While the riots in France and Denmark are not linked to terrorism there are certainly strong interests who would wish to promote them or seize the opportunity to further an agenda. Im sure there are strong reasons for discontent in the communities but the step up to rioting requires instigators, these must be found and their employment revealed. A clue would be to look for people similar to the now jailed Haroon Aswat. For context, bear with me for a short off topic detour.

Haroon Aswat was the alleged mastermind and MI6 operative behind the London 7/7 bombings. For brevity, MP and ex-cabinet member Michael Meacher:

politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1566919,00.html
“Whether the hunt for those behind the London bombers can prevail against these powerful political forces remains to be seen. Indeed it may depend on whether Scotland Yard, in its attempts to uncover the truth, can prevail over MI6, which is trying to cover its tracks and in practice has every opportunity to operate beyond the law under the cover of national security.”

Rather than being of muslim origin, the case of Aswat and other cicumstances make the London bombings look more like Gladio style terrorism. Weeks before the bombings MI6 prepared media by pointing out who to blame.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1532011,00.html
“On Monday it was Chatham House. Yesterday it emerged that the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (Jtac) – a group that combines the police, MI5, MI6 and GCHQ – had filed a report three weeks before 7/7 that cited Iraq as a “motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist-related activity in the UK”.”

This is resonable to the 2/3 of the Brits who agree and oppose Tony Blair over the war, but the bombings didnt originate in Iraq but in Kosovo and London and despite al-quida videos and all may better be compared with precedents like this:

http://www.williambowles.info/spysrus/sword_play.html
“Indeed, it would not do for the families of the 85 people ripped apart by the Aug. 2, 1980 bombing of the Bologna train station to know that their loved ones had been murdered by “men inside Italian state institutions and … men linked to the structures of United States intelligence,” as the Italian Senate concluded after its investigation in 2000.”

“‘You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force … the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security.””

Today the picture is sufficiently blurred by sick ideas like the ‘clash of civilization’ and media injections from MI6 and others to blame the wrong people and employ the wrong solutions. As this wicked and manufactured reality unfolds one may ask qui bono? -look for the ‘cash of civilizations’.

If you still care, I did live in India long enough to know that they treat their women better than the jihad-loving goat-lovers do.

Or maybe you believe in Islam. If that is the case, you need to get your friends into the 21st century…the mindset that allows a man to beat a woman just because HE screwed up is *so out*.

You would have to be a man, from the way that you write. No real woman would attempt to make the points that you foolishly mention.

But, if in fact you are a woman, you need to shut up and learn some manners before you taught the hard way.

Lisa

The statistical evidence suggests that Ba’ath diehards and Islamists are responsible for the most Muslim deaths in Iraq. The former were of course reponsible for that before the invasion, and the latter have caused huge numbers of Muslim deaths in countries around the world. And that is a problem for them.

By the way, to say you ignore a variable you cannot change is tantamount to admiting defeat. One should be very thoughtful before admitting defeat.

It is not the same thing. Because you can ignore a variable you can’t change, and still acquire a solution. Admitting defeat is ignoring any attempts to find a solution in the first place.

Solutions have to be based upon reality, and it also has to be based upon what is possible and feasible, not just what is ideal.

Terrorism will likely go on long after Iraq is stablized.

The goal of America is to affect terrorism in such a way that it no longer threatens America. That may or may not mean the eradication of terrorism itself.

I do believe it’d be fine with us, if it keeps terrorizing Europe, so long as they are rendered incapable of doing us harm.

Terrorizing Europe, in the global sense, only does us harm if they acquire European nukes. That’s about it.

So the national security is very pragmatic. It’s aims in Iraq, though apparently idealistic to some, is about 100% realistic to others.

It may not be the ideal solution. But it is a solution America can live with, with emphasis on live.

Ymarsakar do you usually smoke crack when you type messages?

That’s pretty funny. Anyone else agree?

I can’t be asked to dignify your post.

Oh, goodness, I recognize it already. The utter defeat of someone living in degeneration, upon facing Absolute Moral Authority. And a couple of rock solid arguments.

Don’t feel demoralized, you can try again when you find another site with less adroit wordsmiths and propagandists.

Lower the bar, it’s too high to jump over, dontcha know.

