Posted on 09/14/2001 12:11:11 PM PDT by Silly
Dans ce moment tragique où les mots paraissent si pauvres pour dire le choc que l'on ressent, la première chose qui vient à l'esprit est celle-ci : nous sommes tous Américains! Nous sommes tous New-Yorkais, aussi sûrement que John Kennedy se déclarait, en 1963 à Berlin, Berlinois. Comment ne pas se sentir en effet, comme dans les moments les plus graves de notre histoire, profondément solidaires de ce peuple et de ce pays, les Etats-Unis, dont nous sommes si proches et à qui nous devons la liberté, et donc notre solidarité.
Comment ne pas être en même temps aussitôt assaillis par ce constat: le siècle nouveau est avancé. La journée du 11septembre 2001 marque l'entrée dans une nouvelle ère, qui nous paraît bien loin des promesses et des espoirs d'une autre journée historique, celle du 9 novembre 1989, et qu'une année quelque peu euphorique, l'an 2000, que l'on croyait pouvoir se conclure par la paix au Proche-Orient, avait fait naître.
Un siècle nouveau s'avance donc, technologiquement performant, comme le montre la sophistication de l'opération de guerre qui a frappé tous les symboles de l'Amérique : ceux de la surpuissance économique au cœur de Manhattan, de la "puissance" militaire au Pentagone, et enfin de la puissance tutélaire du Proche-Orient tout près de Camp David. Les abords de ce siècle sont aussi inintelligibles. Sauf à se rallier promptement et sans précautions au cliché déjà le plus répandu, celui du déclenchement d'une guerre du sud contre le nord. Mais dire cela, c'est créditer les auteurs de cette folie meurtrière de "bonnes intentions" ou d'un quelconque projet selon lequel il faudrait venger les peuples opprimés contre leur unique oppresseur, l'Amérique. Ce serait leur permettre de se réclamer de la "pauvreté", faisant ainsi injure aux pauvres! Quelle monstrueuse hypocrisie. Aucun de ceux qui ont prêté la main à cette opération ne peut prétendre vouloir le bien de l'humanité. Ceux-là ne veulent pas d'un monde meilleur, plus juste. Ils veulent simplement rayer le nôtre de la carte.
La réalité est plus sûrement celle, en effet, d'un monde sans contrepoids, physiquement déstabilisé donc dangereux, faute d'équilibre multipolaire. Et l'Amérique, dans la solitude de sa puissance, de son hyper-puissance, en l'absence désormais de tout contre-modèle soviétique, a cessé d'attirer les peuples à elle ; ou plus précisément, en certains points du globe, elle ne semble plus attirer que la haine. Dans le monde régulé de la guerre froide où les terrorismes étaient peu ou prou aidés par Moscou, une forme de contrôle était toujours possible; et le dialogue entre Moscou et Washington ne s'interrompait jamais. Dans le monde monopolistique d'aujourd'hui c'est une nouvelle barbarie, apparemment sans contrôle, qui paraît vouloir s'ériger en contre-pouvoir. Et peut-être avons-nous nous-mêmes en Europe, de la guerre du Golfe à l'utilisation des F16 par l'armée israélienne contre les Palestiniens, sous-estimé l'intensité de la haine qui, des faubourgs de Djakarta à ceux de Durban, en passant par ces foules réjouies de Naplouse et du Caire, se concentre contre les Etats-Unis.
Mais la réalité, c'est peut-être aussi celle d'une Amérique rattrapée par son cynisme : si Ben Laden est bien, comme semblent le penser les autorités américaines, l'ordonnateur de la journée du 11 septembre, comment ne pas rappeler qu'il a lui-même été formé par la CIA, qu'il a été l'un des éléments d'une politique, tournée contre les Soviétiques, que les Américains croyaient savante. Ne serait-ce pas alors l'Amérique qui aurait enfanté ce diable ?
En tout état de cause, l'Amérique va changer. Profondément. Elle est comme un grand paquebot, glissant longtemps sur une même trajectoire. Et lorsque celle-ci est infléchie, elle l'est durablement. Or même si le langage est galvaudé, les Etats-Unis viennent de subir un choc sans précédent. Sans remonter à la toute première agression sur son territoire, celle de 1812 où l'armée britannique détruisit la première Maison Blanche, l'épisode le plus proche qui s'impose est celui de Pearl Harbor. C'était en 1941, loin du continent, avec des bombardiers contre une flotte militaire : l'horreur de Pearl Harbor n'est rien en regard de ce qui vient d'arriver. Elle est au sens propre sans commune mesure : hier 2400 marins engloutis, aujourd'hui bien plus de civils innocents.
Pearl Harbor avait marqué la fin d'un isolationnisme, ancré au point d'avoir résisté même à la barbarie de Hitler. Quand en 1941, Charles Lindbergh faisait une tournée de conférences en Europe pour plaider contre toute implication américaine, une large partie de l'opinion outre-Atlantique rêvait déjà d'un repli sur l'espace latino-américain, laissant l'Europe à ses ruines et à ses crimes. Après Pearl Harbor tout a changé. Et l'Amérique a tout accepté, le plan Marshall comme l'envoi de GI's sur tous les points du globe. Vint ensuite la déchirure vietnamienne, qui a débouché sur une nouvelle doctrine, celle de l'emploi massif et rare de la force, accompagné du dogme du "zéro mort" américain comme cela fut illustré pendant la guerre du Golfe. Tout cela est désormais balayé : nul doute que tous les moyens seront utilisés contre des adversaires restés à ce jour insaisissables. La nouvelle donne qui s'esquisse dans le sang comporte à ce stade au moins deux conséquences prévisibles. Toutes deux ont trait aux alliances : c'en est bel et bien fini d'une stratégie tout entière conçue contre la Russie alors soviétique. La Russie, du moins dans sa partie non islamisée, va devenir le principal allié des Etats-Unis. Mouvement que le président Poutine a saisi dès le soir du drame. Peut-être en est-ce fini aussi d'une alliance que les Etats-Unis avaient esquissée dès les années trente et solidement établie dans les années 1950 avec l'intégrisme musulman sunnite, tel qu'il est défendu notamment en Arabie saoudite et au Pakistan. Aux yeux de l'opinion américaine et de ses dirigeants, l'islamisme, sous toutes ses formes, risque d'être désigné comme le nouvel ennemi. Certes, le réflexe anti-islamiste avait déjà donné lieu, aussitôt après l'attentat d'Oklahoma City contre un immeuble fédéral, à des déclarations ridicules, sinon odieuses. Mais, cette fois, la haine inextinguible qui nourrit ces attentats tout comme le choix des cibles et le caractère militaire de l'organisation nécessaire limitent le nombre des auteurs possibles.
Au-delà de leur apparente folie meurtrière, ces derniers obéissent malgré tout à une logique. Il s'agit évidemment d'une logique barbare, d'un nouveau nihilisme qui répugne à une grande majorité de ceux qui croient en l'islam, dont la religion n'autorise pas plus le suicide que le christianisme; à plus forte raison le suicide couplé au massacre des innocents. Mais il s'agit d'une logique politique qui par la montée aux extrêmes veut obliger les opinions musulmanes à "choisir leur camp", contre ceux qui sont couramment désignés comme "le grand Satan". Ce faisant, leur objectif pourrait bien être d'étendre et de développer une crise sans précédent dans l'ensemble du monde arabe.
A long terme, cette attitude est évidemment suicidaire. Parce qu'elle attire la foudre. Et qu'elle peut l'attirer sans discernement. Cette situation commande à nos dirigeants de se hisser à la hauteur des circonstances. Pour éviter aux peuples que ces fauteurs de guerre convoitent et sur lesquels ils comptent d'entrer à leur tour dans cette logique suicidaire. Car on peut le dire avec effroi: la technologie moderne leur permet d'aller encore plus loin. La folie, même au prétexte du désespoir, n'est jamais une force qui peut régénérer le monde. Voilà pourquoi, aujourd'hui, nous sommes américains.
I am sorry not to have a full English translation, but someone PLEASE help us find one so we can read the full text.
I wish I could translate it My Frech is way too poor to do more than read it. This columnists is very much in sympathy with the USA.
Stay well - Stay safe - stay armed - Yorktown
I wish I could translate it My Frech is way too poor to do more than read it. This columnists is very much in sympathy with the USA.
Stay well - Stay safe - stay armed - Yorktown
bimp
Silly, I am holding my opinion until I get the full translation.
bimp
In this tragic moment when words seem so incapable of expressing the shock that we feel, the first thing which comes to mind is this: We are all Americans! We are all New Yorkers, as surely as JFK was in declaring, in 1963 in Berlin, that he was a Berliner. How can we not feel, in effect, as in the most serious moments in our history, profoundly together in solidarity with this people and this country, the USA, with whom we are so close and to whom we owe freedom, and hence our solidarity (or sympathy).
In this tragic moment where the words appear so poor to say the shock that one feels, the first thing which comes to mind is this one: we all are American! We all are New-Yorker, as surely as John Kennedy declared himself, in 1963 in Berlin, Berlinois. How not to smell itself indeed, as in the most serious moments of our history, deeply interdependent of these people and this country, the United States, to which we are so close and with which we owe freedom, and thus our solidarity. How not not to be attacked at the same time at once by this report: the new century is advanced. The day of the 11septembre 2001 mark the input in a new era, which appears to us well far from the promises and the hopes of another historic day, that of November 9, 1989, and which one year somewhat euphoric, year 2000, that one believed capacity to conclude itself by peace in the Middle East, had given birth to. One century new thus advances, technologically powerful, as shows it the sophistication of the operation of war which struck all the symbols of America: those of economic overpower to the c.ur of Manhattan, of the military " power " to the Pentagon, and finally of the guardian power of the Middle East very close to Camp David. The accesses of this century are also inintelligibles. Except joining promptly and without precautions with the stereotype already more spread, that of the release of a war of the south against north. But to say that, it is to credit the authors with this fatal madness of " good intentions " or an unspecified project according to which it would be necessary to avenge the people oppressed against their single oppressor, America. It would be to enable them to claim " poverty ", thus making insult with the poor! Which monstrous hypocrisy. None of those which lent the hand to this operation can claim to want the good of humanity. These do not want a world better, just. They want simply to stripe ours of the card. Reality is more surely that, indeed, of a world without counterweight, physically destabilized thus dangerous, multipolar fault of balance. And America, in the loneliness of its power, of its hyper-power, in the absence from now on of any Soviet against-model, ceased attracting the people with it; or more precisely, in certain points of the sphere, it does not seem any more to attract but hatred. In the controlled world of the cold war where terrorisms were more or less helped by Moscow, a form of control was always possible; and the dialogue between Moscow and Washington never stopped. In the monopolistic world of today it is a new cruelty, apparently without control, which appears to want to set up in countervailing power. And perhaps have we ourselves in Europe, of the war of the Gulf to the use of F16 by the Israeli army against the Palestinians, underestimated the intensity of the hatred which, of the suburbs of Djakarta to those of Durban, while passing through this crowd delighted by Naplouse and of Cairo, concentrates against the United States. But reality, it is perhaps also that of America caught up with by its cynicism: if Ben Laden is well, as seem to think it the American authorities, the director of the day of September 11, how not to recall that it itself was formed by the CIA, that it was one of the elements of a policy, turned against the Soviets, that the Americans believed erudite. Wouldn't this be then America which would have given birth to this devil? In any event, America will change. Deeply. It is like a large steamer, slipping a long time on a same trajectory. And when this one is inflected, it is it durably. However even if the language is galvaudé, the United States has just undergone a shock without precedent. Without going up with the very first aggression on its territory, that of 1812 when the British army destroyed the first White House, the episode nearest which is essential is that of Pearl Harbor. It was E
In this tragic moment where the words appear so poor to say the shock that one feels, the first thing which comes to mind is this one: we all are American! We all are New-Yorker, as surely as John Kennedy declared himself, in 1963 in Berlin, Berlinois. How not to smell itself indeed, as in the most serious moments of our history, deeply interdependent of these people and this country, the United States, to which we are so close and with which we owe freedom, and thus our solidarity. How not not to be attacked at the same time at once by this report: the new century is advanced. The day of the 11septembre 2001 mark the input in a new era, which appears to us well far from the promises and the hopes of another historic day, that of November 9, 1989, and which one year somewhat euphoric, year 2000, that one believed capacity to conclude itself by peace in the Middle East, had given birth to. One century new thus advances, technologically powerful, as shows it the sophistication of the operation of war which struck all the symbols of America: those of economic overpower to the c.ur of Manhattan, of the military " power " to the Pentagon, and finally of the guardian power of the Middle East very close to Camp David. The accesses of this century are also inintelligibles. Except joining promptly and without precautions with the stereotype already more spread, that of the release of a war of the south against north. But to say that, it is to credit the authors with this fatal madness of " good intentions " or an unspecified project according to which it would be necessary to avenge the people oppressed against their single oppressor, America. It would be to enable them to claim " poverty ", thus making insult with the poor! Which monstrous hypocrisy. None of those which lent the hand to this operation can claim to want the good of humanity. These do not want a world better, just. They want simply to stripe ours of the card. Reality is more surely that, indeed, of a world without counterweight, physically destabilized thus dangerous, multipolar fault of balance. And America, in the loneliness of its power, of its hyper-power, in the absence from now on of any Soviet against-model, ceased attracting the people with it; or more precisely, in certain points of the sphere, it does not seem any more to attract but hatred. In the controlled world of the cold war where terrorisms were more or less helped by Moscow, a form of control was always possible; and the dialogue between Moscow and Washington never stopped. In the monopolistic world of today it is a new cruelty, apparently without control, which appears to want to set up in countervailing power. And perhaps have we ourselves in Europe, of the war of the Gulf to the use of F16 by the Israeli army against the Palestinians, underestimated the intensity of the hatred which, of the suburbs of Djakarta to those of Durban, while passing through this crowd delighted by Naplouse and of Cairo, concentrates against the United States. But reality, it is perhaps also that of America caught up with by its cynicism: if Ben Laden is well, as seem to think it the American authorities, the director of the day of September 11, how not to recall that it itself was formed by the CIA, that it was one of the elements of a policy, turned against the Soviets, that the Americans believed erudite. Wouldn't this be then America which would have given birth to this devil? In any event, America will change. Deeply. It is like a large steamer, slipping a long time on a same trajectory. And when this one is inflected, it is it durably. However even if the language is galvaudé, the United States has just undergone a shock without precedent. Without going up with the very first aggression on its territory, that of 1812 when the British army destroyed the first White House, the episode nearest which is essential is that of Pearl Harbor. It was in 1941, far from the continent, with bombers against a military fleet: the horror of Pearl Harbor is nothing compared to what has just arrived. It is with the literal meaning without common measurement: yesterday 2400 absorbed sailors, today well more the civil innocent ones. Pearl Harbor had marked the end of an isolationism, anchored to the point to have resisted even the cruelty of Hitler. When in 1941, Charles Lindbergh made a lecture tour in Europe to plead against any American implication, a broad part of the opinion on the other side of the Atlantic dreamed already of a fold on Latin-American space, leaving Europe with his ruins and his crimes. After Pearl Harbor all changed. And America very accepted, the Marshall plan like the sending of GI' S on all the points of the sphere. Came then the tear Vietnamese, which led to new doctrines, that from the large-scale use and rare of the force, accompanied by the dogma of " zero dead " American as that was illustrated during the war of the Gulf. All that from now on is swept: there is no doubt that all the means will be used against adversaries remained imperceptible to date. The news gives which is outlined in blood comprises at this stage at least two foreseeable consequences. Both milked with alliances: it is indeed finished by it of a very whole strategy conceived against Russia then Soviet. Russia, at least in its not Islamized part, will become the principal ally of the United States. Movement that president Poutine seized as of the evening of the drama. Perhaps this is also finished by it alliance which the United States had outlined as of the Thirties and firmly established in the years 1950 with the Moslem integrism sunnite, such as it is defended in particular in Saudi Arabia and in Pakistan. With the eyes of the American opinion and its leaders, Islamism, in all its forms, is likely to be designated as the new enemy. Admittedly, the anti-islamiste reflex had already given place, at once after the attack of Oklahoma City against a federal building, with ridiculous, if not odious declarations. But, this time, the inextinguishable hatred which nourishes these attacks just like the choice of the targets and the military character of the organization necessary limits the number of the possible authors. Beyond their apparent fatal madness, the latter obey despite everything with a logic. It is obviously about a barbarian logic, of a new nihilism which is repugnant to a great majority of those which believe in the Islam, whose religion does not authorize more the suicide that Christianity; with stronger reason the suicide coupled with the massacre of the innocent. But it is about a political logic which by the rise to the extremes wants to oblige the Moslem opinions " to choose their camp ", counters those which are usually indicated like " the great Satan ". By doing this, their objective could be to extend well and develop a crisis without precedent in the whole of the Arab world. In the long run, this attitude is obviously suicidal. Because it attracts the lightning. And that it can attract it without understanding. This situation orders from our leaders to rise equal to the circumstances. To avoid with the people that these warmongers covet and on whom they hope to enter in their turn this suicidal logic. Because one can say it with fear: modern technology enables them to go even further. The madness, even with the pretext of despair, is never a force which can regenerate the world. For this reason, today, we are American.
How not not to be attacked at the same time at once by this report: the new century is advanced. The day of the 11septembre 2001 mark the entry in a new era, which appears to us well far from the promises and the hopes of another historic day, that of November 9, 1989, and which one year somewhat euphoric, year 2000, that one believed capacity to conclude itself by peace in the Middle East, had given birth to.
Many thanks, friends.
To the French government:
Lafayette, nous sommes ici! Et, VOUS?
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic!)
Thanks for understanding.
In this tragic moment where the words appear so poor to say the shock that one feels, the first thing that comes to the spirit is this one: we are all Americans! We are all New-Yorkais, as surely as Kennedy John declared itself, in 1963 to Berlin, Berlinois. How to not feel in fact, as in the most serious moments of our history, solidaires profondément of this people and of this country, the United States, of which are for us so near and to that let us have liberty for us, and therefore our solidarity.
