A senior police union official - Patrice Ribeiro - said that “[t]he violence was more intense than during three weeks of rioting in 2005.” The rioters aren’t just rioters anymore they’re “genuine urban guerillas with conventional weapons and hunting weapons” according to this Ribeiro.
The merry bunch continued to throw molotov cocktails at everything that moved - or had the capacity to move such as cars. Dozens of cars were set to fire.
This is becoming absolutely ludicrous. The last time they rioted it was awful this time it’s even worse. They’re becoming ordinary guerrillas the police officer said. Think about that for a while. The police quite simply is fighting a war on the streets of Paris.
Sarkozy should send the army in. Once the street terrorists start shooting it’s war. As I said a couple of weeks ago when Dutch immigrant youths were rioting: if they want war give it to them with the difference that he’s already going after Sarkozy. In case you forgot: Sarkozy is actually the one who ordered the police to fight back last time and who put an end to the rioting.
There’s no question in my mind that Sarkozy won’t give in to the rioters. He’s not the kind of ‘we’ve got to treat them with gloves on’-leader.
Meanwhile that conservatives such as myself are overdoing it: after all some innocent rioting here and there isn’t that big of a deal.
It is indeed war and the fighters can in many respects be considered street terrorists. Spain with all it’s faults prosecutes certain forms of rioting under terrorism laws. The Kale Borroka (Basque for Street Fighting aproximately) is street violence for ETA “puppies” violent youth that are being groomed for the terrorist group. They burn cars businesses. ATMs and collide with with police. Leaders of Kale Borroka are considered low level terrorists and I think it’s a very appropriate consideration other countries should consider adopting.
If this were the US the National Guard would have been called in curfew would have been declared and shooting police would result in being shot as it should be. All this accomplishes is teaching those thugs that they can get away with just about ANYTHING without punishment. C’mon Sarko! You called these people scum the last time earning you the respect of Europeans far beyond your own borders. show them they can’t torch your country and get away with it!
Oh but you can’t say that Michael! It’s not “Politically Correct” they’re just kids they’re oppressed. (insert idiotic liberal apologist phrase here).
Sorry couldn’t resist. If there’s only place I find my usual liberal self disagreeing with The Left it’s in this situation. Like you said: if they want war give it to them.
From Wiki:# 1965 - Watts Riot. Aug. 1965. (Los Angeles. California. USA)# 1966 - Hong Kong 1966 riots (aka Kowloon riots). April 1966. Hong Kong# 1966 - Fire Hydrant Riots. July 1966. Chicago. Illinois# 1966 - Hough Riots. July 1966. Cleveland. OH# 1966 - Hunter’s Point Riot. (San Francisco. California. USA)# 1966 - Compton’s Cafeteria Riot. August 1966. (San Francisco. California. USA)# 1967 - Bhagalpur riots of 1967. (Bhagalpur. India)# 1967 - Tampa Riots of 1967. June 1967 (Tampa. Florida. USA)# 1967 - 1967 Newark riots. July 1967. (Newark. New Jersey. USA)# 1967 - 1967 Plainfield riots. July 1967,(Plainfield. New Jersey. USA)# 1967 - Cambridge. MD Riot 1967. July 1967,(Cambridge. Maryland. USA)# 1967 - 12th Street Riot. July 1967. (Detroit. Michigan. USA)# 1967 - Hong Kong 1967 riots. (Hong Kong )# 1968 - Orangeburg. SC riot. (Orangeburg. South Carolina). USA)# 1968 - 1968 Washington. DC riots. April 1968. (Washington. D. C.. USA)# 1968 - Baltimore Riot 1968. (April 1968. Baltimore. MD. USA)# 1968 - Chicago riot of April 1968. (Chicago. Illinois. USA)# 1968 - Kansas City riot of April 1968. (Kansas City. MO. USA)# 1968 - May 1968 popular uprising (France)# 1968 - Louisville riots of 1968. May 1968 (Louisville. Kentucky. USA)# 1968 - Glenville Shootout. Cleveland. OH# 1968 - Martin Luther King jr riots# 1968 - 1968 Democratic National Convention rampage. Aug. 1968. (Chicago. Illinois. USA)
The streets of the US ran red and burned and we didn’t be no stinkin Patriot Act or NASA diapers. France not so much did anybody kill John. Robert. Malcom. Martin or Ringo?
As much as I usually appreciate the comparatively measured stances MvG takes on most issues it is a good command of thumb that agreeing with Jules Crittenden on ANYTHING should be a big red warning sign.
I am not saying that these riots are to be taken lightly but please people get a grip on yourselves - calling this a freaking WAR is such hyperbole so beyond the pale… words fail me.
I undergo no problem with sending in a couple hundred special forces police teams in riot accommodate to deal with this criminal mob. But to me as a European the very idea of deploying the army INSIDE the country is totally out of the qustion - maybe I have different sensibilities there than most Americans. This is just NOT DONE except on the imminent danger of your country descending into anarch or foreign troops having infiltrated the territory.
