or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Are the French this dumb?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are the French this dumb? - Page 2

post #41 of 115
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>France has a huge Arab population and their own problems with them. If they criticize those activities too much, they can expect a backlash and being called pro-Jewish. Perish the thought.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Life ain't exactly a bed of roses for France's North Africans either, Outsider.
post #42 of 115
[quote]Originally posted by Hassan i-Sabbah:
<strong>

Life ain't exactly a bed of roses for France's North Africans either, Outsider.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Whose fault is that? (I'm not attacking you) but it seems that France opened the floodgates a while ago for immigrants for the sake of not being xenophobic and they have regretted it. Many European countries have strict immigration laws and France is following suit. But they can't deport the ones already there.
post #43 of 115
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>

Whose fault is that? (I'm not attacking you) but it seems that France opened the floodgates a while ago for immigrants for the sake of not being xenophobic and they have regretted it. Many European countries have strict immigration laws and France is following suit. But they can't deport the ones already there.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hey Outsider...

It's curious, on the one hand the French have loved North African cooking, music, interiors and all that for years as a legacy of the colonies, and on the other it has been open to accusations of being a bit of a monoculture. I don't know. Unemployment is shocking among the young Arab kids in urban France anyway...

And Powerdoc can probably provide the details, but I know that until comparatively recently the North African colonies were actually part of 'Metropolitan France' and citizens were allowed residence, no stress... (met a nice Algerian girl called Eve who gave me the details... I forget now.) Something like that. Doc? Anyways, I don't think it was as simple as France 'throwing open the floodgates' so as not to appear xenophobic.

The point I wanted to make was that the same people who desecrate synagogues tend to desecrate mosques too! Racist bastÃ*rd dem don't really discriminate with their discrimination, if you get my drift. They don't prefer hating Jews to Arabs; general purpose hate does the trick.

I think France is actually a surprisingly tolerant place, on the whole, although it certainly has its problems and Jean Marie le Pen is possibly the Devil.

[ 06-25-2002: Message edited by: Hassan i-Sabbah ]</p>
post #44 of 115
[quote]Originally posted by Hassan i-Sabbah:
<strong>

The point I wanted to make was that the same people who desecrate synagogues tend to desecrate mosques too! Racist bastÃ*rd dem don't really discriminate with their discrimination, if you get my drift. They don't prefer hating Jews to Arabs; general purpose hate does the trick.

I think France is actually a surprisingly tolerant place, on the whole, although it certainly has its problems and Jean Marie le Pen is possibly the Devil.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You should never underestimate the blind fanatism with which some of the American public on this board like to portray Europeans (since we don´t have our own countries and cultures) as being anti semitist.
You cannot conquer Ireland. You cannot extinguish
the Irish passion for freedom. If our deed has not
been sufficient to win freedom, then our children
will win it by a better deed.
Pádraig Pearse

...
Reply
You cannot conquer Ireland. You cannot extinguish
the Irish passion for freedom. If our deed has not
been sufficient to win freedom, then our children
will win it by a better deed.
Pádraig Pearse

...
Reply
post #45 of 115
[quote]Originally posted by Geoff Vargo:
<strong>I think it's sad that such an idea can find purchase in a country such as France. Also, the lack of any concerted effort on the part of the French gov to stem the violent antisemitism that is occuring within its borders is criminal. Something is rotten in the State of France.</strong><hr></blockquote>

How do you know that France gov lack of effort to stem antisemitism ?

- synagogues are protected
- the denial of the holocaust is a felony in France and you can be sued for that (and you will be certainly). The propaganda of Nazism is strictly forbidden : you cannot buy nazi stuff in France even on Internet.

Now there is many different cultures here, and each gov try to keep peace between them, the events of Middle east tend to make some stress between the jews and the north african of France (even if normally they leave peacefully together) so the gov is here to calm down, not to pull oil on the fire. Our president Jacques Chirac (but i understand that you have much better things than to listen to his declarations) make a strong declaration about this on TV many times. These last weeks, there where very few (for what i eard) antisemit acts, so things calm down and have returned to normal. And it's better like this.
post #46 of 115
[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
- synagogues are protected
<hr></blockquote>

This American reports that police protection (a gendarme stationed) of synagogues has been true for some time.
post #47 of 115
Outsider,

Can I get this straight? Are you saying that when you "open the floodgates" on immigration you tend to regret it?

I genuinely may be misunderstanding, but this sounds like you may be thinking one would "regret it" because of the usual reasons: foreigners taking all the jobs, being culturally different in public places and making the metro look all brown, causing "trouble," raping our women etc. ... at least this is certainly the normal sense of "regret it" when used in this context even if your meaning is different or less strong. Certainly language like "floodgates" and "regret" sounds like it.

If so, I'd find this confidence in a causal link between immigration and "regret" pretty damn ironic coming from an American.

[ 06-26-2002: Message edited by: Harald ]</p>
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #48 of 115
I will only note that if buying a book registers as support for the contents of the book, a lot of people who are curious or concerned about culture and history are in trouble. There might be a lot of people just trying to see what all the fuss is about.

After all, you can't honestly agree or disagree with a work until you've read it. Sturgeon's Law applies to secondary sources.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #49 of 115
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>I will only note that if buying a book registers as support for the contents of the book, a lot of people who are curious or concerned about culture and history are in trouble.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh yes.

On my shelf:

Marx: Das Kapital
Friedman: Capitalism and Freedom
Giddens: The third way
Hoogvelt: Globalization and the postcolonial world
Klein: No Logo
Hitler: Mein Kampf
Weber: The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
Luhmann: Soziale Systeme
Durkheim: The division of labor in society

This collection would both make me very scizofrenic and blood enemies with myself several times if they represented what I believe.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #50 of 115
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>I will only note that if buying a book registers as support for the contents of the book, a lot of people who are curious or concerned about culture and history are in trouble. There might be a lot of people just trying to see what all the fuss is about.

After all, you can't honestly agree or disagree with a work until you've read it. Sturgeon's Law applies to secondary sources.</strong><hr></blockquote>


heheh

Well, I think its "curious" that some people in France found this book "curious"

I wonder how well this book sold in other countries. Could make for an interesting sociology paper


mika.
post #51 of 115
[quote]Originally posted by Anders:
<strong>

Oh yes.

On my shelf:

Marx: Das Kapital
Friedman: Capitalism and Freedom
Giddens: The third way
Hoogvelt: Globalization and the postcolonial world
Klein: No Logo
Hitler: Mein Kampf
Weber: The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
Luhmann: Soziale Systeme
Durkheim: The division of labor in society

This collection would both make me very scizofrenic and blood enemies with myself several times if they represented what I believe.</strong><hr></blockquote>


I always took you for a basket case. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

mika.
post #52 of 115
Scott, you are an arrogant *******. You stereotype an entire nation of people as "dumb" just because a popular book just happens to introduce an alternative theory to 9/11? This is arrogance at it's most global level. THIS is the sort of jingoism derided in the epic "My Statement to the Nations That Hate US" thread. Go join SDW over american food and coffee while you spread your sickening jingoism.
post #53 of 115
[quote]Originally posted by PC^KILLA:
<strong>


I always took you for a basket case. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

mika.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you mean that he has no arms and no legs ?
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
post #54 of 115
Mika,

Oh thank god you're here. Could you please post a list of "approved" books for us?

I'll give you a hand burning the rest.

You're keeping good company again.

Harald
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #55 of 115
[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>
Do you mean that he has no arms and no legs ?
:confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>

:eek:

In popular usage basket case refers to someone in a hopeless mental condition, but in origin it did have a physical meaning. In the grim slang of the British army during World War I, it referred to a quadruple amputee. This is one of several expressions that first became popular in World War I, or that entered American army slang from British English at that time. Some of these words reflect technical inventions and innovations of the time, such as parachute, blimp, tank, and bomber, and still have clear military associations. Others have lost most or all of their military connotations, such as ace, chow, slacker, and dud.

Pdoc, why you would assume the later is kinda freaky.


mika.

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
post #56 of 115
[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>Mika,

Oh thank god you're here. Could you please post a list of "approved" books for us?

I'll give you a hand burning the rest.

You're keeping good company again.

Harald</strong><hr></blockquote>


Happy times are here again, eh clever? I see you're keeping true to your good form, clever. Here are a couple more books you can add to your bon fire. I just placed an order for these at the local library.


] Bat Ye'or: The Dhimmi and Jews and Christians under Islam.

] Dr David Forte: The Legal Questions of Non Moslems under Islam.


mika.

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
post #57 of 115
[quote]Originally posted by PC^KILLA:
<strong>

:eek:

In popular usage basket case refers to someone in a hopeless mental condition, but in origin it did have a physical meaning. In the grim slang of the British army during World War I, it referred to a quadruple amputee. This is one of several expressions that first became popular in World War I, or that entered American army slang from British English at that time. Some of these words reflect technical inventions and innovations of the time, such as parachute, blimp, tank, and bomber, and still have clear military associations. Others have lost most or all of their military connotations, such as ace, chow, slacker, and dud.

Pdoc, why you would assume the later is kinda freaky.


mika.

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
i knew that ( after reading in a book of american slang and idioms) but couldn't resist from kidding

This dictionnary tell to that it refers to a mental disease caracterized by the need for the people to be in charge of someone else, a total lack of independance. I don't think it's refear to the case of Anders. The only disease of Anders i know is Burgermania. If you are interest i can give you the exact definition of the dictionnary when i will return home.

However i bought a book name Basket case from Carl Hiassen, i wish it will as fun as the Installer said it is.
post #58 of 115
Why not?
Even if we take your more limited definition, it still applies perfectly as regards Anders. Reading his posts you can clearly discern the total lack of critical independence in his thoughts, as they are just recycled leftist gibberish. This crap has already been debunked in the states, but I guess the Europeans are a little slower.


mika.


PS. I'm glad youve picked up on the play of words.
Maybe there is hope for you people after all.

[ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
post #59 of 115
Yeh, Mika, you got it. All that leftist bunkum DE-bunked in the states, and poor old Yoorp left scratching its head. Checked out <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=001469" target="_blank">this thread </a> for some proof you're in the right (again)?
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #60 of 115
[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>Yeh, Mika, you got it. All that leftist bunkum DE-bunked in the states, and poor old Yoorp left scratching its head. Checked out <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=001469" target="_blank">this thread </a> for some proof you're in the right (again)?</strong><hr></blockquote>


I read the thread...
My advice to you: MOVE!
You'll be better off, and so will America.

mika.

PS. please stay away from Israel... don't need your kind over here. bad for moral...
post #61 of 115
But hey, I thought that Jews (like me) were welcome in Israel?!
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #62 of 115
[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>But hey, I thought that Jews (like me) were welcome in Israel?!</strong><hr></blockquote>


Yeah, but somehow I suspect youll feel more at home with the Hammasniks across the road


mika.
post #63 of 115
[Became unnecessary. And Mika's post below looks odd because the book I'm talking about was "Mien Kampf" ... only I forgot to put the name in. Posted correctly elsewhere on the boards, hence sniiiip]

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: Harald ]

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: Harald ]</p>
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #64 of 115
quote:
After buying the book's copyright in 1979, the US publisher Houghton Mifflin continued to sell the book. Experts estimated that the publishing house has sold at least 300,000 copies, netting profits worth between 300,000 and 700,000 dollars.

uhh?!?

Where are you getting this? How can they buy the book's copyright in 1979, when the incident occurred in 2001?

This is the dumbest thing I've heard yet. Coming from you Im not surprised.


mika.

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
post #65 of 115
You've gone all quiet Mika.

Maybe you didn't see the correct post, so the question is:

Does the fact the Mien Kampf sold 300,000 copies since 1979 in the US prove, like you have insinuated by your comments regarding sales of a nutty book in France, that a nation that buys 'questionable' books can be judged en masse by that fact?

To put it more simply for you deary, does this show that our American brothers are "dumb" fascists? If not, why not?

(Again, a disclaimer for the hard of understanding, I don't think it does)
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #66 of 115
[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>You've gone all quiet Mika.

Maybe you didn't see the correct post, so the question is:

Does the fact the Mien Kampf sold 300,000 copies since 1979 in the US prove, like you have insinuated by your comments regarding sales of a nutty book in France, that a nation that buys 'questionable' books can be judged en masse by that fact?

To put it more simply for you deary, does this show that our American brothers are "dumb" fascists? If not, why not?

(Again, a disclaimer for the hard of understanding, I don't think it does)</strong><hr></blockquote>


Where did I say that? I was actually insinuating that the book was NOT bought by real Frenchies, but rather by alien elements in that country. Hassan picked up on that, but you are just too dense, and more intent in trolling than posting anything of real intelligence.


mika.
post #67 of 115
I am dense.

I didn't think someone could make such a statement and didn't spot that was your POV. I mean, in the context of the article which made it incredibly clear the book was sold via mass-market publicity to a mass-market audience, to claw a bit of anti rag-head sentiment into the the thread was actually a step further then you'd take it. By the way, Muslims in France are more then likely FRENCH not "alien elements."

But I digress. The books sold in France were sold to the "bad guys" in your thinking (surely you can't deny that, it would go against every post you've made in this thread). Who bought the Hitler books in the states? Were they bad guys, and does that make you worried at all?

meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #68 of 115
Idiot. It seems you should be worried, not me.

mika.
post #69 of 115
Play nice kids. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
post #70 of 115
[quote]Originally posted by Jamie:
<strong>Play nice kids. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, Jamie, moderate AO is an hard job : if you want to relax you can always take a drink with me
post #71 of 115
[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>
Hey, Jamie, moderate AO is an hard job : if you want to relax you can always take a drink with me
</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I actually posted that before I became a Mod! Just being bossy I guess.

I'd love to share a drink powerdoc! Usual place?

J :cool:
post #72 of 115
Hey! I have an idea!
Why not create a new forum for this kind of crap and call it "Smackdown, bring it on!"
OR "Handbags at dawn"

Sorry, should this be in Suggestions?
post #73 of 115
[QUOTE]Originally posted by scott_h_phd:
[QB]Are the people of France this dumb or do they think this book is some kind of parody? I guess they are.?

How typically american - slagging of a whole nation because of one person, would you like it if we judged all americans on Bushs comments?
post #74 of 115
[quote]Originally posted by Psychobabble:
<strong>[QUOTE]Originally posted by scott_h_phd:
[QB]Are the people of France this dumb or do they think this book is some kind of parody? I guess they are.?

How typically american - slagging of a whole nation because of one person, would you like it if we judged all americans on Bushs comments?</strong><hr></blockquote>


Youre not very perceptive, are you Sharpy?
I believe a number of 200,000 was quoted ...


mika.
post #75 of 115
Yup, and 300,000 copies of Mien Kampf sold in the US since 1979.

I might be getting boring but I think we could do with some more logic lessons from some people ...

meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #76 of 115
Edit:
Nevermind

[ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
post #77 of 115
] <a href="http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/02/08/forbidden/print.html" target="_blank">http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/02/08/forbidden/print.html</a>

Bush, oil and the Taliban
Two French authors allege that before Sept. 11, the White House put oil interests ahead of national security.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Nina Burleigh

