France: Day 2 Riots,Cop Shot

They've lost control of their country. Utterly out of control. Day two and counting. "Riots intensified". It's war.

French police tighten security after second night of riots DNA

VILLIERS-LE-BEL: French police beefed up security Tuesday after a second night of riots in flashpoint suburbs north of Paris despite the launch of a judicial probe into the deaths of two teens that sparked the violence.   

A helicopter hovered early Tuesday over the town of Villiers-le-Bel, 20 kilometres (12 miles) north of the French capital "to locate people stirring up trouble," a police officer said.   

Late Monday, some 100 angry youths crouching behind trash cans in Villiers-le-Bel hurled objects at 160 riot police who responded with rubber bullets and teargas.    

Young rioters in other towns were armed with Molotov cocktail bombs,  bottles filled with acid and baseball bats, police said.   

After Sunday's first night of unrest, President Nicolas Sarkozy had appealed for calm with France fearful of a repeat of nationwide violence that gripped the country in 2005 following the deaths of two youths fleeing the police.   

But this was to no avail as police Monday said up to 30 personnel were injured and 63 vehicles and five buildings had been set ablaze in six towns in the wider Val d'Oise area.   

"One policeman was wounded in the shoulder after being hit by a high calibre bullet," a security official said, adding that "however, no vital organ was affected."   

That's war, baby.

Comments

[john jay]

friends:

coming soon, to a town near you ... .

believe it.

john jay

[Jane]

In the not too distant future too. Our governments are no more equipped to handle the situation than the French are. It has gotten too far out of hand when entire communities are dominated and controlled by Islam. Dearborn is a prime example. I agreed with you John Jay about the French military - (posted on the other page). But, what solutions do you offer for our nations when it starts?

[Go Spencer!]

It'll be reaaally interesting to see when the police starts shooting back or the military is called in. Will the muslims run and hide like the rats they are, or will it be guerilla warfare against police men all over France?

[Mike]

They need to put a couple of snipers in that helicopter. As Atlas said, it's war, and there's not point trying to wish it away. Sarkozy has to be as tough on this as when he was Interior Minister during the 2005 riots.

The police have to start shooting back - they can't wait until one of their number, or a firefighter or bystander, is killed. Those involved who can be deported should be - the rest should be jailed for a long time.

Longer term France needs to bulldoze the banlieues, and scatter what's left of these scum to all corners of that very large and sparsely populated country, so they can never again create their own autonamous ghettos. That will give the next generation of immigrant youths a better chance of assimilating, and if they don't at least they'll be easier to contain.

[darogers]

Zut alors! C'est la intifada Parisienne!

Perhaps now the French will show some of the famous tolerance for Moslem grievances they are always urging upon the Israelis. We can only hope that the agenda at Annapolis will be expanded to consider the legitimate historic claims of the Arab Moslem hordes to north Paris and Calais.

[john jay]

jane:

someone once said, "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

well, i take some comfort in that.

we are most certainly incompetent in the west.

it is time. we are in a war, declared, implemented and prosecuted by a clearly definable enemy, and that is islam.

it is time to fight back.

i do not mean with just words, concepts or convictions, though those things surely are the bedrock of our values & motivations.

i mean to fight back with weapons, and to inflict massive casualties on our enemies, and to expel them from our midst, period.

i conclude this reluctantly. but, this is what i conclude.

the sooner, the better.

john jay

[john jay]

jane:

else we become france.

there seems no alternative. islam and freedom are inimical. islam cannot tolerate freedom, and there is no tolerating islam except by being subjugated to it.

john jay

[Jane]

john jay - I know that you are right I believe it's coming to that. But, I fear that what will happen is exactly what Islam wants to occur - governments will turn against those who have been pushed to the limits and protect Islamists who are determined to destroy us.

[john jay]

jane:
re: governments

if you look to the "organic" documents of our system of constitutional government, such as are recongnized in supreme court holdings and the united states code annotated, to include the declartion of independence, the articles of confederation which formed the first national govt., and the "federalist papers" which proselytized the second national government, you will find an amazing concept.

it is that powers flow from the people to the government, and that all powers to govern are delegated or ceded by the people to those who are governed. that rights inhering in the people precede the formation of government, are retained by the people, and do not depend upon nor are they derived from government.

chief among those rights are self preservation and self defense. these rights may be asserted by the people independent of and against an oppressive government.

our founding fathers were educated men, some formally, some tutored, some self taught. all, as educated men, were intimately associated with the writings of locke, hobbes, rousseaua, and perhaps more importantly than generally recognized with blackstone, as many of them were lawyers and had read blackstone's commentaries on the laws of england.

within the writings of these gentlemen, and certainly, these writings are as much of our heritage as the magna carta, is the universal understanding that when the sovereign fails to protect its subjects, the subjects are free to turn from the sovereign, and are free to take their own affairs into their own hands. implicit in all of the writings referred to above, is the recognition of the right of self defense, not dependent upon government. (see the 2nd amendment.) implicit in all the writings referred to above, is the right of the people to rebellion against an oppressive sovereign. (see teh 1st and 2nd amendments.) implicit in all the writings referred to above, is the right of the people to organize and protect themselves free and independent of the sovereign, should the sovereign fail in those particulars.

if you think these propositions silly, i would refer you to the state constitutions as adopted by the first 13 states of the union, in which those documents specifically mention the right of the people to rebel against tyrannical rule. you can look it up. there is a reason why one state, new hampshire(?), had "live free or die" emblazened on its license plates for years. laughing.

we have the right as citizens who enjoy rights and freedoms existing free and independent of government to protect ourselves.

these rights are recognized in our "organic" documents, including in the constitution and the bill of rights, (i would ask each of you, when was the last time you read the 10th amendment to the constitution?), and these rights were won an secured by blood.

if our government will not protect us, we should become shed of it.

we have that right. we should exercise it, if required, to protect ourselves, our heritage, our politics, our civilization.

john jay

[Jane]

john jay: Thank you for taking the time to write all of that information. In fact I have copied it and put it into word to reflect further on what you have written. I don't think the propositions are silly at all. Your structure of government is very different from ours in Canada. My husband and I will be discussing your excellent post. He's a lawyer and I worked in the judicial system. We are both very familiar with Blackstone. Thanks for your effort, and for opening up an interesting conversation.