How to not be at the same time immediately assailed by this constat: the new century is advanced. The day of the 11SEPTEMBRE 2001 brand the enter into a new era, that appears for us very far promises and hopes of another historic day, the one of November 9 1989, and that a year somewhat euphorique, the year 2000, that one believed to be able to conclude itself by the peace to the Near-East, had done to be born.
A new century advances itself therefore, performant technologiquement, as the watch the sophistication of the war operation that hit all the symbols of america: those of the economical surpuissance to the cœur of Manhattan, of the "power" military to the Pentagon, and at last tutélaire power of the Near-East very close to David Camp. The approaches of this century are also inintelligibles. Except to itself rally promptly and without precautions to the cliché already the most shed, the one of the déclenchement of a war of the south against the north. But to say that, this is créditer the authors of this deadly madness of "good intention" or of an any project according to which one it would be necessary to avenge the oppressed peoples against their unique oppressor, america. This would be to allow for them to claim itself of the "poverty", doing thus insult to the poor ones! Which monstrous hypocrisy. None of those that lent the hand to this operation cannot claim to want the good of humanity. Those do not want any a world better, more just. They want simply to scratch the ours of the card.
The reality is more surely the one, in fact, of a world without contrepoids, déstabilisé physically therefore dangerous, for lack of multipolaire balance. And america, in the solitude of his power, of his hyper-power, in the absence henceforth of all soviétique against-models, stopped attracting the peoples to her; or precisely, in certain points of the globe, she does not seem more to attract than hate. In the régulé world of the cold war where the terrorismes were little or prou helped by Moscow, a check form always was possible; and the dialog between Moscow and Washington did not interrupt itself never. In the today world monopolistique this is a new barbarie, apparently without checks, that appears to want s'ériger itself in against-be able. And maybe have us ourselves in Europe, war of the Golfe to the usage of the F16 by the Israeli army against Palestiniens, under-estimated the intensity of the hate that, suburbs of Djakarta to those of Durban, while passing by these crowds rejoiced at Naplouse and Caire, itself concentre against the United States.
But the reality, this is maybe also the one of an America recovered by his cynisme: if Laden Ben is well, as seem to think authorities for American it, the l'ordonnateur of the day of September 11, how to not recall that it himself was formed by the CIA, that it was the one of the elements of a political one, turned against Soviétiques, that the Americans believed knowing. Would not be this step then the america that haould child this devil?
In any case, america will change. Profondément. She is as a big paquebot, slipping a long time on a same trajectory. And when this one is infléchie, she is it durably. Now even if the language is galvaudé, the United States have just undergone an unprecedented shock. Without climbing back up to the all first aggression on his territory, the one of 1812 where the British army détruisit the first White House, the nearest episode that imposes is the one of Harbor Pearl. It was in 1941, far continent, with bombers against a floats military: the horror of Harbor Pearl is not nothing in look of what has just arrived. She is to the clean direction without commune measures: yesterday 2400 engloutis sailors, today very more of civil innocent ones.
Harbor Pearl had marked the end of an isolationism, ancré to the point to have withstood even to the barbarie of Hitler. When in 1941, Lindbergh Charles did a turn of lectures in Europe to plead against all American implication, a wide part of the besides-Atlantic opinion dreamed already of a have just had to withdraw on the latino-American space, leaving the europe to its ruins and to its crimes. After Harbor Pearl all changed. And america has all accepted one, the Marshall plan as the GI's sending on all the points of the globe. Vint next the vietnamienne tear, that unstopped on a new doctrine, the one of the massive and rare employment of the force, accompanied dogme of the "zero death" American as that was illustrated during the war of Golfe. All that henceforth is swept: any doubts all the means to use against opponents remained at this insaisissables day. The new one gives that sketches itself in the blood behaves to this stadium at least two prévisibles consequences. All two have trait to the alliances: this some is beautiful and very finished of a completely conceived stratégie against Russia then soviétique. Russia, less in his non part-islamisée, will become the principal ally of United States. Movement that the Poutine president seized as early as evenings drama. Maybe some is this finished one also of an alliance as the United States had sketched as early as the and solidly established thirties in the years 1950 with the Moslem l'intégrisme sunnite, such as it is defended notably in Saudi Arabia and to Pakistan. To the eyes of the American opinion and of its leaders, the l'islamisme, under all its forms, risks to be designated as the new enemy. Of course, the anti- réflexe already had given place, right after the City d'Oklahoma attempt against a building.
Beyond their apparent deadly madness, these last ones obey despite all to a logic. It acts himself evidently of a barbaric logic, of a new nihilism that répugne to a big majority of those that believe in islam, of which the religion does not authorize more commits suicide than Christianity for it; even more it couplé suicide to the massacre of the innocent ones. But it is a question of a political logic that by the climbed to the extreme ones wants to oblige the Moslem opinions to "to choose their camp", against those that often are designated as "big Satan". This fact, their objective well being to spread and to develop an unprecedented crisis as a whole of the Arabic world.
To long term, this attitude is evidently suicidal. Because she attracts the lightning. And that she can attract it without discernment. This position orders to our leaders to hoist itself to the height of circumstances. To avoid to the peoples that these convoitent fauteurs war and on which these they count to enter to them turn in this logical suicidal. For one can say it with effroi: the modern technology allows for them go again more far. The madness, even to the pretext of despair, is not never a force that can regenerate the world. Here why, today, we are American.
(1) In this tragic moment where the words appear so poor to say the shock that one feels, the first thing which comes to mind is this one: we all are American! We all are New-Yorker, as surely as John Kennedy declared himself, in 1963 in Berlin, Berlinois. How not to smell itself indeed, as in the most serious moments of our history, deeply interdependent of these people and this country, the United States, to which we are so close and with which we owe freedom, and thus our solidarity.
(2) How not not to be attacked at the same time at once by this report: the new century is advanced. The day of the 11septembre 2001 mark the input in a new era, which appears to us well far from the promises and the hopes of another historic day, that of November 9, 1989, and which one year somewhat euphoric, year 2000, that one believed capacity to conclude itself by peace in the Middle East, had given birth to.
