France Crackdown.

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by VisuTrac, Mar 23, 2012.

  1. VisuTrac

    VisuTrac Ваша мать носит военные ботинки Site Supporter+++

    jungatheart likes this.
  2. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn RIP 1/13/21

    Ah, but isn't it obvious. Lord Obummer our Dicktater progressive revisionist thinks this is a grand idea. And, further more also as a globalist, he must capture this fleeting idea and bring it home to Amerika for the dumb masses.
  3. Alpha Dog

    Alpha Dog survival of the breed

    One thing he better plan on if he does bring it home is we are American and wont go as quietly as the French. The French people are very passive and consider themselves to be a more refined society. As to us American we are more of a warrior society. Thats why we had to save their A$$eS from Germany.
  4. Cephus

    Cephus Monkey+++ Founding Member

    TWICE !!!!!!!!!!
  5. wrc223

    wrc223 Monkey+

    We have to save France from France.
    Falcon15 likes this.
  6. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

  7. DarkLight

    DarkLight Live Long and Prosper - On Hiatus

    ^^^ This!
  8. Alpha Dog

    Alpha Dog survival of the breed

    Something that has always bothered me about France and others who act as if they are so much more of a civilized breed than us here(Now Im Not Talking About All Some Good People) Alot of them act as if they have it all. How can a race be 100% civilized and have everything when they dont have the freedom to choose for them selves. They can't own firearms they are given permission by their goverments what they can and can't do. Thats not how I would ever want live, I knew this guy who would go to France a few times a year and would come back and talk about how refined they were. Well Im happy being a unrefined savage I guess atleast Im free to choose to live. It is the people like him that if we are not watchful of will bring these typs of chages here.
  9. wrc223

    wrc223 Monkey+

    Not quite sure of the "why" part yet. Seems like ever since we became a country we have had to bail their snooty butts out in one way or another. I am sure with our current administration, any problems France may see as a result of going after "extremists", we will simply print up some new scratch and fix their woes. Seems like an almost organized shift in Governments the world over. All posturing to lockdown it's people.
    Falcon15, Cephus and Alpha Dog like this.
  10. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    Well, we owe the French quite a bit given the assistance they provided during our Revolution. But seems to me that debt was repaid at least twice over. Seems also that they have the same immigration problems we have, so we might cooperate in the idea department, but financially or manpower? Nah.
    oldawg, Falcon15, Cephus and 2 others like this.
  11. carly28043

    carly28043 Monkey+

    I have to give the French credit for the reverence and honor they show the memories of our WWII soldiers. The graves there are often better tended than those here. The remembrance ceremonies are attended by more people. All other issues with France aside, they deserve a nod for this.
    Falcon15 and tulianr like this.
  12. wrc223

    wrc223 Monkey+

    For all of the American blood spilled on their soil to keep them free, I would say it is a small price to pay. My Grandfather used to say "they better take care of our boys' final restin spot or we will come back over and give them the same what to we gave the krauts".

    As far as the original topic, I am leary of anything that is pushed to combat "extremist" behavior. Extreme as defined by whom? What is extremist behavior?
    Falcon15, tulianr, oldawg and 3 others like this.
  13. CaboWabo5150

    CaboWabo5150 Hell's coming with me

    So, who determines which sites are these extremist web sites ? On somebody's scale, this one could be considered extremist. And you all would be criminals. Which if that were the case I would wear that as a badge of honor. Personally I welcome all sites to the internet, especially if they are a hate based extremist group. It brings them out of the woodwork and gives me a nice target for my crosshairs :)
    Falcon15, tulianr and oldawg like this.
  14. VisuTrac

    VisuTrac Ваша мать носит военные ботинки Site Supporter+++

    And herein lay the problem.
    'Who determines the site to be Illegal'
    That's an easy one. Those that make the laws!
    And that would be those in power sooooooooo.

    Basically over time it will be anyone that has an opinion different than those in power.

    and that will be everyone that is not a sheeple, the amish (but thankfully for them they don't have websites but man someone should make a Rumspringa site. I hear the girls go real wild) and probably tree huggers. Fascist Industrialist War Mongers really hate tree huggers.

    jungatheart and Falcon15 like this.
  15. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    I love those little curled flaky rolls, aren't they french?
    Falcon15 likes this.
  16. wrc223

    wrc223 Monkey+

    I have a soft spot for a fine cognac.
    Falcon15 likes this.
  17. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    Everyone hates the French!

    I don't know why you guys are so down on the French...and why you feel so morally superior to the French just because the USA was a participant (albeit quite a late participant.....the French having fought the Germans without US help for about three years in WWI and for about two years in WWII before the USA decided that it was in ITS interests to also fight the Boche) as an ally to the French et al against the Germans.

    It should also be remembered that the US entered WWI as a conequence of the sinking of the Lusitania, the sinking and loss of many US citizens on that ship changing the isolationist sentiment of the US nation to that of beligerance and a will to defeat the Central Powers, not specifically to save the ass of the French. As a proportion of the total military effort, the US contribution was relatievely small, and ofon its own, would not have been adequate to defeat the German Army. The entry of US forces did mean however, that the Triple Alliance did have a new, and a potentially limitless source of manpower and materiel to bolster the Allied war effort, whereas the Germans had shot their bolt in their earlier 1918 offensives and were on the ropes. It could be argued that Germany did not fall because of a final small poke by a fresh, but relatively small expeditionary force, Germany fell due to disintegration from within as naval units and others began to mutiny due to a loss of disciplinary cohesion within the German armed forces.

    AS for the US's contribution to the liberation of France in WWII...that was a consequence of, not an end in and of itself to the destruction of Germany as a war belligerant. If Hitler had not decided to declare war on the USA when Japan declared war against the USA, it would be interesting to speculate at what point, if any, the USA would have gotten around to entering the war against Germany. By the end of 1942 the tide was turning against Germany, and the US had made no appreciable impact in ground operations against Germany(The US had barely landed in North Africa and had suffered a significant defeat at Kasserine). The Germans had been beaten in El Alemein and the start of the long withdrawal from Russia was about to commence at Stalingrad. It would have been a very long road to victory without the USA, but none the less it would have inevitably resulted in Germany's total destruction. It would have also resulted in more of Europe's occupation by communist Russia, which may have altered the course of world history, not necessarily in the USA' favour.

    As to the writing off of moral debts owed to France....that was not a motivating factor for the USA in either WWI or WWII. The USA entered those conflicts for its own self interested reasons: That they also had purposes common to the other allies merely made the enterprises more compelling.

    Getting back to the original intent of the thread....I don't know why you folk are getting your libertarian knickers in a twist: laws similar to these have been on the statute books for many years in most Western Societies. They are called "anti child pornography" laws. Just viewing child pornography is a criminal offence in many jurisdictions whether it be graphic physical photographs or digital images online at a child porn website. All that has happened is that the principle of this kind of criminal activity and its proscription has been extended to cover terrorism also. Just as there are, arguably grey areas as to what constitutes child pornography, there will undoubtedly be grey areas as to what constitutes terrorism.

    I sympathise with the waryness of many to this recent development, and can foresee it's potential for abuse by those who would wish to exert dictatorial control. Without a doubt child pornography laws have been abused and exploited for political purposes (this does not mean that child anti child pornography laws should be repealed becasue of those abuses), and undoubtedly, the viewing of sites "deemed" to be terrorist sites will be open to all kinds of exploitative political abuses. The way to go would be to attack the sites themselves and those who are promoting terrorism. Casual day trippers to the"terrorist" sites? They will undoubtedly find themselves on watch lists / "no fly" lists anyway.
    Cruisin Sloth likes this.
  18. oldawg

    oldawg Monkey+++

    Chell it still boils down to without us all of Europe would be speaking russian and Aussieland would still be a big prison speaking Japanese. Visit us in the Republic of Texas and we'll help you learn to jaw without all that pontificatin'. Although the rest of us monkeys might miss all the new words we learn.LOL
  19. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    Battle of Milne Bay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "Aussieland" had never been a a big prison speaking Japanese in the first instance, and the suggestion that America saved Australia from that fate, is largely a myth, that unfortunately even many Australians have come to believe.

    The USA's interest in Australia was as a base for offensive operations against the more and no less. If it had have suited the USA's strategic interests to have sacrificed Australia and New Zealand...I doubt that it would have had many qualms in doing so...sure...there would have been much wailing and hand wringing...but at the end of the day, the USA does what it does for the sake of the USA. THat is not to say that individual Americans would not have been appalled at the loss of Australia and New Zealand, just that it would have been a case of regretfully, rather them than us.

    Now, I do not discount the help that the USA provided Australia in fighting the Japanese, but saddling us with Corn Cob Douglas Macarthur was not one of the US Government's most inspired decisions, nor one of Curtin's most inspired decisions in supporting it. What Curtin didn't realise was that Macarthur was more interested in promoting Macarthur's best interests and not necessarily the best interests of the Australian Government.

    John Curtin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    By the end of 1942 Australia with it's own forces had turned the Japanese back along the Kokoda Track from Port Morseby, and a force of mostly Australians under Australian Command had visited upon the Japanese its first major land defeat of WWII at the Battle of Milne Bay. Yes, an American Anti-aircraft battery and an American Engineer Battalion was part of the Milne Force ORBAT, the outcome of the battle would perhaps have been somewhat more difficult without that augmentation, but the outcome of the battle would most probably have been no different.

    Imita Ridge Operations | Australian War Memorial

    Battle of Milne Bay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Battle of Coral Sea, which was instrumental in securing American operations in the Soloman Islands Archipeligo was an allied operation principally using sea borne forces, mostly US but some Australian units and of course US and Australian land based aircraft from ground bases in Northern Australia. Without Australia as a logistic base, and as a land based "aircraft carrier" the Battle of the Coral Sea, may have tipped against the US carrier forces arrayed against the Japanese. Such a loss would have set back US operations in the Solomons, and would have left Port Moresby vulnerable to Japanese naval attack. The loss of Port Moresby would have set back the war effort against the Japanes without a doubt, but by the end of 1942 Japanese capacity to wage war was at its limits, and the Japanese ability to occupy and impose its will on the Australian people would have been nigh well impossible.