Thanks for reading my points anyway.

What points? I read the quotes that everyone was quoting. They were your points? Oh okay, if you say so. Doesn’t really matter.

And then we have the war in Iraq, where a country is being liberated through “shock and awe”

Oh come on, don’t bullshit. I know very well we did not drop fuel air bombs on Iraq, or use nukes and gravitational distortion earthquake producing mantle penetrating missiles either.

Much as I wish we did, I absolutely know for a fact that we didn’t. So there goes your shock and awe. Ain’t no shock without the shockwave from a nuke, and no awe without the mushroom cloud.

Is anyone counting how many Muslims are being killed by the American forces there?

Ya, they suffer about… what was it again, 10 to 15 times the fatalities we suffer? Hard to tell, when the Pentagon are hiding the numbers from us, and the press corps are sucking up to the military by not finding out those same numbers. Very hard, but estimates are still possible.

And 50% of their casualties are fatalities, while ours are about 10%. So Fallujah had about 100 to 200 fatalities, they had about 3,000 something fatalities. Give or take a thousand.

So 2,000 casualties of ours compared to 6,000 well trained, fanatic idiots in Fallujah as casualties.

A factor of 3 in casualties for their hardcore, and a factor of about 15 to 1 in terms of fatalities. And these are the supposedly “hardcore jihadists”.

I don’t even include Z-man’s 50 man team that got blown up by a missile in Operation Restore Rights. That was funny, hearing about that.

Combat troops have 10 to 1 ratios. Very nice, what we expect from the Marine Corps and the Airborne. Rear echelon supply troops have a 2-1 ratio, still good, better than that Najaf cluster frack during the invasion.

10 dead ACMs for everyone one American, pretty good, by any standard. Which is probably higher, but the Pentagon is hiding the truth from America pretty well.

I love it when some Americans speculate about events in Europe. It sounds like a bunch of five year old kids discussing what sex must be like.

This is amazing, I find the same experience to be congruent when I hear Europeans or Internationalists talk about America and Iraq!! Ain’t that amazing.

The Pentagon might not be, but trust me the Muslim world is.

Oh ya, next time you go to a Muslim world. Be sure to send me the stats. I’m sure their 500 American dead for every Jihadist killed, will be funny stuff to the kids at the playground.

But to think Saudi Arabia is funding secret para-military groups that do a contract killing on people who speak out is just pure funny.

Didn’t somebody talk about how Bush and the Saudis both funding terrorism? Uh, nevermind.

I have a suggestion for you people. How about you tell your govt, yes those goddamn Republicans, to stop funding dictatorships in the Middle East that actually help the proliferation of the miltant groups, and give money to dangerous Mosques in Europe.

Hrm… maybe I was wrong. If America can fund terrorism in Saudi Arabia… why can’t Saudi Arabia fund paramilitary groups in Europe? Is Europe too sophisticated to be bum rushed by jihadists, is that it?

This is all great fun folks. For those who are getting tired, be sure to check out at the exit, and take your anti-nausea pills. Those should help.

I’m still good, ya know. It’s all good to me, a lot of this stuf f is good psychological and propaganda education for me. Learn how the other side sees it, ya know. Learn how the other side manipulates reality so that they can see it the way they wanna, that way too.

That way, not the highway.

The French will build a wall of separation, erect checkpoints.begin targeted assassinations and fly over Muslim areas with Mirages at high speed to create deafening sonic booms.
Then, in the spirit of European conciliation, they will bombard the North African quarters with rancid cheese and stale baguettes to Frenchize them. Soap will be banned from all Muslim areas.
The Muslims will emerge either assimilated or start jihad, er–riot #2.

First time as tragedy, second time as farce.

A note of optimism: Sarkozy is tough and determined, and sending in Police. He may be the only one in the establishement, but the French like him: they are sick of being talked to like idiots by people either disconnected from reality or who don’t give a shit as long as they are in power. witness Le Pen almost elected in 2002.

Sarkozy has a good chance of being elected in 2007. And he beleives in UK style labor laws… hence fixing the economic problem – which is also doing untold damage to non-muslims, will also be adressed.

Kind of ironic that the French have to use the police after all their high minded critisism of the Irak war and the Israeli responses to palestinian bombs.