(3) One century new thus advances, technologically powerful, as shows it the sophistication of the operation of war which struck all the symbols of America: those of economic overpower to the c.ur of Manhattan, of the military " power " to the Pentagon, and finally of the guardian power of the Middle East very close to Camp David. The accesses of this century are also inintelligibles. Except joining promptly and without precautions with the stereotype already more spread, that of the release of a war of the south against north. But to say that, it is to credit the authors with this fatal madness of " good intentions " or an unspecified project according to which it would be necessary to avenge the people oppressed against their single oppressor, America. It would be to enable them to claim " poverty ", thus making insult with the poor! Which monstrous hypocrisy. None of those which lent the hand to this operation can claim to want the good of humanity. These do not want a world better, just. They want simply to stripe ours of the card.
(4) Reality is more surely that, indeed, of a world without counterweight, physically destabilized thus dangerous, multipolar fault of balance. And America, in the loneliness of its power, of its hyper-power, in the absence from now on of any Soviet against-model, ceased attracting the people with it; or more precisely, in certain points of the sphere, it does not seem any more to attract but hatred. In the controlled world of the cold war where terrorisms were more or less helped by Moscow, a form of control was always possible; and the dialogue between Moscow and Washington never stopped. In the monopolistic world of today it is a new cruelty, apparently without control, which appears to want to set up in countervailing power. And perhaps have we ourselves in Europe, of the war of the Gulf to the use of F16 by the Israeli army against the Palestinians, underestimated the intensity of the hatred which, of the suburbs of Djakarta to those of Durban, while passing through this crowd delighted by Naplouse and of Cairo, concentrates against the United States.
(5) But reality, it is perhaps also that of America caught up with by its cynicism: if Ben Laden is well, as seem to think it the American authorities, the director of the day of September 11, how not to recall that it itself was formed by the CIA, that it was one of the elements of a policy, turned against the Soviets, that the Americans believed erudite. Wouldn't this be then America which would have given birth to this devil?
(6) In any event, America will change. Deeply. It is like a large steamer, slipping a long time on a same trajectory. And when this one is inflected, it is it durably. However even if the language is galvaudé, the United States has just undergone a shock without precedent. Without going up with the very first aggression on its territory, that of 1812 when the British army destroyed the first White House, the episode nearest which is essential is that of Pearl Harbor. It was in 1941, far from the continent, with bombers against a military fleet: the horror of Pearl Harbor is nothing compared to what has just arrived. It is with the literal meaning without common measurement: yesterday 2400 absorbed sailors, today well more the civil innocent ones.
(7) Pearl Harbor had marked the end of an isolationism, anchored to the point to have resisted even the cruelty of Hitler. When in 1941, Charles Lindbergh made a lecture tour in Europe to plead against any American implication, a broad part of the opinion on the other side of the Atlantic dreamed already of a fold on Latin-American space, leaving Europe with his ruins and his crimes. After Pearl Harbor all changed. And America very accepted, the Marshall plan like the sending of GI' S on all the points of the sphere. Came then the tear Vietnamese, which led to new doctrines, that from the large-scale use and rare of the force, accompanied by the dogma of " zero dead " American as that was illustrated during the war of the Gulf. All that from now on is swept: there is no doubt that all the means will be used against adversaries remained imperceptible to date. The news gives which is outlined in blood comprises at this stage at least two foreseeable consequences. Both milked with alliances: it is indeed finished by it of a very whole strategy conceived against Russia then Soviet. Russia, at least in its not Islamized part, will become the principal ally of the United States. Movement that president Poutine seized as of the evening of the drama. Perhaps this is also finished by it alliance which the United States had outlined as of the Thirties and firmly established in the years 1950 with the Moslem integrism sunnite, such as it is defended in particular in Saudi Arabia and in Pakistan. With the eyes of the American opinion and its leaders, Islamism, in all its forms, is likely to be designated as the new enemy. Admittedly, the anti-islamiste reflex had already given place, at once after the attack of Oklahoma City against a federal building, with ridiculous, if not odious declarations. But, this time, the inextinguishable hatred which nourishes these attacks just like the choice of the targets and the military character of the organization necessary limits the number of the possible authors.
(8) Beyond their apparent fatal madness, the latter obey despite everything with a logic. It is obviously about a barbarian logic, of a new nihilism which is repugnant to a great majority of those which believe in the Islam, whose religion does not authorize more the suicide that Christianity; with stronger reason the suicide coupled with the massacre of the innocent. But it is about a political logic which by the rise to the extremes wants to oblige the Moslem opinions " to choose their camp ", counters those which are usually indicated like " the great Satan ". By doing this, their objective could be to extend well and develop a crisis without precedent in the whole of the Arab world.
(9) In the long run, this attitude is obviously suicidal. Because it attracts the lightning. And that it can attract it without understanding. This situation orders from our leaders to rise equal to the circumstances. To avoid with the people that these warmongers covet and on whom they hope to enter in their turn this suicidal logic. Because one can say it with fear: modern technology enables them to go even further. The madness, even with the pretext of despair, is never a force which can regenerate the world. For this reason, today, we are American.
To: patentedShe is, but she isn't around as much.Are you fluent in French, or can you help us find a full translation?
patent
Well, slap me on the ass and call me Judy.
Never, ever thought I'd live to see the day the French say something nice about us.........let alone acknowledge that they owe their freedom to Americans during WWII (and WWI before that). But hey.............they helped us during the Revolutionary War, leave us not forget.
It pains me to say it, but I think the French just jumped up a few notches in my book.
How not not to be attacked at the same time at once by this report: the new century is advanced. The day of the 11septembre 2001 mark the input in a new era, which appears to us well far from the promises and the hopes of another historic day, that of November 9, 1989, and which one year somewhat euphoric, year 2000, that one believed capacity to conclude itself by peace in the Middle East, had given birth to.
