Would you not read "Juives dehors" as, potentially, an anti-feminist, or at least an anti-woman statement?

quote:

---

Under the hypothesis that the kidnappers are acting on their own initiative, then they must be beginning to ask themselves some questions. The numerous reactions from the entire Arab world should certainly convince the extremists of the absurdity of their act. The Ulema's mediation may have some influence and restore reason to these men. Three points in particular must be emphasized because the kidnapping:
-hurts Islam
-hurts Iraq
-is senseless in that it targets a country that has always maintained a proper reaction with regard to Iraq. So I think that if the crisis is resolved, it will be through the intermediation of Sunni religious notables.

---

Terms such as beur (which mightn't be as derogatory as you claim) and pieds noirs aren't as offensive to the less politically correct French ear as that of the North American.

I half toyed with the idea that some posters are ignoring the incident since it does not fit within the established ideological framework wherein Jews are under rampant attack on all front all the time, where ever they live by evil extra-judaic forces (usually Muslim) -- Attacks that justify the existence of a Jewish homeland in the Middle East, and the subsquent almost daily murder of innocent Arabs in occupied Palestine. Could this be true?

Odd that no one has questioned the potential motive of the alledged crimimal, or suggested that the person invovled might have wanted to reinforce the idea that 'Jews are under rampant attack on all front all the time, where ever they live by evil extra-judaic forces,' for the purposes of reinforcing the justification for Jewish homeland in the Middle East, and the subsquent almost daily murder of innocent Arabs in occupied Palestine.

Shucks! How likely is that?

Yet, the silence on this issue is odd, given the tenor of responses in previous threads about attacks on Jewish insititutions.

[ 07 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I don't know. I mean, I suppose it's possible. But it's just as possible, and an easier explanation, that the guy is either loonytunes, or that maybe he had some kind of resentment against the centre, whether because of some kind of perceived slight or disagreement with the place, or maybe against someone who belongs to it.

I mean, the guy worked there, his bosses describe him as "mentally unstable", and the article says they wanted to sack him. "Disgruntled worker" sounds like the most likely explanation to me.

[ 07 September 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]

I'd have to know more about the case to be able to evaluate whether the centre was unwise or unfair in their approach to this man.

Anyway it's a good movie, you should check it out if you haven't seen it yet.

quote:

---

The man wasn't actually an employee or full-time volunteer; he was a person with a history of mental problems who had been helped by the centre (meals, a little flat in the 3rd arronissment ... hmm, one could do worse than that part of Paris - the northern part of the Marais.) I believe the man had lost entitlement to his free housing.

---