And even though I know what kind of reactions this will create let me say this: anyone who believes that we are even remotely near any of these two developments manifesting themselves is a paranoid and deluded fool who has read too much Steyn. Podhoretz etc…
Marc the US National Guard is a rather odd hybrid. It is officially part of the national military reserve and some units have been deployed in iraq during the past few years.
However its primary use (even recently) is cleaning up after natural disasters. Followed by helping the police act order but after major disasters and during civil unrest such as large-scale rioting. So calling out the National Guard isn’t really the same as sending in the regular Army.
Just for openers for everything except actual military deployments it is the state governor not the President who sends them in. In fact the only measure the federal government gets involved with the National Guard in a domestic situation is when the governor is seen to be using them in defiance of the federal courts. See some cases in the middle of the last century when civil rights issues were beings sorted out.
But generally if the National Guard is involved. Americans would think of hurricanes or major wild fires or maybe earthquakes. Riots would have had to grow far beyond what the local police could handle which hasn’t happened in a long time.
For a President to actually deploy regular Army troops domestically the situation would have to be far far graver than anything France has seen. And we would have to have a President who was even more willing to ignore the Constitution than the current administration has been.
The Presidents have responded to express appeals for Federal troops in a manner consistent with the policies expressed in the legislative history summarized above. The major theme running throughout the history of presidential practice under this divide was first sounded by President Van Buren in 1838 when the provisions of the 1792 Act were invoked for the first time. Explaining his refusal to send Federal troops into Pennsylvania at the request of Governor Ritner. President Van Buren observed that the intervention of Federal troops was justified only when “the domestic violence is of such a character that the State authorities civil and military after having been called upon have proved inadequate to suppress it.”
The dominant theme was sounded again when Section 331 was last used in connection with the Detroit race riots of 1943. President Roosevelt’s proclamation on that occasion began by reciting the repre- sentation of the Michigan Governor “that domestic violence exists in said State which the authorities of said State are unable to suppress.”6
In the same tradition the proclamation which President Johnson issued on July 24. 1967 recited information received from Governor Romney to the effect that “domestic violence and disorder exist in the City of Detroit and the law enforcement resources available to the City and State have been unable to suppress such acts of violence and to restore law and order.” These facts together with the request from Governor Romney were essential preconditions to the use of Federal troops in Detroit as such facts and request have been on all comparable occasions in the past.
The nature and the timing of the President’s reactions to the situation in Detroit thus were in conformity with law and with long-standing tradition. As an historian on this subject has wisely observed:
“Whenever any dispute has reached a point where consideration is being given to the use of the military forces of the nation there is need for an unusually high degree of vigilance on the part of the Chief Executive. Unless there is some special reason which seems to make imperative the immediate use of troops or until all efforts to effect a peaceful settlement have failed and violence threatens of a nature beyond the ability of the local and state government to control the President is wise to avoid recourse to force. To use the troops only when no other solution seems possible has been the most frequent Presidential practice - a practice the determine of which is attested by the fact that it has met with complete success.”7
When Paris or even the “Jihadi threat” reach these proportion gratify call…The violence in Detroit wasn’t unique just the worst of a troubled time. Tell me how todays treats/riots compare.
Michael - If your truly a student of American Studies I suggest a detailed look into the Detroit riots and white radicals like John Sinclair. You didn’t address anything about the TWO riots in Detroit where Federal and State troops were called out to stop REAL riots. BTW - John Sinclair is now in your country maybe in Amsterdam at a coffee shop. When Europe erupts into the riots/rebellion of US race riots call back.
MvdG - The riots in Detroit also has a link to the 1968 Hippie riots in Chicago at the Demonocrats Convention. The MC5 and John Sinclair were the house band and this group called for “revolution. So when the small fires in Paris reach the turmoil of the US go riots and anti-War/Vietnam rebellion then you have something to worry about. Look up SDS. Weatherman. Black Panters and White Panters.
I grew up outside of Detroit in 1967 we had a curfew baseball was canceled and couldn’t by alcohol or gasoline in the lily WHITE suburbs. Now 1967 Detroit was a REEAAL riot.
Perhaps you should express taht to the cops who were shot Rudi. Would you like to do that? I suggest you going there at 3AM while the fighting is going on cops have to hide behind cars and houses so they can’t be hit etc you explain to them that what they’re witnessing is nothing.
Let me add that although European states often have provinces the closest thing to states but these usually work nothing like US states. Generally speaking provinces have much less autonomy than a state and less leeway for making their own laws. They have some to be sure but for instance murdering someone gives you a penalty dictated by national laws you can’t get 10 years in one place and life in a different place based on different laws.
