Doc's Talk: French soccer cup victory triggers mayhem

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

French soccer cup victory triggers mayhem

Foto:anang

Familiar mechanism: no more dancing in the streets of Paris on National Day

PARIS. Monday, May 13, French soccer fans turned out to honor the local team – Paris St. Germain – winner for the first time in nineteen years of the French League cup. A sweet victory for another kind of “local,” Nasser al-Khalifi, CEO of the club that was bought by Qatari interests two years ago. A big bash was planned at Place du Trocadéro, with the Eiffel Tower in the background, as if the vast square were a replica of the team logo. Fans wearing the jersey with the PSG/Eiffel Tower badge over the heart and “Fly Emirates” across the chest hooted and hollered.

True to tradition, smartly dressed players in dark suits stood triumphantly on the open top deck of the team bus as it traveled from the stadium to Trocadéro. A few smiles and grins later they were whisked away in unmarked cars and the celebration turned into a pitched battle between riot police and the usual suspects. Frantic efforts to pin the blame on the “ultras” (hooligans), who did make a brief appearance, are contradicted by ample video evidence. Embarrassed officials and prepaid journalists, forced to admit that the troublemakers were not the “ultras” banished from the stadium by its new proprietors, and maybe not even soccer fans, came up with les casseurs [smashers] and guérilla urbaine [urban guerilla warfare]. Blogger Maxime Lépante identifies them as la racaille [banlieue, particularly Muslim, riff-raff]. I call them punk jihadis.

They did one million euros of damage that night, running on the rampage for hours, terrifying fans, tourists, and motorists caught in the middle of the battlefield. One client arrived at a refined upscale restaurant in tears; she and her husband were caught in the crossfire on their way to dinner. Tour busses were blocked, passengers roughed up and robbed, their luggage stolen from the baggage compartment. Drivers were pulled out of their cars, beaten, forced to turn over the keys. The Café Kléber was devastated, shop windows were smashed, shops were pillaged, customers were terrified. The riot police, outnumbered, were taunted, defied, outrun. They could not protect people or their property.

Interior Minister Manuel Valls, the most popular member of the Hollande government, lost some of his luster in the aftermath. Under the combined blows of criticism from the right wing opposition and clearly visible humiliation of law enforcement, his tough law and order discourse shifted to a stutter of dhimmitude. These things happen, he declared, listing previous incidents over the past decade and predicting potential trouble in the future—the Fête de la Musique in June, the 14 Juillet (national holiday).

We’re not allowed to dance in the streets on Independence Day? Then, adding a dose of spin, Valls dragged in the verbal and physical violence associated with anti-gay marriage protests. In fact, a breakaway group, loosely organized under the questionable “Printemps de Paris” label and impatient with the “teddy bear” nonviolence of the massive anti-gay marriage movement, has been engaged in some aggressive operations.

The Interior Minister who dealt so timidly with the brutal hordes at Trocadéro and on the Champs Elysées brought out the big guns against a small brigade of roughies whose strategy added nothing to the movement and played into the hands of the government.

The mechanism has become all too familiar. Incidents like the Boston Marathon bombing, Mohamed Merah killing spree, the Benghazi attack, and now mayhem at Trocadéro, are deliberately removed from the context of global conquest. The initial and always baseless attribution to right wingers, hooligans or legitimate anger at anti-Muslim artifacts creates confusion in the distracted public mind. This is followed by a slow leak of details and a rapid focus on something, anything, whatever can push the story off the screen, making it an isolated incident in a steady flow of unrelated sensations. If and when—if ever—a few perpetrators are clearly identified by the police and properly punished, the story will be too old to matter.

Instead of analyzing the persistence of an infinite variety of punk jihad attacks against society (President Hollande did say the violence was an attack against the nation, but…) the mass media fretted about the future of Qatari investment in the football club. How utterly naïve! French journalists say that al-Jazeera Sports (under the direction of the same Nasser al-Khalifa) didn’t even mention the mayhem at Trocadéro. Qatari interests are undermining Western societies with underhanded funding of jihad combined with up front financial investments and clever media manipulation. And, it seems, they are also buying up politicians. Though there has been some resistance to proposed massive Qatari investments in French banlieues, it is probably moving ahead out of the limelight. To put it simply: the punk jihadis that wreak havoc on the occasion of a victory ceremony for the Qatar-owned soccer team can eventually be “reformed,” that is, brought into the sharia-promoting fold.

Is the situation hopeless? I don’t think so. I have covered countless demonstrations since 2000—pro-Palestinian, pro-Hamas, student protests, and so-called peace marches that turned into pogroms. Mass media censored or underplayed the violence associated with these “noble” causes. Independent producers withdrew their videos of Jews beaten up by peace marchers, jewelry stores smashed and robbed by anti-Zionists, students beaten and robbed by the very underprivileged banlieue punks in whose interests they were supposedly demonstrating.

Today, there is an abundance of video evidence online. Owners of shops and cafés were given air time to express their outrage at being abandoned by law enforcement and left to swallow the damages. But of course there was no in-depth analysis of the consequences of constant aggression against the productive elements that keep the economy afloat. Intrepid journalists and cameramen who found themselves shifting from sports to war reporting that evening at Trocadéro are more willing than before to tell the truth. Reader’s comments on media sites demonstrate lucidity that should leak up to editorial boards.

The movement for global conquest can lead to international resistance. Every inch of progress toward a full and comprehensive articulation of the problem adds an ounce of hope to the safeguard of our freedom.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk