What has happened in the US from 2001 to now could not conceivably happened in France.
If terrorists placed a large bomb in central Paris that killed 3000 people, how would the public react politically?
you are the media you consume.
On the other hand, what happened on 911 almost happened in France as well. Islamic terrorists hijacked a plane and were planning on flying it to Paris. One rumor had it they intended to blow it up over the Eiffel tower.
The outcome of course was different than 911, but then this may just be a question of competence of the respective authorities in the US (bumbling) and France (top-notch in counter-terrorism).
And of course, shortly after this, the metro bombings in Paris. Or in the 80's how many times did Chez Goldenberg get blown up?
Again, not thousands of deaths (though if the GIA had succeeded in blowing that plane up over Paris, there likely would have been).
Of course, when the US lackeys in London was asked to jump for the US, they did, but when they were asked by the Quai des Orfevres to hand over metro bombing terror suspect Rachid Ramda to Paris, what did they say? "Can't be assured of a fair trial in France".
It took the brits 10 years to extradite him. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
I'll be honest - there is nasty, petty, smug part of me that wants to see Sarkozy win for no other reason than to have a weapon for me to use against Europeans who think Bush got elected due to a defect in American character (as opposed to more generic human psychological factors). If he does win, I expect a lot of people here to throw a fairly large shar of the blame the Anglo press rather than challenge some deeply held views.
He's unlikely to kill hundreds of thousands of people for domestic political gain. You really outdid yourselves with Prince George I'm afraid.
What you say is to Europe's credit, not the other way 'round. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
I just think that while the US appears to be too far gone to have any hope of turning things around without a major <understatement> correction </understatement>, this isn't the case with most of the EU-15.
And the EU can rapidly turn things around once that <understatement> American correction </understatement> takes place, if but for the simple matter that democratic institutions are still more or less viable and comparatively free of corruption, and that solidarity means, viscerally speaking, something for most Europeans, whereas the infrastructure for either in the US is almost non-existant for the simple reason that the concept is so foreign. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
I know better than to wish for that.
I did answer your question, though. First, it was that yes indeed France was attacked like this, but was able to fend it off a bit better. 1994-1995 was a big wave of terror but I don't recall France going and invading, say, Oran because of it, any of the attendant failings of the 4th estate or electing a jackbooted fool of a war criminal. I mean, Chirac was bad enough, but like I've said elsewhere, only slightly to the left of Bill Clinton. Not left enough, to be sure, but no Dubya, not by a long shot.
It's not a defect in character of the American people, though, it's an aspect of empire, the softness of character this engenders, and especially the herdish entitlement mentality that all empires, large and small, inevitably see. (OTOH, you may now understand how a Serb felt when Democratic supporters of Clinton's bombing campaign said similar things about them for having elected a Milosevic, for instance...)
And you have to admit, the average American's knowledge of the world, how it works, where things are and who they are relative to it is vastly inferior to virtually all peoples in Europe (with the possible exception of the English). And that contributes to inferior outcomes. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
Even the British didn't go for Blair's 90-day detention without trial after 50 people were killed by 4 bombs in Central London. Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
