'..clashes and vandalising, combine that with high unemployment and a ruthless media and you have a country on the edge of disaster..'
By that yardstick it would look like pretty much every one of the west's big countries is to greater or lesser degrees 'on the edge of disaster'.
I must say I don't agree with that doomsday assessment. That said, the quality of domestic national security is always a relative thing and notoriously difficult to measure. The British security services will claim to their own nationals that they are the most under threat target of Al Qaeda... implying that the French, Germans and Spanish are less so. I'm pretty sure the latter three won't adopt a relaxed posture as a result. Indeed, they'll also assume the highest level of threat and be prepared accordingly. So the question isn't really, how bad is bad? Its, 'are they assessing, and managing their own risk correctly, without in fact increasing it?'
Rich democratic countries with large, highly diverse populations will forever by plagued by societal problems of poverty, unemployment, and yes, ethnic mistrust between the 'indigens' and immigrant citizens. Its almost the accepted price of economic advancement and success.
French paranoia about militant Muslims I think is a manifestation of the aforementioned mistrust and while 9/11 and 7/7 didn't help things in this regard, it certainly didn't start things either.
By the way, in that last sentence, replace 'French' with 'European' and I think the statement remains accurate.
Does Europe have reasons for this paranoia? Of course! So?? Doesn't everybody claim good reasons for every good and bad thing they do? We could all give examples ad nauseam. Hell, even al Qaeda have reasons. But we're learning that giving a reason for an action.. and justifying it.. are not the same thing!
I think we should expect more of our leaders than merely reasons . We should've all cottoned on to the reality that as citizens we've been easily convinced (or frightened) into believing anything governments intended us to. They simply ratcheted up the threat, and there in plain view was the 'reason' for action. Justification wasn't even necessary!! Only now in the advent of abject failure and loss does our anger at being hoodwinked find voice. Since Iraq and the WMD farce (etc!), I think we're beginning to be much more scrutinous of our leaders, and expect far better justification and then execution (in that order)from them. Semantics? No.
This returns me full circle to my initial question... were the French right in acting the way they did, or was this a paranoid knee-jerk reaction?
'..clashes and vandalising, combine that with high unemployment and a ruthless media and you have a country on the edge of disaster..'
By that yardstick it would look like pretty much every one of the west's big countries is to greater or lesser degrees 'on the edge of disaster'.
I must say I don't agree with that doomsday assessment. That said, the quality of domestic national security is always a relative thing and notoriously difficult to measure. The British security services will claim to their own nationals that they are the most under threat target of Al Qaeda... implying that the French, Germans and Spanish are less so. I'm pretty sure the latter three won't adopt a relaxed posture as a result. Indeed, they'll also assume the highest level of threat and be prepared accordingly. So the question isn't really, how bad is bad? Its, 'are they assessing, and managing their own risk correctly, without in fact increasing it?'
Rich democratic countries with large, highly diverse populations will forever by plagued by societal problems of poverty, unemployment, and yes, ethnic mistrust between the 'indigens' and immigrant citizens. Its almost the accepted price of economic advancement and success.
French paranoia about militant Muslims I think is a manifestation of the aforementioned mistrust and while 9/11 and 7/7 didn't help things in this regard, it certainly didn't start things either.
By the way, in that last sentence, replace 'French' with 'European' and I think the statement remains accurate.
Does Europe have reasons for this paranoia? Of course! So?? Doesn't everybody claim good reasons for every good and bad thing they do? We could all give examples ad nauseam. Hell, even al Qaeda have reasons. But we're learning that giving a reason for an action.. and justifying it.. are not the same thing!
I think we should expect more of our leaders than merely reasons . We should've all cottoned on to the reality that as citizens we've been easily convinced (or frightened) into believing anything governments intended us to. They simply ratcheted up the threat, and there in plain view was the 'reason' for action. Justification wasn't even necessary!! Only now in the advent of abject failure and loss does our anger at being hoodwinked find voice. Since Iraq and the WMD farce (etc!), I think we're beginning to be much more scrutinous of our leaders, and expect far better justification and then execution (in that order)from them. Semantics? No.
This returns me full circle to my initial question... were the French right in acting the way they did, or was this a paranoid knee-jerk reaction?