_Germany
Again, a total non-sequitur.
You really do seem to live in a fantasy world from Down Under.
In fairness, Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch aren’t faced with the kind of large, restive Muslim populations that (say) Paris, Marseilles, Rotterdam, Brussels and Goteborg are now.
Perhaps his perspective would change if they were.
In fairness, Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch aren’t faced with the kind of large, restive Muslim populations that (say) Paris, Marseilles, Rotterdam, Brussels and Goteborg are now.
Perhaps his perspective would change if they were.
No it wouldn’t, and Rand doesn’t live in any of those places, I bet that neither do you, and I’ll also bet that the vast majority of the populations of those cities would hate to see Goldman’s lunacy come into being in their cities.
I am not really comfortable with that “plan” but something should be done to separate the rocks from the beans and keep any more rocks from getting in the bag. I guess in this situation, you would also need to work on preventing beans from magically becoming rocks too.
It is stupid for the goal to be for Muslims to fear the state more than they fear jihadists. The goal should be to get them to identify with the French state rather than with the jihadists of the Ummah. They need to instill a little love of country here.
What should be done with the French who want to destroy their own country? How do you responsibly remove these people from society?
“It is stupid for the goal to be for Muslims to fear the state more than they fear jihadist”
Agreed.
What you want is for the Muslims and all other Frenchmen to love the French state, in it’s freedom and liberty, so that they fear the loss of that state more than they fear the jihadists.
This is why it’s harder to mount such an attack in the US; most immigrant Muslims have assimilated into our society, and are in general willing to turn in the radicals.
It is also, I think, why France may find it a greater challenge to separate the moderates (defined as Berlinski’s Muslim friends who just want to live a peaceful life) from the radicals, since the country as a whole doesn’t seem to have assimilated them as well as we have.
Not so sure the approach is as horrible as Goldman thinks. Then again, I’m not too impressed with his reasoning; one may assume anything, but his estimate of 60,000 “supporters” is just GIGO. At least I didn’t see any data upon which he based his guesstimate. Also his claim that 60% of the French prison population is suspect. The linked article states that claim, but provides no direct link to data. Also, they include the very broad definition of ‘come from “Muslim religion or culture.”’ So I must conclude that Goldman is building nightmares based on fairy dust.
What I did find interesting was the quote in said article that
I can’t speak for the methodology of the survey, but the numbers are suggestive.
“This is why it’s harder to mount such an attack in the US; …..”
It is????
“…..most immigrant Muslims have assimilated into our society,
They have??????
“….and are in general willing to turn in the radicals.”
They ARE????????
The first thing France (this applies to any nation in the West) needs to do is develop a touch of sanity. For example, there has been much ado about the thousands (!) who have traveled to the middle east to associate and or train with terror groups. A sane policy would be to simply refuse them reentry. It’s not a cure, but it’s a start. I’ll mention the Boston bombings; there was no sane reason to allow the elder brother, who had known Islamist leanings and associations, to remain in the US, or be allowed reentry.
It’s a bandaid on chest wound.
As for the “thousands,” well, that is, THAT WE KNOW OF!
There are Aproximately 174K Marines, only 20K are combat arms, in fact fewer, but we will stick with a simple measure. The other 150K are acting in support of the combat arms, whatever combat they face is incidental of defense, or stabilization.
If the entirety of the US Marine Corps were allowed to act in the absense of ROE, using only aproximately 10% of THEIR force against any specific target in the world, that area of the world will burn, and rue the day they let the fire burn the hounds tail.
That is 10% of an armed force that is made up of only .2 percent of the population of the united states.
NOW, by CONSERVATIVE standards, Islam and radical islam, and violent islam, and supportive islam, the LOW Number is about 12% of all pollable muslims.
12% of of 1.6 billion (a bullshit number, but that is the number bandied about the number of muslims) is a SHITTON higher than .2% of 320 million.
I will NOT support “rational” thought, when IN FACT it’s completely IRRATIONAL, since, IF YOU ARE WRONG! IF YOU ARE WRONG! that’s 200 million, against, (including all active forces in the West, approximately) 20 milllion.
An Irrational foe, in both methodology, and numbers requires an irrational response.
Douglas, you call it a bandaid on a chest wound. I don’;t disagree; that’s why I called it the first thing. Bandaging a chest wound is hardly enough, but it beats the heck out of standing around twiddling while watching the victim bleed to death. It’s a start – low hanging fruit that’s an easy thing to do.
