Why France?

[sassenach]

For those of you who know much more than I do, why has France been such a recent target of terror attacks? I generally think of the US or UK as the most likely targets. Is there something that I don't know about France or are they an actual surprising target?

[Rosie_0801]

France has stronger laws about secularism. 

 

Clumsy wording, but I think what I'm thinking is right. :p

[YsgolYGair]

France has a much higher Muslim population than either of the other two countries, first of all, and secondly because Hollande has made decisions that have really upset some folks in Syria. Finally, it's easier to get to than either of the other two countries. Water boundaries still are useful in situations where the attackers are limited in finances and cannot coordinate air attacks as easily. 

[madteaparty]

There's a long story in a recent New Yorker about France's "Muslim problem". I don't think that explains anything though, it does provide a certain context. There have been terrorist attacks in the UK, Spain, Beirut, New York. Terrorists attacks because they can and it's what they do to terrorize. I don't know anything, except that I refuse to be terrorized.

[Liz CA]

Muslims have been living in France (higher percentage than other non-Muslim countries) for decades. Recently (that means last couple of years - perhaps in the last decade) things have escalated more and there is a clash between Non-Muslims and Muslims.

Also the refugee problem is getting bigger and this always seems to cause upheaval. I think surrounding countries will be on high alert as well they should.

[Ausmumof3]

France has been fairly vocal about their part in syria against isis/isil/daesh too.

[abba12]

Yeah, France actually didn't surprise me at all as a target. It makes sense from an international relations standpoint. 

[Pawz4me]

Plus I don't doubt that what was happening at the moment played a big part in the choice -- a friendly soccer game involving Germany (who has taken in so many refugees), and an American band playing at the concert hall.  The attack was on French soil, but it was also a symbolic strike against Germany and the U.S.

[PrincessMommy]

Heart of secularism. Asserts the values of secularism in a robust manner.  Paris as a symbol of Enlightenment values.

 

Its colonial past.

 

Algerian/Muslim underclass.

 

Easier-to-access American ally. 

 

Earlier successful attack ( Charlie Hebdo ).

 

I think it's a very unsurprising target. 

 

I agree with this, esp. the last.  If terrorists want to pick a Western target, France is a very likely choice.  They have a very large N.African population.   I think that part of the Levant was also under French rule for some time (places like Iraq/Syria).

 

[Katy]

I was flipping through the news channels last night, so I can't tell you which station said this, but after one of the news conferences one of them said French police thought the entire event was orchestrated to assassinate Hollande. This is why they are sure some of those involved did not get caught or killed. The idea was to first have small attacks all over town to confuse and draw out police, then attack at the soccer stadium to distract security there, then kill Hollande. Fortunately that's not the way diplomatic security works - if it is a potential distraction diplomats are removed - and he is fine.

 

I'm not as familiar with Hollande, though he does call ISIS Daesh.  Can anyone fill in on which decisions made them hate him specifically?

 

Pleased they didn't go after Christian symbols like Notre Dame.

[Amira]

I think France's colonial history in Syria and Lebanon is a major factor. Quite often, if your country was colonized in the past, that colonizer still has a great deal of influence in many ways, whether it's culturally, linguistically, politically, and simply as a symbol of Western colonizing power that negatively affected your country. It can be a powerful move to attack your former colonizer.

 

(And, as I think about it now, isn't France the former colonial power who colonized the most Muslim countries? Not that that has anything to do with what happened last night, but I just hadn't thought about it before.)

[Murphy101]

In any European war, France has always been a huge target.

 

For the reasons some mention previously and that historical fact based in large part on basic geography, it is no surprise to me at all that France is basicly a bullseye target in this war.

[Word Nerd]

In its statement taking credit for the attack on Paris, Islamic State claims it was in retaliation for French air strikes, particularly in Syria.

[MercyA]

France has stronger laws about secularism. 

 

Yes, going so far as to limit the free expression of religious beliefs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools

[Mergath]

Yes, going so far as to limit the free expression of religious beliefs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools

 

Which they can do, if they want to. They aren't the United States, and banning religious symbols in schools isn't exactly a crime against humanity. I hope this doesn't turn into a thread criticizing France for not adhering to another country's constitution.

[albeto.]

Which they can do, if they want to. They aren't the United States, and banning religious symbols in schools isn't exactly a crime against humanity. I hope this doesn't turn into a thread criticizing France for not adhering to another country's constitution.

 

Or secularism.

[Farrar]

Which they can do, if they want to. They aren't the United States, and banning religious symbols in schools isn't exactly a crime against humanity. I hope this doesn't turn into a thread criticizing France for not adhering to another country's constitution.

 

But isn't this an important part of the conversation? Not criticizing France, which, yes, absolutely can take a different approach and has different laws, but... Which approach works better to assimilate people of different backgrounds into a culture and is more likely to help defeat terrorism - one that (more like the US) doesn't require them to give anything up necessarily or one that (like France) insists on giving up religion in order to fully participate in public life? Or does it not matter? Terrorists are a tiny fraction of the population but one that will always be there no matter what approach Western democracies take toward Muslim immigrants?

 

I genuinely don't know the answers to that... I just think it's part of the conversation about why France... I suspect a lot of Americans would find some of the secular elements of European democracies to be very different from how we tend to view liberty - but for both it's stemming from those same Enlightenment ideals - just different elements have been emphasized and different laws have evolved. But both Americans and Europeans see their laws, stemming from those ideals, as being in the cause of greater liberty.

[Mergath]

But isn't this an important part of the conversation? Not criticizing France, which, yes, absolutely can take a different approach and has different laws, but... Which approach works better to assimilate people of different backgrounds into a culture and is more likely to help defeat terrorism - one that (more like the US) doesn't require them to give anything up necessarily or one that (like France) insists on giving up religion in order to fully participate in public life? Or does it not matter? Terrorists are a tiny fraction of the population but one that will always be there no matter what approach Western democracies take toward Muslim immigrants?

 

I genuinely don't know the answers to that... I just think it's part of the conversation about why France... I suspect a lot of Americans would find some of the secular elements of European democracies to be very different from how we tend to view liberty - but for both it's stemming from those same Enlightenment ideals - just different elements have been emphasized and different laws have evolved. But both Americans and Europeans see their laws, stemming from those ideals, as being in the cause of greater liberty.

 

I think it would be a fantastic discussion to have, if people could have it without it devolving into a bunch of partisan screeching about the evil atheists being enemies of freedom and Jesus or whatever. But less than twenty-four hours after a massive terrorist attack, it's going to come across as blaming France no matter how delicately it's discussed. So yes, I think it's an important discussion to have. But not today. 

[Carol in Cal.]

I agree that anything that smacks of blaming the victim would be horrible at this raw moment in time.

[Farrar]

I think it would be a fantastic discussion to have, if people could have it without it devolving into a bunch of partisan screeching about the evil atheists being enemies of freedom and Jesus or whatever. But less than twenty-four hours after a massive terrorist attack, it's going to come across as blaming France no matter how delicately it's discussed. So yes, I think it's an important discussion to have. But not today. 

 

I can agree with that.

[MercyA]

Which they can do, if they want to.

 

 

True. Whether they should do it is another matter.

They aren't the United States, and banning religious symbols in schools isn't exactly a crime against humanity.

 

I didn't say it was, although I certainly consider it to be wrong.

 

I hope this doesn't turn into a thread criticizing France for not adhering to another country's constitution.

 

:confused: I don't expect them to adhere to our constitution. It's disappointing to me that they feel they can't allow children to wear head scarves. However, in general I'm in favor of keeping our noses out of other countries' business.

 

Edited for formatting problems. 

[mommymilkies]

I think it would be a fantastic discussion to have, if people could have it without it devolving into a bunch of partisan screeching about the evil atheists being enemies of freedom and Jesus or whatever. But less than twenty-four hours after a massive terrorist attack, it's going to come across as blaming France no matter how delicately it's discussed. So yes, I think it's an important discussion to have. But not today. 

 

:iagree:

I agree that anything that smacks of blaming the victim would be horrible at this raw moment in time.

:iagree:

[MercyA]

I think it would be a fantastic discussion to have, if people could have it without it devolving into a bunch of partisan screeching about the evil atheists being enemies of freedom and Jesus or whatever. But less than twenty-four hours after a massive terrorist attack, it's going to come across as blaming France no matter how delicately it's discussed. So yes, I think it's an important discussion to have. But not today. 

 

I hope you're not talking about me? I'm not partisan and hopefully I don't screech. 

 

I'll drop the subject, though. 

[Roadrunner]

I want to add about assimilation. I am an immigrant, and when I think about the future of my children in this country, I don't think about their weird last name. I know they can achieve what they want. I am not blind to issues in America, yet it still feel my children (born here) will do just as will as their peers with locally born parents. I would never raise my kids as immigrants in Europe. It doesn't matter it it's France, Germany, or Norway, my kids would never be considered Germain, French.... even after three generations because of their ancestry and be looked down. I know this, because it's same in my ancestral land. I have a Sweedish friend who gave her kids her last name (immigrant husband) telling me otherwise they would never find jobs when they grow up. I am 100% positive my kids would never be confound to poverty and joblessness because of their last name.

I am not saying this is the cause of attracts, but rather adding to the discussion generated by Farrar's post.

 

I think France is the target because of their military campaign against ISIS. That's what the ISIS says.

[albeto.]

For those of you who know much more than I do, why has France been such a recent target of terror attacks? I generally think of the US or UK as the most likely targets. Is there something that I don't know about France or are they an actual surprising target?

 

Perhaps this was in part in retaliation for recent drone attacks in Syria. The thing is, every action in a war is perceived by the aggressors to be a retaliatory action. The problem is, the question over "who started it" goes back too far to answer, or even be relevant. 

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

The problem is, the question over "who started it" goes back too far to answer, or even be relevant.

And this is why war doesn't solve anything, it just ends up leading to the next war.

[umsami]

innocent Lebanese were attacked by Daesh the day before and 43 killed, over 200 injured.  Why? Because Lebanon, and actually Hezbollah, has sent fighters to northern Syria to fight Daesh/ISIS/ISIL.

 

France has supported Syrian fighters against Daesh as well.  The French Air Force has done air strikes as well.

 

But as others have said, because of France's colonial past in the Middle East and Northern Africa, there is a large French Muslim minority. (Around 10%) So that makes it easier to find sympathizers in France.  Although media currently reports  that a Syrian passport and an Egyptian passport are linked to the crimes. 

 

Of course, it's easier for Daesh to attack France vs. the UK or US.  I'm sure they are trying to attack both places, though.

 

 

[madteaparty]

I want to add about assimilation. I am an immigrant, and when I think about the future of my children in this country, I don't think about their weird last name. I know they can achieve what they want. I am not blind to issues in America, yet it still feel my children (born here) will do just as will as their peers with locally born parents. I would never raise my kids as immigrants in Europe. It doesn't matter it it's France, Germany, or Norway, my kids would never be considered Germain, French.... even after three generations because of their ancestry and be looked down. I know this, because it's same in my ancestral land. I have a Sweedish friend who gave her kids her last name (immigrant husband) telling me otherwise they would never find jobs when they grow up. I am 100% positive my kids would never be confound to poverty and joblessness because of their last name.

I am not saying this is the cause of attracts, but rather adding to the discussion generated by Farrar's post.

 

I think France is the target because of their military campaign against ISIS. That's what the ISIS says.

Respectfully, part of this is because we are the "right" kind of immigrant. Relatively few of us(not a large enough group to be a threat), fairly well educated and from far away enough to not be a threat. Someone south of the border may have a different experience, I'm guessing.

[mommymilkies]

Respectfully, part of this is because we are the "right" kind of immigrant. Relatively few of us(not a large enough group to be a threat), fairly well educated and from far away enough to not be a threat. Someone south of the border may have a different experience, I'm guessing.

:iagree:  My cousin's husband is from Mexico and his experience has NOT been so kindly.  Many are not.  

[Laura Corin]

I want to add about assimilation. I am an immigrant, and when I think about the future of my children in this country, I don't think about their weird last name. I know they can achieve what they want. I am not blind to issues in America, yet it still feel my children (born here) will do just as will as their peers with locally born parents. I would never raise my kids as immigrants in Europe. It doesn't matter it it's France, Germany, or Norway, my kids would never be considered Germain, French.... even after three generations because of their ancestry and be looked down. 