[songdongnigh]

These riots may be the triggering event to unleash terrorist sleeper cells and provocateurs throughout Europe and the West. If France, with the help of its neighbors does not CRUSH the rioting Muslims now, it will spread like a wind driven wildfire. Now is a fragile time in world history. Oil prices are on the brink of exploding, which will bring economic chaos. Iran and the other middle eastern actors are on razors edge wanting to eliminate Israel, and the Western leaders have their thumbs up their a**es. We are in trouble deep.

[Recluse8747]

Jane-

I can't add much to John Jay's excellent assessment of our other government other than to mention property rights. I believe the ability to own property, both physical and intellectual, is arguably the very foundation of our society and much of Western civilization as a whole. It is, if I'm not mistaken, the only right specifically granted to the US citizen in the Constitution (the Bill of Rights were added shortly thereafter). An individual who can not own property is nothing but a serf to government. And an individual who can not bare arms to protect that property is just as much a serf.

Incidentally the UN's Constitution does not guarantee the right to own property or bare arms. That tells you all you need to know right there.

[Surak]

Thank you, john jay, for that excellent little essay. (John Jay trivia, for those who don't know: he helped to negotiate our peace treaty with Great Britain, the Treaty of Paris, in 1783; he was of course one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers; and he was the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court - not John Marshall as is commonly thought.)

A more recent Supreme Court justice referred to the 10th Amendment as "an inkblot". I, however, concur with your sentiments.

Nevertheless, although I too feel that we're close to requiring a revolution for our self-preservation, we must acknowledge that others who champion diametrically opposed causes feel the same way. The current government - in any nation, whether admirable or not - has a right to protect its own existence. It need not shut its doors and go out of business because you and I pound on the doors and say so - any more than they should on behalf of Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan.

Further, the present government does indeed provide an opportunity to petition for redress of grievances, and a republican form of government where we can throw the bums out if a majority are dissatisfied.

The question this begs is - how do we determine on rational, objective grounds that our situation is sufficiently dangerous to justify a revolution? Are we in greater physical danger than we were during World War 2? During the Civil War? Not even close, brother.

What we are experiencing is not the danger of imminent physical destruction, but the long decline of the decadent mind of this great nation, under the toxic spell of cultural Marxism. No one will die from it today, nor tomorrow. We will stay comfortable like the frog in the warming pot of water until it is too late.

Is it possible to save the West by heroic efforts at education - or must we retreat to Galt's Gulch? I am still pursuing the education option - and when I have more to say, I will definitely keep Ms. Geller and her fans in the loop. But I am mentally prepared for the alternative if necessary. Bless you all!

[john jay]

surak:

jay was quite a fellow. he also wrote the constitution for the state of new york, a document not substantially revised until the latter half of the 20th century, if i have my facts correct.

i believe you absolutely correct in your analysis: how does one determine, on rational and objective grounds, that rebellion is justified.

in this case, one looks to our own history and to the methodology of thomas jefferson, who laid out the case for rebellion against england in a masterpiece of objective analysis and argument.

first, he set forth the principles to be defended by honorable men and women. then, he showed how those principles were mortally threatened by continued subordination to british rule.

in form, the declaration is a classic legal document, referred to an an indictment, or accusation of wrongdoing, followed by what is called in the law, a bill of particulars, a requirement of pleading and procedure required to this day in the criminal law of most states.

this is the procedure that prudent men followed in the 18th century, and it would provide the guidelines for prudent men to follow nearly 250 years later. and, as jefferson noted, prudence dictates that such things be undertaken niether for light nor transient reasons.

and, i like your analogy of the frog and the soon to be boiling pot.

all i can say, is that i am beginning to feel a bit warm just now, and the examples of the swiftness with which matters have developed in europe, only several generations removed from the massive importation of "guest labor" from the middle east, gives me great pause.

i think this country in graver peril than you. i have no doubt but that you are one of her great defenders. no doubt about it, as they say.

recluse 8747:

i agree absolutely with your observations about the right to keep and bear arms.

i would urge anyone who cares to listen, to join and participate in the political affairs of the national rifle association. the association is not perfect, but it will do until something perfect comes along.

one small point.--

rights are not conferred by the constitution or by the bill of rights.

those rights such as we possess are deemed precedent to the creation of our country: such authority as given to the government is ceded by us. such rights as not granted to government are reserved to the people.

the bill of rights does not grant rights or create them, it instead, prohibits the government from direct or indirect infringement upon the rights and privileges that we enjoy, each of us, by birthright, or by naturalization.

we hold them as human beings, as we did in the state of nature prior to the institution of government. that is the heritage of hte thinking of hobbes, locke, rousseau and blackstone.

government gives us nothing, it is organized by us to achieve desired community goals.

that is, at least, the theory.

jane:

i look forward to hearing from you and your husband, to see if you feel comfortable on my take on blackstone, who is really an unfairly overlooked person in these kinds of discussions. every lawyer of the colonial era would have had the "commentaries," as would any well educated man. he was a prodigious influence on the contemporary thinking.

we are all in good company here, and we are all so tremendously served by pamela geller, to whom i think we all owe considerable thanks for her tireless effort. she truly is courageous, and, indefatigable.

john jay