Feb. 8, 2002 | PARIS -- In a new book, "Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth," two French intelligence analysts allege the Clinton and Bush administrations put diplomacy before law enforcement in dealing with the al-Qaida threat before Sept. 11, in order to maintain smooth relations with Saudi Arabia and to avoid disrupting the oil market. The book, which has become a bestseller in France but has received little press attention here, also alleges that the Bush administration was bargaining with the Taliban, over a Central Asian oil pipeline and Osama bin Laden, just five weeks before the September attacks. The authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, see a link between the negotiations and Vice President Dick Cheney's energy policy task force, with its conclusions that Central Asian oil was going to become critical to the U.S. economy. Brisard and Dasquie also claim former FBI deputy director John O'Neill (who died in the attack on the World Trade Center, where he was the chief of security) resigned in July to protest the policy of giving U.S. oil interests a higher priority than bringing al-Qaida leaders to justice. Brisard claims O'Neill told him that "the main obstacles to investigating Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia."

The authors also allege that the Sept. 11 attacks were a calculated response to Western pressure on the Taliban to hand over bin Laden and permit the return of the long-exiled Afghan leader, King Shah. They say the terror attacks were aimed at sparking a widespread war in Central Asia and thereby reinforcing the Islamic extremists' grip on power.

Brisard, a private intelligence analyst who once worked for the French conglomerate Vivendi, compiled a report in 1997 on the financing behind the al-Qaida network. Dasquie is a journalist and editor of Intelligence Online. The authors are negotiating with American publishers now to get the book translated and published in England. They recently discussed their book with Salon.

How did you meet John O'Neill, and how often and where? Did you ever tape your discussions with him?

Brisard: I met him twice. The first time was in Paris in June 2001 and then in July in New York. I met him because I wrote some years ago a report about the bin Laden family and its financial connections with Osama bin Laden. Our meeting was in the process of the French sharing information with the FBI. He wanted to meet me again a month after our first meeting to discuss the points of my report, and so we met at the end of July 2001. I never taped him and that's why I only quote him directly three or four times. That's all I have and the rest is paraphrase. The discussion of O'Neill is only 10 pages in the book. It is the first 10 pages of the book. What he said is a synthesis of what we say in the book, and that's why we decided to put it on the first pages. That is, the role of Saudi Arabia, the role of oil and the way the investigation worked in the United States before Sept. 11.

Did O'Neill indicate that the FBI expected more attacks on the United States?

Brisard: No. Not even implicitly. We didn't talk about the threat itself. We focused on the sources and roots of the problems and the way to deter further action.

How much did Mr. O'Neill know about al-Qaida that the public didn't know until after Sept. 11, such as the extent of the training, the network and the hatred?

Brisard: John O'Neill clearly knew extensively about the threat of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. He told me the FBI had identified for years the financial supports of bin Laden. For instance, in the Yemen investigation [of the terrorist bombing of the USS Cole], he said everything pointed at Osama bin Laden but there was an unwillingness among U.S. diplomats to act and to put any kind of pressure against the governments. His investigation was made difficult because of this unwillingness, and in his mind it was especially because of the economic interests of the United States. I quote him saying that everything about bin Laden and al-Qaida can be explainable through Saudi Arabia. And when I asked why the U.S. was unwilling to go after the states that host bin Laden, he said because of oil.

In what sense was Saudia Arabia supporting bin Laden? He had been exiled.

Brisard: Yes, the official stance is he was banned in 1994 and his assets were frozen. This is the official position of the Saudi government. But we prove in our book that until 1998 he was able to use economic and financial structures in Saudi Arabia. He could have linked working bank accounts in Sudan with companies registered in Saudi. He had various contacts with Saudi officials. And remember, the Saudis were supporting the Taliban regime, which was hosting him. In Saudi Arabia, the left hand ignores the right hand. And the FBI was fully aware of the situation.

Other than the U.S. ambassador in Yemen sending O'Neill home because of his alleged insensitivity to the culture, exactly how did the State Department hinder the FBI investigation?

Brisard: O'Neill said the State Department has had an overwhelming role on these investigations. He was explicitly blocked in Yemen from further investigation. We now know from different files that the FBI was starting investigations on different aspects of Saudi Arabian support [of bin Laden], and those investigations were all stopped, even under Clinton. What John O'Neill said is that for him, there was a clear [conflict] between the FBI's goal, which was to go fast and to implicate members of the networks and eventually to implicate states that gave them support, and the State Department's goal, which was to move in a more diplomatic way to negotiate with those states and to some extent accommodate them. And what he said was that the diplomatic way was chosen over the security or law enforcement policy, and of course he was very angry about what happened to him in Yemen.

In your book, you allege that the Bush administration was negotiating with the Taliban last year over a proposed Central Asian oil pipeline through Afghanistan. Which Bush official conducted those talks?

Brisard: [Assistant Secretary of State] Christina Rocca, in August 2001 in Pakistan, explicitly discussed the oil interest, not the pipeline.

Did you ever speak with Rocca?

Dasquie: I tried to, but when you are a foreign journalist you must ask the U.S. embassy in France before an interview. My correspondent in Washington also made requests. Since March or April 2001 we had tracked this story, because just after the United Nations' decision against the Taliban, it was crazy to see Taliban leaders coming into Washington and having meetings. Christina Rocca arrived at the State Department in June, and we knew her background at the CIA; she had managed all the relations between the agency and Islamic groups in Central Asia. Since around June I have been focused on Rocca. We made requests. The embassy said it was impossible. With no explanation.

Do you allege that she mentioned oil explicitly?

Dasquie: Madeleine Albright was the first to refuse to negotiate with the Taliban in 1997. Before that, from 1994 to '97, Clinton did negotiate with the Taliban. We describe the meeting of Rocca and some Taliban leaders in Islamabad in August 2001. There are documents to support it. And at the same time in Washington there are lots of meetings of the energy policy task force and lots of oil company representatives around Dick Cheney. The task force's conclusion is that Central Asia oil is a very important goal. And at the same time people are negotiating with the Taliban for the first time since 1994.

Brisard: We believe that when [Rocca] went to Pakistan in 2001 she was there to speak about oil, and unfortunately the Osama bin Laden case was just a technical part of the negotiations. I'm not sure about the pipeline specifically, but we make it clear she was there to speak about oil. There are witnesses, including the Pakistani foreign minister.

Are you saying that the Central Asian oil and pipelines were not an issue under Clinton, or just more of an issue for the Bush administration? And what are you basing that on?

Brisard: Oil was also an issue for the Clinton administration, but the difference between Clinton and Bush is, under Bush the economic argument became predominant and the U.S. thought they could pursue the Taliban to accept a deal on economics.

Dasquie: The area was of enormous strategic concern to many nations. The U.N. "six plus two" group [made up of the six countries that border Afghanistan, plus the United States and Russia] had tried to persuade the Taliban to take back the Afghan king in exchange for recognition. The biggest mistake of the U.N. and the U.S. was to consider the Taliban as independent and able to negotiate. Nobody saw the reality of the relationship between Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. So when the U.N.'s six-plus-two group and the U.S. said accept the king and give us Osama, it was incredible; it was like asking them to kill themselves. It was the very wrong way to negotiate. People say the only reason 9-11 happened is that Osama is a bad boy and the Muslims hate the U.S., but that is not enough. It is a pity to see that all our policies are built on that. It is very, very much more complex. They knew that if they did nothing they would lose. Everyone wanted to give power to the former king. When you think you are going to lose, the easy reaction is to be the first to attack. So 9-11 was not just a mad act, it was a political act meant to create a good ground for a big war in all Central Asia. Mullah Omar and bin Laden wanted to rally Muslims in Central Asia. In the last 10 years, the focal point of Islamists has taken off from the Middle East and gone into Central Asia.

The first President Bush has lots of connections with the Saudis and has made visits there as a private businessman with the merchant banking firm the Carlyle Group. Did you find any trace of the Carlyle Group on the financial trail?

Brisard: No. Carlyle has connections to the bin Laden family. Also, [Saudi banker and alleged terrorist financer] Khaleed bin Mahfooz financed the Bush oil companies in Texas in the late '70s and we discovered that he is also the primary financial support of Osama bin Laden. For years he was the personal banker of King Fahd, but now Mahfooz is under house arrest in Saudi Arabia for allegedly financing terrorist groups. He was arrested in 1999, but he is still a shareholder of the Saudi Bank National Commercial. He had charities around the world and one of them, International Development Foundation in London, has just been banned by the charity commission in London because of our book. We also make lots of connections with BCCI [Bank of Credit and Commerce International, the foreign bank closed 10 years ago after a huge scandal connected it to fraud, secret weapons deals, money laundering and the financing of terrorist groups]. We say the system financing bin Laden was more or less the revival of the BCCI. Even the associates of the BCCI are now involved in those networks. And bin Mahfooz was the operational director of BCCI.

Exactly how have the Saudis promoted Islamic terrorism?

Brisard: It's a political question for them. They have to support those religious fundamentalists because they are a large part of the regime of the kingdom and they need them to survive politically. Wahhabism, the Saudi form of Islam, is one of the harshest forms, and bin Laden is a product of his country.

Is there anything in the American press about your book you would like to correct?

Brisard: The main error is to say that the U.S. preferred oil to fighting against al-Qaida. That oversimplifies it. And it is also wrong to say John O'Neill told me that George Bush blocked inquiries into al-Qaida because of oil. It was not personally Bush [that O'Neill complained about]; it was a policy of putting diplomacy ahead of law enforcement going back to Clinton.

Why is the book so popular in France?

Brisard: Because there have been a lot of books about Sept. 11 and what happened and bios of bin Laden, but it's the first time that two investigators put facts on the table, documents, interviews and nothing else. We don't say it could have been stopped. If any government had known what was going to happen it wouldn't have happened. But we point out the role of the Western countries that led to Sept.11 -- back to 50 years ago, when we agreed to make an alliance with Saudi Arabia, and then by closing our eyes to the support they were giving fundamentalists around the world for the last 20 years.
- - - - - - - - - - -


mika.
post #78 of 115
Mika,

I'm glad to see you do this, although a little worried about your motives.

Unlike the ludicrous book that Scott chose to put a ludicrous spin on, this is a properly researched book with facts that bear up to analysis.

Indeed, the claims that the US were negotiating with, and may have complicitly allowed the creation of, the Taliban to get hold of oil reserves are well documented.

So I'm surprised to see you refer to books that show how some of "all this" is all our fault (which it is) ... but I am worried by that the fact that this book is by French people ... you're not trying a "here they go again" are you?
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #79 of 115
Harald,

I keep noticing you always bring up the issue of my motives. I think Ive been quite transparent about my views, and did not mince words in expressing them. Why the confusion in your mind?

I do have legitimate grips against the French government and the French intellectual elites, but again, I qualify this by trying not to paint the whole French population with same brush.

As far as the thesis of the book, namely that the White House put oil interests ahead of national security, I whole-heartedly agree. That was a long standing practice of the state department, and by proxy also that of the white house. I still see little signs of that diplomacy changing. Although Pres. Bush, I think intuitively understands the folly of such a policy.


mika.
post #80 of 115
This is a first. It's been coming (the more moderate Mika, not the one who still pokes up here and there) but it's a first:

I AGREE WITH A POST FROM PC^KILLA.

Bloody bloody bloody bloody hell.

He puts a percentage of the blame for "recent events" on the West, so do I. I shake his hand. More so because if it's not 100% the 'fault of Muslims' then Islam can't be 100% bad per se.

We're going to get there folks, there is hope.

The bit about the motives here was because you were insinuating SOMETHING by posting, commentless, an article about French writers in a thread called "Are the French this Dumb?" I assumed (wrongly I think) you did it to show with a how the French were just anti-US or something.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Are the French this dumb?