    Battle of the Coral Sea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Although undoudtedly the Japanese Navy and the JApanese Army may have wargamed the Invasion of Australia, nearly most of the main Japanese Military players saw the impracticality of actually invading Australia, and were more committed to defending New Guinea and Rabaul and the Solomon Islands as a bulwark against future allied military operations. Many Australians do indeed speak Japanese these days, but mainly to make a buck off Japanese tourists.

    Proposed Japanese invasion of Australia during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Your assertion that Australia would have been one vast prison camp is an absurd one...but it is an absurdity that some are comfortable in holding despite all the evidence to the contrary.

    Just as some Americans feel that past moral debts owed to the French for their support in the US War of Independance were repaid to the French in WWI and WWII, I suggest that any moral debt owing to the USA as a consequence of the USA's support of Australia in WWII has been more than adequately repaid in Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I and II, and Afghanistan. Some Australians, and not an insignificant number at that, are beginning to suffer from coalition fatigue, as Uncle Sam blunders from one international tar baby after another. Gratitude has it's limits and for once, it would be nice if the jelly fish in Canberra grew a bit of spine and said NO! once in a while when the USA comes begging (cap in hand or cudgel in hand) for candidates for a coalition of "the willing".
    Cruisin Sloth likes this.
  20. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    I get, and respect, your points on this thread, but you're stepping in front of the bus here. (I suspect you just like to see the twinkling of the headlights.) You are never going to convince most Americans that we need to be all warm and cozy to the French.

    Your points on the two world wars are valid. The United states entered and participated in both world wars for the benefit of the national goals and interests of the United States; not in an effort to liberate France. Any country which commits its troops to battle when its national interests are not at stake is foolish.

    American entry into both world wars was indeed delayed, but until the Zimmerman Telegram, in World War I, and Pearl Harbor, in World War II, they were not "American" wars. They were being fought "over there" for reasons that had nothing to do with America.

    Both wars would have probably ended in defeat for Germany, in one form or another, without US participation; but I think that Winston Churchill was not alone when, after learning of the US entry into the war, he said that he went to bed and "slept the sleep of the saved and thankful." The effect of US participation in both wars should not be underestimated now that the bullets have stopped flying and everyone has emerged from their bomb shelters.

    But the American attitude toward the French is due to French actions and attitudes since the end of World War II. Americans see the Germans, I think, through more friendly glasses than they do the French, and the Germans were the adversary in both wars. Admittedly, I think that many students of history see French insistence on draconian terms in the Treaty of Versailles, following World War I, as directly contributing to conditions which brought about World War II. After insisting on those terms, and helping to turn the heat up on the boiling cauldron of Germany, they then failed to enforce the terms of the treaty, when Germany re-militarized the Rhineland, and its military began to exceed the bounds of the treaty. They turned the heat up, and then stood by and watched while the lid blew off of the pot.

    I think those same students of history would question whether the United States would have ever become involved in Vietnam, had not France tried to reclaim its colonial possession after the end of WWII. Obviously, France cannot be blamed for America's involvement in the Vietnam War, but one does wonder if full independence had immediately been granted to French Indochina, following WWII, if American advisers would have ever been required in that little jungle paradise.

    France's decision to remain a member of NATO, but not militarily contribute to the organization for many years, did nothing to endear the French to Americans. They wanted a seat, and a voice, at the table, and the protection of the organization, but they wanted to avoid any military liability.

    France's decision to refuse overflight permission for American F-111s based in Britain, on their way to attack Libya in 1986, during the El Dorado Canyon Operation, was one of those moments during which American people learned who their friends were.

    France's extreme socialist leanings have never sat well with Americans either. Americans see the French striking for shorter work weeks, more benefits; their farmers tying up traffic with their protests on tractors; and ask, "Just how much is enough for these people?" They seem to want an entitled society, but who is going to do the work to feed everyone?

    Americans now see the French, much as the Ancient Greeks viewed the Persians, as their negative reflection. They are everything we are not. You will have as much success in pointing out the virtues of the French to Americans; as you would have had in convincing the Greeks of Athens that the Persians were really a bunch of nice guys who you should get to know better.

    And comparing Child Pornography sites to sites deemed as "Extremist" by the powers that be might not be the most accurate analogy. Child Porn has a victim that, I think, can be universally viewed as a victim. If the government wanted to start criminalizing the viewing of porn altogether, then I think we would have a much more accurate analogy, because someone has to define acceptable and non-acceptable sites. Where exactly is the line?

    I think that were the government given the latitude to start drawing lines between acceptable and unacceptable sites, as others have pointed out, our own site here might find itself on the "unacceptable" side of the line.
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary