...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...

November 08, 2005

Essential Riot Reading

i know everybody's been pimping the 2002 Thomas Dalrymple article on the Parisian suburbs. i found it via A Nation Of Riflemen. If you haven't yet read it, believe the hype. It's one of the most interesting things i've read all year.

Kevin Kim links to it too. But Kevin has much more on the riots, including English translations of some French sources i had seen elsewhere. Not knowing French, i'm thankful to Kevin for doing the work. Just keep scrolling down on his blog. He'll like that.

Posted by annika, Nov. 8, 2005 | TrackBack (0)
Rubric: On The Blogosphere


Kevin says that there are constant police surveillance of the Muslim people. Every source I have read over the past few years says that there is no police presence in Muslim areas and that is one of the main reasons for the riots. The area has been in violent chaos for years.

Where does Kevin get his information?

Posted by: Jake on Nov. 8, 2005

If you go to here, you will see a great map of the areas under attack in France.


Notice how concentrated the attacks are along the Riviera in Southern France. I have been there a number of times and I have rarely seen a Muslim there. The Al Qaida types must have moved a number of troops there with the purpose of scaring the hell out of the tourists and devastating the tourist industry.

I was in Nice last May (I had no choice). The hotels seemed empty. I talked to a hotel manager and he says the Americans are staying away. That was great news to me as it showed that our boycott of France is working.

Muslim attacks on resort towns combined with the ongoing American boycott could be a deathblow to thousands of hotels and cafes in France.

Posted by: Jake on Nov. 8, 2005


It's not my own claim; it's very likely something I translated from an article. In my translation of the Laurent Mucchielli interview, I did add the following note:

[NB: The sociologist is blaming the police, at least in part, for the electrocution deaths of the two youths. I disagree. While the sociologist may have a point about how a community might curdle under excessive police surveillance, we have yet to establish that the surveillance in the French banlieue has been excessive, given the banlieue's nasty, decades-old reputation. Perhaps it was the police's fault; perhaps it wasn't. I'd need to do more research before coming to my own conclusions.]

At this point, I have no clear impression as to how much or how little police surveillance there is in the banlieue, so I've made no claims about it.

If you read Dalrymple's article, you get the impression that the police dip into the banlieue only to knock heads on occasion; it is, otherwise, a lawless zone. If you believe Mucchielli, however, you get the impression that disaffected French youths are constantly on the run from the police, though it's not clear whether Mucchielli is referring only to the Paris banlieue, or to minority-heavy locales all over France.

I'm still forming impressions of the situation, so please offer me some interpretive charity, as the philosophers say. When I make some definite factual claims, I'll be sure to make them loudly. Heh.


Posted by: Kevin Kim on Nov. 8, 2005

Oh, yes: thanks for the shout-out, Annie.


Posted by: Kevin Kim on Nov. 8, 2005


OK. Here is what I think Muccheilli is referring to.

Whenever Muslim youth leave the Muslim area and come into the "white" areas, they are under constant police surveillance. And from this surveillance, the conflict arises. Especially, since the youth control the streets in their own area.

Posted by: Jake on Nov. 9, 2005


Thanks. I forgot to answer your question about sources. It's only one source, for the moment: I've been reading and hastily translating articles from the online version of L'Express, which is found here:



Posted by: Kevin Kim on Nov. 9, 2005

Do you know about Dalyrmples online magazine? it is great, here it is: http://www.city-journal.org/

The French, and the low countries are screwed. The only way to get their nation back would be to round em up and deport them wholsale. Or at least break up the enclaves, make them live all spread out. and deport any Iman who calls for seperatism or violence. Or, they could all become Nazis, that would work too.

Posted by: Kyle N on Nov. 9, 2005

Jake is pleased that the American boycot of France is working ! What a ludicrous and petulant response. Just because france did not want to go charging into George bush's persoanl war with no plan for re-construction hardly means the economy of the country should be targeted and several ordianry frenchies put out of business. This is just another example of bullying American foreign policy pursued by narrow-minded reactionary fools blinded by patriotism. If a country does not agree they must pay the price.

Posted by: Chirac and roll on Nov. 9, 2005

Blah blah blah zzzzzzzzzz clunk.

Posted by: annika on Nov. 9, 2005


France is an outlaw nation and should be boycotted by everyone who believes in freedom. Here are the reasons:

1. There is a real possibility that Saddam would not capitulate because he was confident that the countries he had bribed, France, Germany, Belgium and Canada would have stopped the US.

2. Saddam was selling a large quantity of oil to ELF, a French-government controlled oil company, for 30 cents a barrel. And ELF was reselling that oil for $30 a barrel. This in return for blocking UN action against Saddam.

3. Saddam had signed contracts with ELF that gave them exclusive right to Iraqi oil production. This would have made ELF one of the largest companies in the world. Those contracts would only take effect when France got the sanctions against Saddam lifted.

4. France was selling weapons to Saddam all during the boycott. Anti-aircraft missiles were found that had a ship date 3 months before the liberation of Iraq.

5. Many French government officials took bribes from Saddam to keep him in power.

6. French journalists took bribes from Saddam for favorable news articles.

7. France has practiced apartheid against their own Muslim citizens.

Anyone who believes that France should not be boycotted for these actions has no humanity.

Posted by: Jake on Nov. 9, 2005

Saddam went to the brink because he was sure that France and Russia would not let America attack him under any circumstances, a miscalculation that was well fed under the Clinton Administration.

I believe that if France and Russia (and Germany) had joined the coalition openly and early, we'd never have had to go there.

Saddam would have caved and allowed inspections and we'd still be playing cat and mouse with him, while he got even richer on the food for oil scheme.

Are we better off now or the other way? Sooner or later?

Me, I think we are going to prevail here and that hoistory will show that Bush was the one to stand againt radical Islamofascism.

He's still a hero to me.

Posted by: shelly on Nov. 10, 2005

The passing fancy may not be with our boy at the moment, however I like to bitchslap non-believers with the Lincolnian fact that it was the REAL Americans serving in the army in the field, who re-elected him in 1864, while the yapping curs/chattering classes were fawning over Little Mac.

Posted by: Casca on Nov. 11, 2005