One century new thus advances, technologically powerful, as shows it the sophistication of the operation of war which struck all the symbols of America: those of economic overpower to the c.ur of Manhattan, of the military " power " to the Pentagon, and finally of the guardian power of the Middle East very close to Camp David. The accesses of this century are also inintelligibles. Except joining promptly and without precautions with the stereotype already more spread, that of the release of a war of the south against north. But to say that, it is to credit the authors with this fatal madness of " good intentions " or an unspecified project according to which it would be necessary to avenge the people oppressed against their single oppressor, America. It would be to enable them to claim " poverty ", thus making insult with the poor! Which monstrous hypocrisy. None of those which lent the hand to this operation can claim to want the good of humanity. These do not want a world better, just. They want simply to stripe ours of the card.
Reality is more surely that, indeed, of a world without counterweight, physically destabilized thus dangerous, multipolar fault of balance. And America, in the loneliness of its power, of its hyper-power, in the absence from now on of any Soviet against-model, ceased attracting the people with it; or more precisely, in certain points of the sphere, it does not seem any more to attract but hatred. In the controlled world of the cold war where terrorisms were more or less helped by Moscow, a form of control was always possible; and the dialogue between Moscow and Washington never stopped. In the monopolistic world of today it is a new cruelty, apparently without control, which appears to want to set up in countervailing power. And perhaps have we ourselves in Europe, of the war of the Gulf to the use of F16 by the Israeli army against the Palestinians, underestimated the intensity of the hatred which, of the suburbs of Djakarta to those of Durban, while passing through this crowd delighted by Naplouse and of Cairo, concentrates against the United States.
But reality, it is perhaps also that of America caught up with by its cynicism: if Ben Laden is well, as seem to think it the American authorities, the director of the day of September 11, how not to recall that it itself was formed by the CIA, that it was one of the elements of a policy, turned against the Soviets, that the Americans believed erudite. Wouldn't this be then America which would have given birth to this devil?
In any event, America will change. Deeply. It is like a large steamer, slipping a long time on a same trajectory. And when this one is inflected, it is it durably. However even if the language is galvaudé, the United States has just undergone a shock without precedent. Without going up with the very first aggression on its territory, that of 1812 when the British army destroyed the first White House, the episode nearest which is essential is that of Pearl Harbor. It was in 1941, far from the continent, with bombers against a military fleet: the horror of Pearl Harbor is nothing compared to what has just arrived. It is with the literal meaning without common measurement: yesterday 2400 absorbed sailors, today well more the civil innocent ones.
Pearl Harbor had marked the end of an isolationism, anchored to the point to have resisted even the cruelty of Hitler. When in 1941, Charles Lindbergh made a lecture tour in Europe to plead against any American implication, a broad part of the opinion on the other side of the Atlantic dreamed already of a fold on Latin-American space, leaving Europe with his ruins and his crimes. After Pearl Harbor all changed. And America very accepted, the Marshall plan like the sending of GI' S on all the points of the sphere. Came then the tear Vietnamese, which led to new doctrines, that from the large-scale use and rare of the force, accompanied by the dogma of " zero dead " American as that was illustrated during the war of the Gulf. All that from now on is swept: there is no doubt that all the means will be used against adversaries remained imperceptible to date. The news gives which is outlined in blood comprises at this stage at least two foreseeable consequences. Both milked with alliances: it is indeed finished by it of a very whole strategy conceived against Russia then Soviet. Russia, at least in its not Islamized part, will become the principal ally of the United States. Movement that president Poutine seized as of the evening of the drama. Perhaps this is also finished by it alliance which the United States had outlined as of the Thirties and firmly established in the years 1950 with the Moslem integrism sunnite, such as it is defended in particular in Saudi Arabia and in Pakistan. With the eyes of the American opinion and its leaders, Islamism, in all its forms, is likely to be designated as the new enemy. Admittedly, the anti-islamiste reflex had already given place, at once after the attack of Oklahoma City against a federal building, with ridiculous, if not odious declarations. But, this time, the inextinguishable hatred which nourishes these attacks just like the choice of the targets and the military character of the organization necessary limits the number of the possible authors.
Beyond their apparent fatal madness, the latter obey despite everything with a logic. It is obviously about a barbarian logic, of a new nihilism which is repugnant to a great majority of those which believe in the Islam, whose religion does not authorize more the suicide that Christianity; with stronger reason the suicide coupled with the massacre of the innocent. But it is about a political logic which by the rise to the extremes wants to oblige the Moslem opinions " to choose their camp ", counters those which are usually indicated like " the great Satan ". By doing this, their objective could be to extend well and develop a crisis without precedent in the whole of the Arab world.
In the long run, this attitude is obviously suicidal. Because it attracts the lightning. And that it can attract it without understanding. This situation orders from our leaders to rise equal to the circumstances. To avoid with the people that these warmongers covet and on whom they hope to enter in their turn this suicidal logic. Because one can say it with fear: modern technology enables them to go even further. The madness, even with the pretext of despair, is never a force which can regenerate the world. For this reason, today, we are American.
I wish I could help with the translation, but my knowledge of the language is limited to a fondness for french fries.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic!)
A new century begins then, technologically advanced, as is shown by the sophistication of the act of war which struck at all the symbols of America: those of the economic superpower at the heart of Manhattan, of the military "power" at the Pentagon, and finally at the nursery (?) of Middle East power at Camp David. The beginnings of this century are also confusing. Except to quickly rally ourselves and without forethought to the most often repeated cliche, that of the beginning of a war of the South (the southern part of the world--undeveloped and non-Christian) against the North (developed and imperialistic). But to say that is to credit the authors of the murderous folly of "good intentions" or of some project according to which it would be necessary to avenge the oppressed peoples against their lone oppressor, America. This would permit them to reclaim the status of "victims", and thus insulting victims! What monstrous hypocrisy. Not one of those who took part in this attack can even pretend to seek good will toward men. They don't want a better world, a more just world. They only want to cross off ours from the map.
