Comments on: Another changed mind, this time in France

By: David Frankfurter

David Frankfurter — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 12:32:22 +0000

Kofi Annan has something to learn from Douste-Blazy http://dfrankfurter.livejournal.com/92069.html

By: jgr

jgr — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 21:18:05 +0000

But in clash of civilizations reason is a poor weapon against fanaticism (sergey writes).

One wonders what belief powered those Europeans who resisted the first Islamic assault?

The legend of Roland is certainly not consistent with today’s French culture.

Islam, I know in part, once held Sicily, and most of Spain, and, apparently, even the Eternal City for a period.

One of my English folk tales from the 10th century tells of the Saracens overwhelming a Cornish kingdom along the shores of Southern Britain.

The Saracens were devils who massacred innocent women and childen, even then.

By: Sergey

Sergey — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:30:55 +0000

To jgr:
The most wise French thinkers (Pascal, Descartes) also understood these limitations without neglecting reason. But they were devoted Christians. Dementia began with advent of atheism, with Laplace, Rousseau, Voltaire and others reacting on excesses of Catholic obscurantism. (Revolutionaries went as far as to declare Cult of Reason as official religion.) And this obscurantism also was direct consequence of slaughtering of Huguenots. So the pattern is the same: overreaction on overreaction. But in clash of civilizations reason is a poor weapon against fanaticism, so they failed badly, surrendering to Nazi, and now are going to surrender again to Islamonazi.

By: jgr

jgr — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 05:03:17 +0000

“And all their revolutions, restorations and new revolutions follow the same pattern: demolish anything to the ground and declare a new era (with new calendar and a new system of measurment).” (sergey)

I think you might be acknowledging the limits of human ‘reason,’ whether in politics or in other human pursuits. Certainly the French seem to have been reason’s chief proponent for several centuries.

Is that reason always reasonable?

I wonder how it has served the French, particularly in the 20c?

neo is giving us some insights..

By: Steve Rosenbach

Steve Rosenbach — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:36:03 +0000

Tiens! Le Cochon Frané§ais a volé!

By: Justin Olbrantz (Quantam)

Justin Olbrantz (Quantam) — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 23:55:39 +0000

Troll Stevie, our Toronto friend, is posting as “anonymous.” Comment deleted.
Anonymous | 10.30.06 – 1:28 pm | #

…

By: Jesusland Carlos

Jesusland Carlos — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 23:40:08 +0000

Killing paleo suicide bombers is moral.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 23:23:13 +0000

Troll Stevie, our Toronto friend, is posting as “anonymous.” Comment deleted.

By: Richard Aubrey

Richard Aubrey — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:46:20 +0000

This is an interesting development.

I had thought the purpose and effectiveness of the wall, before it was built, and the results of its partial building, was so obvious that nobody could miss it.

That being the case, objections could only have been based on the presumption that inconveniencing terrorists in their attempts to kill Jews was immoral.

Now we find there were, indeed, people so stupid as to not know what a wall is for, and so stupid as to miss the results of the partial building.

As to where the wall is to be built;
I don’t think the Israelis owe the terrorists and their supporters much at all, much less a less efficient defensive position because somebody claims a cabbage patch would be cut in half.

By this time, the purpose and attitude of the Palestinian population is well-enough known that there’s no longer any point in pretending this is about anything but the long-running attempts to kill Jews and destroy Israel.

Any reasons are excuses. If they did not exist, others would be found. If they are remedied, others would be found.
If none existed, sufficient would be made up.

By: Sergey

Sergey — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:26:08 +0000

If France really is going to change it’s mind, this will be a spectacle not for feeble nerves. As Mark Steyn recently commented, usial French reaction to a problem is ignore it as long as it is possible; but when they eventually react to repeated provocation, it tends to be nuclear option. They did not have 30-years long war with Protestants, they simply slaughtered them all in one night. And all their revolutions, restorations and new revolutions follow the same pattern: demolish anything to the ground and declare a new era (with new calendar and a new system of measurment).