An irrational response is required? I disagree, but only semantically; it would be a rational response if it helped us. A response may well need to be asymmetrical, ruthless, unconventional, any number of things… but doing what one needs to do to win is never irrational. Not doing so, however, is what’s always irrational (and oft suicidal).
In war, winning is not the main thing. It’s the only thing.
The difference being dealing with the Muslim militants in one’s own country rather than dealing with the Muslim militants all over the world. Two different but serious issues.
The only problem with your math is that it doesn’t fit with reality, there is no force of 200 million Muslims armed with AK47’s besieging the gates, not on this world.
Though there are over 4 million Muslims serving in the regular armed forced around the world, thing is, most of them are in countries that are US friends or allies.
The Pograms of Liberty will begin soon, it’s a FACT! We are only as civilized as our situation, and once again, France is going to civilize itself into fascism, then failure, and those nations less civilized and beneath france, will have to show the value of rough men.
I mourn that I will live to see the 4th world war.
How about ya just prosecute criminals as they occur? Stop trying to make precrime happen, Rand, it’s not going to happen.
The problem is that Pax Americana (or what Russian elites refer to as “Pindostan”) imported hostile aliens into France against the wishes of the French. Predictably these imports from North Africa began preying on the French (tribalism is an immutable fact of human nature). The rest follows…
“How about ya just prosecute criminals as they occur?”
They are more than just criminals and the response should be more appropriate to the threat.
“How about ya just prosecute criminals as they occur?”
Never heard about conspiracy laws eh?
Are they mere crimes or terrorist attacks? It’s better to try and deter attacks if possible than to treat them as mere crimes.
Anyone got a MSM link to the “France rounds up 900 terror suspects”? I’m not getting anything googling it on News.
To compel the majority of French Muslims to turn against the terrorists, the French authorities would have to make them fear the French state more than they fear the terrorists.
Or they could try persuasion rather than compulsion. Making cultural heroes out of Ahmed Merabet and Franck Brinsolaro, together, seems like an ideal opportunity right about now. I would wager that, today, nine out of ten French Muslims would rank Merabet higher than the Kouachi brothers if you asked them, and nine out of ten of those would be telling the truth. Build on that before it fades.
Not only what can they do now…….
What can WE do now and what are we doing?
In NYC for example – site of 9/11 where 3000 people were incinerated by the same sorts as the those dead perpetrators of the recent Paris attacks……..
we have DeBlasio focusing like a laser on ………………………..
banning those evyl styrofoam cups.
And at the same time picking fights with the NYPD and causing slowdowns……….
On yes THAT will deter attackers from trying an attack in NYC……
Someday I hope our officials will come to understand that their top 2 duties is the safeguarding of their constituents freedoms and safety.
Here’s something else France could usefully do, something that would harm no one and cost nothing, but might deter at least a few future attackers; bury the terrorists in pig skins, and make it public that they have done so.
It’s a good idea on several levels. Firstly, it has no downside whatsoever (the needed pig remains could simply be leftovers from a slaughterhouse). Secondly, it might deter a few such attackers in future. Thirdly, it can’t possibly offend Muslims, because as the media and politicians keep telling us, these terrorists have nothing to do with Islamism, so, of course, Muslims can’t possibly be offended by doing this to the terrorists, because islamic extremist terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with islam, right?
* Erick Ericson was the one who floated this excellent proposal. I think the idea is good one, for it has the gold standard of good ideas; no downside, with plenty of possible upside.
Here’s a link to the article about Erick Erickson’s idea;
http://www.redstate.com/2015/01/09/so-they-were-actual-muslims-then/
I have a somewhat more extreme idea similar to yours. Wrap the terrorists in pigskins and throw them on the nearest convenient garbage dump – and film the process. And most definitely not with any sort of ceremony, religious or otherwise.
I would have suggested feeding them to pigs, but that would cause a public health issue.
In the coming days, the old and tired “hearts and minds” tactic of playing nice with massed crouds of “protesters” representing the enemy will end.
There will be bloodshed, their will be lead and while it will harm the souls of the individuals who must do it, they will do it because the alternative is more horrible than what it is they will enact. I despise violence, I wish that it were not a necessity yet I know that a familiarity with violence is a necessity in an world filled with bipedal animals pretending at civilization, so when the time comes, my ammo will be expended, and I will be filled with remorse that I must feel as a caring Human who must cut down the animals who would harm, enslave or kill those for whom I care.
bury them with sanitary napkins or tampons, I understand that women are MORE unclean than pigs.
Even if women are JUST as unclean as pigs, that in itself should tell you about the nature of the enemy, and enemy they are as a whole.
NASA has a phrase, and maybe the USAF uses the same phrase, that they apply to events like the Challenger and Columbia disasters. They call them “non-recoverable accidents.” Let’s change the wording a bit to come up with a similar saying for the mindless desire to do good at all costs that saturates all facets of leftist thought, including immigration.
“Nonrecoverable compassion,” or better yet “non-survivable compassion.”
American Jews belong in Paris?
These jihadis are also the result of child abuse. Deport unfit parents and give there kids to loving families. Do not allow unfit parents to legally enter the country. Effectively deter illegal entry (it’s about attitude, not fences.)
Police are required, but any use of police equals some bit of police state. That can’t be helped but should be monitored.
Well, fair or not I’ve about had it with the muslim community staying silent to protect their own even when they know something is up. To hell with them all, take them to the border and tell them to start walking or start digging, because there is no place left for them here.
Wars against ideology are not won simply by killing the soldiers sent out onto the field, but by absolutely devastating the culture that created and supported them. “Innocent” civilians are going to have to suffer and perish by the millions to win this war. If we don’t have the stomach for it, let’s just surrender and be done with it.
“Well, fair or not I’ve about had it with the muslim community staying silent to protect their own even when they know something is up. ”
Well, if you were faced with the choice of:
1) taking a stand and having insane murderous jihadists kill you or….
2) do nothing and suffer absolutely ZERO consequences from the US or anyone else…..
Which would you choose?
I’m not disagreeing with you…I’m just saying that in the face of US and European spinelessness, the choice of the moderates is simple.
“Innocent” civilians are going to have to suffer and perish by the millions to win this war. If we don’t have the stomach for it, let’s just surrender and be done with it.
Mr. Kurtz: “Exterminate all the brutes.” Is this fascism you’re recommending? I don’t know any other way to read that.
Not that I advocate it, but by what definition of “fascism” are you calling it that? The usual leftist tripe that “fascism is whatever I am opposed to today”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
looks like everyone has there own definition.
I go for:
1. Authoritarian.
2. Exclusivist – Control of the state by a small part of the population, violently hostile towards other sections of the population.
3. Aggressively expansionist.
4. Understands power can be exercised through state control, rather than ownership, of the means of production.
Everyone should have a go at defining “fascism”, it’s so much fun to play.
Those definitions don’t seem to be those used by the people who coined the phrase fascist. But then its Wikipedia, so history is whatever people want it to be.
Not that I advocate it, but by what definition of “fascism” are you calling it that? The usual leftist tripe that “fascism is whatever I am opposed to today”
Not at all. I’m calling it that by the rather reasonable standard that calling for the wholesale slaughter of millions — including innocents — in the name of some overriding security concern is precisely the same logic that the nazis used to wage a genocidal war against both their racial/religious and political enemies. Please review the nazi arguments about the ‘stab in the back’ from jews, bolsheviks, communists, and socialists. Is this at all controversial?
That was Nazism, not fascism per se. Mussolini invented fascism, and it had none of those elements. There’s nothing intrinsically racist, or genocidal about it.
So what is intrinsic about fascism that differentiates it from other non-communist and non-monarchist authoritarian forms of government.
FWIW Umberto Eco’s definition at the Wiki link includes traits eg xenophobia, need for an enemy, thirst for conflict, that could be seen as precursors to the wholesale slaughter delivered by Nazism.
Fascism (which, again, was invented by Mussolini, who was a socialist) is totalitarianism. Everything within the state, nothing outside the state. Nazism was just one particularly virulent form of it. Sharia is another. If people don’t obey the state, they may end up being slaughtered, but there is nothing intrinsically racist about it.
“. . . totalitarianism. Everything within the state, nothing outside the state.”
Wouldn’t that be communism? Private ownership of property and corporations are consistent with fascism.
” If people don’t obey the state, they may end up being slaughtered,”
Isn’t that consistent with any form of totalitarianism?
Private ownership of property and corporations are consistent with fascism.
On paper, but the government ultimately controls them. It’s not true ownership.
Still, I don’t think you’ve made any arguments differentiating fascism from other forms of totalitarianism.
I wasn’t really trying to. They’re all the same thing, pretty much. I just find it amusing that commies think they’re somehow in opposition to it, instead of simply a different form.