Silly
The reality is more surely this, in effect, in a world without counterweight, physically destabilized and thus dangerous, failure of multipolar equilibrium. And America, in the solitude of her power, of her super-power, in the absence from that point of any Soviet-style antagonist, has ceased to hold the people to her; or more precisely, in some parts of the globe, she seems no longer to attract hate. In a world regulated by the Cold War where terrorism was more or less aided by Moscow, one form of control was always available; and the dialogue between Moscow and Washington was never interrupted. In the monopolistic world of today, it's a new barbarism, apparently without control, which seems to want to make itself the counterweight (to the USA). And perhaps we have ourselves in Europe, from the Gulf War to the use of F16s by the Israeli Defense Force against the Palestinians, underestimated the intensity of hate which, from the suburbs of Jakarta to those of Durban, in passing by the rejoicing crowds of Naplouse (the West Bank?) and Cairo, have been concentrated against the US.
That's what the German paper Bild is also saying today.
But the reality is perhaps also one in which America is trapped by its own cynicism: if bin Laden is indeed, as the American authorities seem to think, the organizer of the September 11th attacks, how can we not remember that bin Laden himself was created by the CIA, that he was one of the elements of a policy, turned against the Soviets, that Americans knowingly believed in. Would it not then be America which gave birth to this devil?
In any case, America is going to change. Profoundly. She is like a great oceanliner, remaining along the same course. And even when that course is bent, she stays solidly on that course. Even though it's a cliche, the U.S. has sustained an unprecedented shock. Without going back to the very first attack on its territory, that of 1812 when the British army burned the White House to the ground, the most comparable event which comes to mind is Pearl Harbor. This was in 1941, far from the mainland, with bombers against a naval fleet: the horror of Pearl Harbor is nothing when compared to what has just happened. There really is no comparison in a proper sense: yesterday 2,400 sailors, today a LOT more innocent civilians.
In this tragic moment where the words appear too poor to say the shock that one feels, the first thing which comes to mind is this one: we all are American! We all are New-Yorkers, as surely as John Kennedy declared himself a Berliner in 1963 in Berlin. How one is not to feel in effect, as in the most serious moments of our history, deeply in solidarity with these people and this country, the United States, to which we are so close and to which we owe freedom, and thus our solidarity. (I know it’s awkward, but that’s what it seems to say).
How not to be assailed at the same time at once by this report: the new century is advanced. The day of September 11, 2001 marks the beginning of a new era, which appears to us very far from the promises and the hopes of another historic day, that of November 9, 1989, and which the somewhat euphoric year 2000, that one believed had the capacity to conclude with peace in the Middle East, had given birth to.
One new century thus advances, technologically powerful, as shown by the sophistication of the operation of war which struck all the symbols of America: those of economic superpower at the heart of Manhattan, of the military " power " of the Pentagon, and finally of the (guardian power??? symbolismc?) of the Middle East very close to Camp David. The (approaches or encounters?) of this century are also unintelligible without buying promptly and without precautions into the stereotype already widespread, that of the release of a war of the south against north. But to say that is to credit the authors of this fatal madness of " good intentions " or an unspecified project according to which it would be necessary to avenge the oppressed people against their unique oppressor, America. It would be to enable them to claim " poverty ", thus insulting the poor! What monstrous hypocrisy. None of those which lent a hand in this operation can claim to want the good of humanity. These do not want a better or more just world. They want simply to stripe ours of the card (I think this is a colloquialism for ‘they just want to screw us’).
Reality is more surely that, indeed, of a world without counterweights, physically destabilized and dangerous, due to inequalities. And America, in the loneliness of its power, of its hyper-power, in the absence from now on of any Soviet countermodel, ceased attracting people with it; or more precisely, in certain parts of the world, it only seems to attract hatred. In the controlled world of the cold war where terrorism was more or less helped by Moscow, a form of control was always possible; and the dialogue between Moscow and Washington never stopped. In the monopolistic world of today it is a new cruelty, apparently without control, which appears to want to set up as a countervailing power. And perhaps we ourselves in Europe have, because of the war of the Gulf and the use of F16 by the Israeli army against the Palestinians, underestimated the intensity of the hatred which, from the suburbs of Djakarta to those of Durban, while passing through this delighted crowd of Naplouse (? Where the Palestinians were cheering? Beats me, sorry) and of Cairo, concentrates against the United States.
But the reality is perhaps also that of America caught up with by its cynicism: if Ben Laden is the director of the day of September 11, as the American authorities seem to think, how not to recall that it itself (i.e. Bin Laden’s power) was formed by the CIA, that it was one of the elements of a policy, used against the Soviets, that the Americans believed wise. Wouldn't it be then America which would have given birth to this devil?
In any event, America will change. Deeply. It is like a large steamer, slipping a long time on an unchanging trajectory. And when it is changed, it is changed durably. However even if the language is galvaudé (sorry, can’t find this, could be “galvanized”?), the United States has just undergone a shock without precedent. Without returning to the very first aggression on its territory, that of 1812 when the British army destroyed the first White House, the episode nearest this is that of Pearl Harbor. It was in 1941, far from the continent, with bombers against a military fleet: the horror of Pearl Harbor is nothing compared to what has just happened. It is literally without common measurement: then (Pearl Harbor) 2400 (drowned or submerged, literally “absorbed”) sailors, today many more innocent civilian ones.
Pearl Harbor had marked the end of an isolationism, strong enough to have resisted even the cruelty of Hitler. When in 1941, Charles Lindbergh made a lecture tour in Europe to plead against any American involvement, a broad part of the opinion on the other side of the Atlantic dreamed already of a closing of Latin-American space, leaving Europe with its ruins and its crimes. After Pearl Harbor all changed. And America accepted the Marshall plan like the sending of GI's to all the points of the globe. Came then the Vietnam War, which led to new doctrines, that of the rare large-scale use of force, accompanied by the dogma of "zero dead" American as was illustrated during the Gulf War. All that from now on is swept away: there is no doubt that all means will be used against adversaries who have been imperceptible to date. The news outlined in blood comprises at this stage at least two foreseeable consequences. Both deal with alliances: it finishes a very whole strategy conceived against Russia, then Soviet. Russia, at least in its not Islamized part, will become the principal ally of the United States. As shown by president Putin’s remarks on the evening of the drama. Perhaps also finished by it is the alliance which the United States had outlined as of the Thirties and firmly established in the 1950’s with the integration of the Sunni Moslems, such as defended in particular Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. In the eyes of American opinion and its leaders, Islamism, in all its forms, is likely to be designated as the new enemy. Admittedly, the anti-Islamic reflex had already taken place, at once after the attack in Oklahoma City against a federal building, with ridiculous, if not odious, declarations. But, this time, the inextinguishable hatred which nourishes these attacks just like the choice of the targets and the military character of the organization necessary limits the number of the possible authors.
Beyond their apparent fatal madness, the latter despite everything act with a logic. It is obviously a barbarian logic, of a new nihilism which is repugnant to a great majority of those which believe in Islam, whose religion does not authorize suicide more than Christianity; all the more suicide coupled with the massacre of the innocent. But it is about a political logic which by the rise to the extremes wants to oblige the Moslem opinions " to choose their camp ", against those which are usually indicated as " the great Satan ". By doing this, their objective could well be to extend and develop a crisis without precedent in the whole of the Arab world.
In the long run, this attitude is obviously suicidal. Because it attracts the lightning. And that it can attract it without understanding. This situation obliges our leaders to rise to the circumstances. To avoid the people that these warmongers covet (? i.e. “want to control”?) and on whom they hope to inculcate in their turn this suicidal logic. Because one can say it with fear: modern technology enables them to go even further. The madness, even with the pretext of despair, is never a force which can regenerate the world. For this reason, today, we are American.
El-Oh-El!
They basically accuse us of being racists and want us to give up on our anti-Russian bias. This is not a big change for Le Monde. They are basically communists.
Pearl Harbor marked the end of isolationism, so firly anchored in America that it could even resist intervening to end the barbarism of Hitler. (This is SUCH a French myth. You always have to remember that the French STILL love Jerry Lewis). When in 1941, Charles Lindbergh (a freaking Nazi-sympathizer as it turns out) was making the rounds at conferences in Europe to plead against any American interest in the war, a large part of the opinion on the other side of the Atlantic was dreaming of a curtain over the western hemisphere, leaving Europe to its ruins and crimes. (This is total horseshit coming from a country that bent over for Hitler and deported their Jews to die in Poland.) After Pearl Harbor, everything changed. And America accepted the full burden, the Marshall plan like sending GIs to all four corners of the globe. Next came the shredding in Vietnam, which uncorked a new doctrine, that of the massive and rare use of force, accompanied by the concept of "no dead American" as was illustrated during the Gulf War. All of which has been swept away at this point: no one doubts that every means necessary will be used against these adversaries who to this day remain uncatchable. This new approach which is written in the blood has brought to the world stage at least two predictible consequences. Both are linked to alliances: the Cold War strategy conceived entirely to contain the Russians, then the Soviets, is as good as dead. (I totally disagree here. My anti-communism is mostly focused on China now, but I do not discount the likelihood of a return of the Soviet threat in the future). Russia, at least in it's non-Islamic areas, will become the principal ally of the U.S. It's a change that President Putin seized on the night of the attack. Perhaps it is also the end of an alliance that the U.S. had drawn up since the 1930s and solidified during the 1950s with the fundamentalist Sunni Muslim, such as it is notably defended (forbidden?) in Saudi Arabia and in Pakistan. In the eyes of American public opinion, and in those of its leaders, Islam, in all of its forms, risks being portrayed as the new enemy. Certainly the anti-Islamic reflex has already been seen, witness the ridiculous, if not obnoxious, condemnations of Islamic radicals following the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City. But, this time, the inextinguishable hate which fed these attacks just like the choice of targets and the military character of the required organization limits the number of possible culprits.
Read these paragraphs and I will summarize what they are saying afterwards.
Beyond their apparent murderous folly, these culprits are nevertheless captured by a way of thinking. It is evidently a barbaric way of thinking, one of nihilism which is rejected by a great majority of those who believe in Islam, a religion which no more favors suicide than does Christianity; let alone suicide coupled with the massacre of innocent people. But it's a political way of thinking which, by going to extremes, forces muslims to "pick a side", against those who are often referred to as "The Great Satan". In so doing, their strategy could well be to cause an unprecendented crisis in the entire Arab world.
In the long run, this attitude is clearly suicidal. Because it attracts lightning. And lightning can strike them without discrimination. This situation requires our leaders to rise to the occasion so that their people (us) can avoid what the terrorist warmongers want, our entry into their suicidal way of thinking. For we can say with fear: modern technology enables our leaders to go even further. Madness, even in the face of despair, is never a force that can rebuild the world. That is why, today, we are Americans.
When I was in France and discussing translations over way too much alcohol with the father of a French student I knew, we came to the conclusion that you just couldn't understand everything unless you knew a gzillion languages and you knew them fluently. Here's a great example of why.
The writers at Le Monde used two words separately in this editorial in a way that conveys what they mean precisely, but you wouldn't know it unless you knew something of French history over the last 40 years.
The two words are "frappe" and "force". Separately and literally these words mean "strike" or "hit" as in, "the terrorists struck at the symbols of American power"; and "force" as in "Madness is never a force that can rebuild the world".
What they don't need to tell their French readership is what they are referring to when they use "force" in this context and what they really mean by "madness" or "folie". After WWII when France almost ceased to exist as a separate country, Charles de Gaulle realized that (in addition to having a century-long inferiority complex with respect to the British) the French needed to have an independent nuclear force in case the U.S. should ever return to its pre-war "isolationism".
Well, Charles de Gaulle coined a term for their nuclear weapons capability which was "force de frappe". I would translate it as meaning "strike force".
Le Monde, in their way too subtle French way, is advocating that the U.S. (and its allies), not use nukes in their battle with bin Laden. They start out by sympathizing, and almost empathizing with how everyone is angry, but they want cooler heads to prevail before we turn the Middle East or Afghanistan into a hot zone.
And I must say that, as long as the nukes are tactical, I completely disagree. We are the only country to ever fire a nuke in anger. We fired them "to prevent thousands of American deaths", but also to avenge the deaths of servicemen and women at Pearl Harbor. We've done it once before. We can do it again, especially if it means that we can save American lives by doing so. And this time there are civilian lives to avenge, including at least one 2 and one 4 year old on Flight 93.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.