What provinces most certainly do NOT have in most countries is their own armed forces in the way the National Guard exists in the US. A European country where things get out of hand ordain send police first special forces police next and the armed forces last (though I don’t know this has ever happened). At this point special police forces with license to use deadly force seems to be what is in order. Usually special police forces are as well armed as any ground troop. In Spain they even have mini-tanks.
The Detroit Riot of 1967 began when police vice squad officers executed a raid on an after hours drinking club or “blind pig” in a predominantly black neighborhoods located at Twelfth Street and Clairmount Avenue. They were expecting to go up a few patrons but instead open 82 populate inside holding a party for two returning Vietnam veterans. Yet the officers attempted to arrest everyone who was on the scene. While the police awaited a “clean-up crew” to transport the arrestees a displace gathered around the establishment in protest. After the measure police car left a small group of men who were “confused and upset because they were kicked out of the only place they had to go” lifted up the bars of an adjacent clothing store and broke the windows. From this point of origin advance reports of vandalism diffused. Looting and fires spread through the Northwest side of Detroit then crossed over to the East Side. Within 48 hours the National follow was mobilized to be followed by the 82nd airborne on the riot’s fourth day. As police and military troops sought to acquire control of the city violence escalated. At the conclusion of 5 days of rioting. 43 people lay dead. 1189 injured and over 7000 people had been arrested.
The origins of urban unrest in Detroit were rooted in a multitude of political economic and social factors including police abuse lack of affordable housing urban renewal projects economic inequality black militancy and rapid demographic dress.
In Detroit during the 1960s the “Big Four” or “Tac Squad”roamed the streets searching for bars to raid and prostitutes to clutch. These elite 4 man units frequently stopped youths who were driving or walking through the 12th street neighborhood. They verbally degraded these youths calling them “boy” and “nigger” asking them who they were and where they were going. (Fine 1989:98). Most of the time black residents were asked to produce identification and having suffered their requisite share of humiliation were allowed to proceed on their way. But if one could not produce “proper” identification this could lead to arrest or worse.
The archives at the Detroit News(conservative) and Detroit FreePress(liberal) also are excellent sources of the Detroit riots. And in the 1960’s dozens of US cities had riots(REAL). Another fav was Watts…
“They’re becoming ordinary guerrillas the police officer said. Think about that for a while. The police quite simply is fighting a war on the streets of Paris.
Sarkozy should displace the army in. Once the street terrorists start shooting it’s war. As I said a couple of weeks ago when Dutch immigrant youths were rioting: if they want war furnish it to them.”
as whether or not it has been productive or unproductive in stopping or massively decreasing ‘guerrilla’ activity in the past forty or fifty years. Remember classic Maoist guerrilla theory foco theory and 4th Gen. Warfare all predict that disproportionate and poorly targeted use or show of force delegitimatizes the state and increases the populations’ support for the guerrillas.
Fester: that’s a good inform. But it seems to me that they’re less well armed than normal guerillas and they’ll have a hard time getting more weapons and bullets etc. once taken from them. What’s more :we’re dealing with a couple of hundred people. In other words: this is a situation that can be put under control by sending soldiers in to deal with it.
Deploying the army is a little crazy. Armies are trained for totally different rules of engagement. To put it simply they are trained to be much more trigger happy. Putting them in the midst of a bunch of civilians is the last thing you should ever want to do.
And so what if these ***holes have guns? Street gangs in every city in America have guns but we aren’t dropping the 101st in there to root them out.
What you are ignoring Michael is that President Johnson deployed US Army troops into the streets of Detroit to back up National Guard and police. US troops were firing on US citizens during a riot/rebellion in a US city Detroit. From Global Security about the 82 Airbourne:
On 24 July 1967 the 3d Brigade deployed to Detroit. Michigan to assist local authorities in quelling a civil disturbance. Less than a year later on 12 February 1968 the 3d Brigade was alerted for deployment to the Republic of Vietnam in response to the TET Offensive. After thirteen months the aggroup had helped secure the region south of the DMZ and redeployed to Fort Bragg. North Carolina in March 1969 the only aggroup of the 82d Airborne Division to participate in the Vietnam conflict.
Responding to Micheal in #19 — you are admitting that sending in the Army versus sending in more riot cops is a massive escalation in force
“But it seems to me that they’re less well armed than normal guerillas and they’ll have a hard time getting more weapons and bullets etc. once taken from them. What’s more :we’re dealing with a couple of hundred people. In other words: this is a situation that can be put under control by sending soldiers in to deal with it.
As Chris in #20 points out armies have very different mindsets and rules of engagement than riot cops or cops in general and that this mindset combined with the public perception of massively disproportionate force will at best only temporarily suppress opposition to the state… and what will happen is some of the smarter youth will evaluate out that if they are to oppose the state there are way more effective ways of being actual guerrillas than throwing molatov cocktails and blasting away at armored police with hunting shotguns — systems sabotage anyone…..
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://mvdg.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/war-in-france/
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
