War on France
 

The French suffered two attacks this weekend. Both attacks were part of the war against radical Islamists that France has so far failed to acknowledge is under way.

In one attack, a small ship laden with explosives was set off next to a French oil tanker in Yemen. Nobody will admit that it's exactly like the USS Cole bombing. Yemeni officials denied everything. This however does not give us any new information. The French were hesitant to give a final statement that yes, of course, ships do not suddenly develop huge gaping flaming holes in their side, unless explosives are floated up to them and detonated.

In another, the mayor of Paris was stabbed by a man who told officials that he was a devout Muslim and acted out of opposition to politicians and gays. The first news report I saw on this came from a national news report. They called it "homophobia related" and did not mention that the man was a Muslim.

Why France?

I found it interesting that they didn't comment the atackers religion. But maybe it's becuase they didn't feel it was important. Something American Press and authorities seem to take great pride in pointing out.

France actually has a huge Muslim population. I'll look for the statistics tomorrow or something, but maybe it wasn't mentioned because the officials/media don't want to cast this as Islamic Extremist terrorism? (as opposed to here, where they're all too eager to do so.)

France has a number of overdue bills from colonial brutality. Lets not pretend that her present sensible stance, designed to avoid creating new enemies, in any way empowers these nuts. As we continue our version of colonialism, we need to remember that the arab world has a long memory. Lets look on Frances problem as a warning to interventionists not as a lame excuse for interventionists.

Griff has a good point. Firstly, france has not refused to acknowledge the war on baddies. Secondly the second one you mention doesn't exactly strike me as a masterful terrorist plot, in fact it looks like one angry guy with a grudge. Kinda like the Isreali airline shooting recently in LAX, i didn't see that labeled a terrorist attack either.

I'd also love you to find a source for the statement the french made, i doubt it's even close to your hyperbole.

I think griff answered the why france bit. My guess on the oil tanker is well, they are meant to go boom big and US warships are under orders to cap anything that comes close.

Didn't look then. Israel labeled it an act of terrorism.

Whether it's terrorism or not is semantics, but it's certainly part of the war - both the Paris mayor attack and the LAX attack.

I don't need some FBI official to label the event to tell me what's what.

My source is every news report that came out during the first 8 hours. But here's one of them where the French Foreign Ministry says it's too early to say what had caused the explosion.

The current Israeli government seems to label every crime an act of terrorism these days. It's all subjective, and depends on what you want to consider terrorism. There are currently something like 160 different definitions of the word in use today, so defining whether or not an action is terrorism becomes a bit tricky. Israel's definition is rather broad, France's is not.

Isn't terrorism just an act of war by a group that isn't officially connected to a sovereign state? That's the way I look at it anyways. Obviously it's the way it should be defined is obviously still in question so my definition is meaningless.

I personally consider terrorism to be the intentional targeting of civilians for the purpose of striking fear into the collective heart of a society.

Isreal is not my source of definitions.

Wow. A diplomatic ministry is being diplomatic. Amazing. Of course they're going ot say that, they have to.

Wierd...
<i>Journalists taken by Yemeni officials to look at the Limburg report a metre-wide hole, with tangled metal pointed outward, suggesting an on-board blast. </i>http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/3...er_info300.gif
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2308121.stm

Still could have been a bomb smuggled on board and placed in the void between the hulls, I suppose. Supertankers are *big*. Could have been a vapor explosion, too.

But don't all those reasons make absolutely no sense right now? France has been a country a little "on the bubble" on Iraqi actions. This could have the effect of swaying them on everything, right at a very crucial time.

The country has to tip one way or the other. Everybody knows this. This could have the effect of tipping public opinion towards taking the US direction on Iraq and then on future actions. Why attack on October 6, 2002?

So, you're suggesting a CIA involvement?

Stranger things have happened, but I'd doubt it. That would be far too risky to the US's relationship with France. Even a 1% risk of getting found out would be un-riskable. You'd have to trust a lot of people to get that boat into those waters. Or to get that bomb on that boat.