The poulets are coming home to roost

France has always been at the vanguard of the move to accommodate radical Islam. Whether it’s refusing to enforce UN sanctions against Iraq, refusing to join the coalition in Iraq, undermining Israel, or fawning over Arafat, you can count on the French for groveling, self-interested appeasement. It’s appropriate, therefore, that the French should be the first to demonstrate the inevitable effect of appeasement: those to whom you pander will invariably turn on you. If you read LGF, you’ll know that the French have for weeks been defending against increasingly aggressive attacks from those suburban “youths” wwho such a significant part of its up-and-coming Gen Z.Recognizing France’s inability suddenly to produce backbone, those same youths are leaving the banlieus, packing guns, and taking the battle to some more serious targets than just cars:

Youths forced passengers off three buses and set them on fire overnight in suburban Paris, raising tensions Thursday ahead of the first anniversary of the riots that engulfed France’s rundown, heavily immigrant neighborhoods.

No injuries were reported, but worried bus drivers refused to enter some suburbs after dark, and the prime minister urged a swift, stern response.

The riots in October 2005 raged through housing projects in suburbs nationwide, springing in part from anger over entrenched discrimination against immigrants and their French-born children, many of them Muslims from former French colonies in Africa. Despite an influx of funds and promises, disenchantment still thrives in those communities.

About 10 attackers – five of them with handguns – stormed a bus in Montreuil east of Paris early Thursday and forced the passengers off, the RATP transport authority said. They then drove off and set the bus on fire.

Late Wednesday, three attackers forced passengers off another bus in Athis-Mons, south of Paris, and tossed a Molotov cocktail inside, police officials said. The driver managed to put out the fire. Elsewhere, between six and 10 youths herded passengers off a bus in the western suburb of Nanterre late Wednesday and set it alight.


The overnight attacks and recent ambushes on police have raised concern about the changing character of suburban violence, which is seemingly more premeditated than last year’s spontaneous outcry and no longer restricted to the housing projects. The use of handguns was unusual – last year’s rioters were armed primarily with crowbars, stones, sticks or gasoline bombs.

Regional authorities said the Nanterre bus line, which passes near Paris’ financial district, had not been considered at a high risk of attack. Francois Saglier, director of bus service at the RATP, said the attacks happened “without prior warning and not necessarily in neighborhoods considered difficult.”  (Emphasis mine.)

By the way, do note that, while the article starts with that useful noun “youths,” by the third paragraph we’re hearing that they’re mostly Muslim.  I wonder how long it will take before that information finally appears in the first paragraphs of these stories.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • JJ

    The endlessly fascinating thing about French “self-interested” appeasement is that it never works – and they never learn. Never!

    It didn’t work in 1870, it didn’t work in 1914, it didn’t work in 1939 (well, really throughout the thirties), and it didn’t work in southeast Asia in 1953. It NEVER works.

    As a “self-interested” tactic, could it go more wrong? They get whacked every damn time – and they absolutely do not learn.

    That’s the amazing part. A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.

    Is this an insane nation?

  • Patrick O’Hannigan

    That’s a very clever blog post headline, Bookworm.

  • mts

    About 10 attackers – five of them with handguns – stormed a bus in Montreuil east of Paris

    I thought France was the most enthusiastically gun controlled country in Europe. How did these pistols get in the country?

    Let’s see – the police are afraid of defending the native French against the muslim horde. The citizens are disarmed. The muslims are armed and fearless. I swear, France is going to end up with a South American style coup de teat if this insanity doesn’t stop. Cheese eating surrender monkey jokes aside, losing a free France is going to be a terrible loss, and it will be a crying shame.

  • Ymarsakar

    People respect and fear power and its demonstrations. To demonstrate power is to make people obey, to not demonstrate power is to invite people to fill in the power vacuum. No matter which portion of the human continuum you are a part of, this behavioral trigger applies the same.

    The exercise of power brings respect, in proportion to the amount of power exercised. Weakness brings contempt, inversely proportional to the amount of inherent power a person has but yet does not choose to use such power, demonstrating weakness of will. The more power a person has, yet chooses not to use it, the level of contempt from human observers (regardless of sect or culture or religious foundation) increases exponentially. This is as opposed to the low level contempt that people hold for the weak, who have no power in the first place. That contempt is simply functional and pragmatic, lasting up until the time the obstructions are gotten rid of (i.e. Darfur).

    As such, the strong have a small amount of functional contempt for the weak. But humanity reserves the most contempt for those weak of heart and spirit, as demonstrated by their inability and unwillingness to use the power at their disposal. It is understandable, for humans, why a person cannot do anything if he is powerless, but it is not comprehensible to most why if someone has the power, yet chooses not to use it.

    Add the fact that the rewards of knocking off the weakened top dog, is a pretty good motivator for human behavior, and you got what you got.

    Is this an insane nation?

    Comment by JJ | October 26, 2006

    No, JJ, just a nation that sent its best to die on the trenches of WWI, leaving all the cowards and idiots back home to take power after the war was over. Useful attrition strategy to gain power, if you know of what is going on with embedded reporters and casualties among them.

    How do about 5 to 10 teenagers herd a bus full of folk off a bus in the Deep South? That is like asking, how does about 5 guys on horses, stick up a train full of people with handguns. They don’t. Benefit to living in the Wild West. Instead of the decadent East.

  • Ymarsakar

    It didn’t work in 1870, it didn’t work in 1914, it didn’t work in 1939 (well, really throughout the thirties), and it didn’t work in southeast Asia in 1953. It NEVER works.

    So long as people keep bailing them out of the problems they got themselves into, I don’t think they really care whether it works or not.

    They got bailed in 1914 by fresh American dough boys. They got bailed in 1942 by American D-Day troop casualties and 101st Airborne Experimental drops. And they got bailed out of Vietnam by the US.

    When you reward children for misbehaving, they are not going to learn anything or change their behavior.

    I don’t think they expect different results, JJ. I think they expect the same result, which is that they make the problems occur, and the US solves it for them. With the help of some others, notably Britain or Australia.

  • Danny Lemieux

    The important thing is that we control who we let into our own country. Do we welcome those French who created this situation only to flee somewhere elso to live the good life at their host country’s expense, or do we reward those French (and there are many) who will stay to defend what is left of their own country? I know all too well from my French side of the family that there are many that I do not want to allow into my country so that they can live off the blood, sweat and tears of those that have sacrificed to keep us free, not to mention overlooking the scorn that they have shed upon us over the years. Let them stay and fight and, if they won’t do that, then let them submit. Those not willing to fight for their liberty don’t deserve it.

  • Ymarsakar

    The only option for the free French is to move out of the country. There is little they can do to fight inside of a nation that doesn’t even believe in itself. A nation is composed of believers, if 80% do not believe and only 20% believe, that 20% is not going to be able to do much to change the perceptions of others especially when they aren’t the ones in power.

    I did say many many months ago when the French riots started happening, for people in France to get out of the country, if not to the US, then somewhere else. That was when Neo was covering the situation.

  • Danny Lemieux

    I don’t have any trouble with the French leaving – it’s just that those most responsible for France’s decline into Third Worldism will be the first to abandon ship. Let them flee to Argentina or, even better, Ivory Coast. For the remainder, send them arms, send them intelligence but…not one drop of American blood!

  • Ymarsakar

    Speaking about Europe, Neo has up a very nice post about France and France 2’s court case.

    It places the burden of proof in defending against a libel suit unconscionably– almost ludicrously–high.

    Compare this to the American standard for defamation, particularly for public figures (and Charles Enderlin is nothing if not a public figure). The burden of proof in the US is entirely on the plaintiff to prove the statement was defamatory, false, and malicious. In New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, the Supreme Court established the standard: the First Amendment protected “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” criticism of public officials, at least unless it could be proved that the critic was deliberately lying or showed “reckless disregard” for the truth.

    It turns out the US is serious—very very serious—about protecting First Amendment freedom of speech rights. It’s also less concerned than a country like France about the power of insults, or with the need to prevent slurs on one’s honor. “Whatever,” says the US, we can take it; what’s most important is the right to free speech. What’s most important to the French seems to be that society be courteous at all costs, even to public figures. And in making accusations against public figures, even a private citizen must make sure he has conducted a thorough investigation.

    Of course, the need for a thorough investigation doesn’t seem to apply to Charles Enderlin or France 2. He’s free to broadcast any charge he wants (at least, as long as it’s PC)—for example, that the IDF murdered Mohammed al-Durah. He needs neither to prove his assertion, nor to defend himself against the charges that he misrepresented the facts, nor to show that he was conscientious in his duty as a journalist when he jumped to that conclusion based on Talal’s tapes–which present a one-minute scene embedded in almost a half-hour of other scenes that are obviously faked, do not show either father or son being hit and bleeding, and give no indication that the gunfire making the bullet holes in the wall behind al-Durah was coming from the IDF position, much less that he was shot by them.

    Btw, Danny, this is what America got for liberating France and fighting French troops in Africa. We got France 2 putting lies out in favor of our enemy, in the propaganda war. Nice.

  • Ymarsakar

    Overall, as much as we Americans detest the French, I do believe they detest us just as much. Hopefully this will make Chirac (Don’t ever use the English language in the same room as me) and Co go somewhere else, like Canada and Australia. Home of the usual “loyalists”.

  • jg

    “Is this an insane nation?” (JJ asks.)

    Most of us study in school some form of European history . English history came easily to me; Dutch, as well. German has begun to make sense lately; new insights brought on by the Islamic onslaught suddenly have brought patterns to Spain’s background. But France..

    As all commenters seem to say, the French don’t make sense. I suspect even in the 18c., when the colonies welcomed French help, most Americans still didn’t understand them.

    (T.Jefferson was the most bemused and bewitched, maintaining most of his life that the French Revolution was needed and welcome.)

    neo seems just as bemused at times in her latest reportings. She does emphasize, they are not like us. Washington and Hamilton talked about the ‘self interest of nations’ being paramount in international relations. In the case of the French, self interest is an absolute monarch.

  • Ymarsakar

    The French self-interest is whatever they can bribe, backstab for, and cajole.

  • Danny Lemieux

    To YM’s point, it is not coincidental to History that, when the Islamic empire was expanding into Western Europe between 1400 and 1700, that France was cutting side deals and betraying fellow Western Powers to the Muslims. Plus ca change….drink their wines,enjoy their food, but NEVER, NEVER trust the French Nation.

  • Ymarsakar

    Their wines soon won’t be even theirs, but imported.