 

Hmmm... Britain isn't brilliant on that score, but it's improving fast.  The non-white population (there's a lot of white immigration too, but the figures for that are harder to pin down, because much of it is within the EU) is about 14%.  Currently, 6% of the members of parliament are non-white.  That's clearly terrible, but it's 50% better than in the last parliament and the US situation is not much different.  

 

The proportion of ethnic minority people in the UK eligible to be candidates is smaller than the overall percentage, because the ethnic-minority population tends to be younger due to higher fertility rates.  I expect to see continuing big changes, as a marker for more general changes in acceptance, in the future.

[Lady Florida.]

:iagree:  My cousin's husband is from Mexico and his experience has NOT been so kindly.  Many are not.  

 

I didn't "like" your post because of what it implicates, but I clicked like to show I agree. Also, throughout U.S. history different kinds of last names have led to being discriminated against. At one time having an Irish last name or an Italian last name did it. During the WWII years any German sounding name was a problem (many changed their surnames so they wouldn't sound German). During the Cold War having a Russian sounding last name was a problem.

 

While it's true that some people with ethnic sounding names have been assimilated, others have taken their place. Currently, if you have a Middle Eastern or Latino last name you are looked at with suspicion, each for different reasons. We should not think the people in the U.S. are above discriminating against others based on their surnames.

[Farrar]

This probably gets into too much of a side discussion and, again, I really don't mean to be critical of France at a time like this - this is not an issue I feel like I know a ton about - but while the US (or the UK for that matter) have a lot of problems in how we treat immigrants, especially from Mexico and Central America, there are still many successful immigrants in the US from nearly all immigrant populations. And that's both anecdotally and statistically speaking. Being a Mexican immigrant is not a death sentence to achieving a successful career - it's a huge hindrance, yes, and that's wrong and I don't mean to excuse that at all, but I think it's different from Europe. My understanding of the North African community in France is that it's almost impossible to achieve any success. And nationalism in Europe is tied so closely with ethnic identity in most European nations that the whole concept of a country has to do with ethnicity. You can be an American and be from somewhere else. That's always been true. That's simply not true in the US, where we've always been a nation of immigrants. I think it's very different in Europe.

[Stacia]

Heart of secularism. Asserts the values of secularism in a robust manner.  Paris as a symbol of Enlightenment values.

 

Its colonial past.

 

Algerian/Muslim underclass.

 

Easier-to-access American ally. 

 

Earlier successful attack ( Charlie Hebdo ).

 

I think it's a very unsurprising target. 

 

I have a Sweedish friend who gave her kids her last name (immigrant husband) telling me otherwise they would never find jobs when they grow up. I am 100% positive my kids would never be confound to poverty and joblessness because of their last name.

I am not saying this is the cause of attracts, but rather adding to the discussion generated by Farrar's post.

 

Respectfully, part of this is because we are the "right" kind of immigrant. Relatively few of us(not a large enough group to be a threat), fairly well educated and from far away enough to not be a threat. Someone south of the border may have a different experience, I'm guessing.

 

Mobility is an indication of how far people without privilege ( eg immigrant ) can get ahead in a single generation.

 

I think a lot of the economic woes of France in the last 10-20 years have also fed into a large, underemployed generation (many in their 20s now, perhaps also those in their teens & in their 30s) in France. Maybe discontent, underemployment, lack of economic power, etc... can lead to some being more easily led to side with fringe groups or those seeking to create chaos. So, lots of factors (as mentioned in previous posts) compounded with economic strife, esp. for those in some strata of French society.

 

Imo.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think a lot of the economic woes of France in the last 10-20 years have also fed into a large, underemployed generation (many in their 20s now, perhaps also those in their teens & in their 30s) in France. Maybe discontent, underemployment, lack of economic power, etc... can lead to some being more easily led to side with fringe groups or those seeking to create chaos. So, lots of factors (as mentioned in previous posts) compounded with economic strife, esp. for those in some strata of French society.

 

Imo.

 

That is a very good point, and going from memory I believe that unemployment rate among 2nd/3rd generation immigrants is much higher than the already high rate among French citizens under 30.

[Roadrunner]

Respectfully, part of this is because we are the "right" kind of immigrant. Relatively few of us(not a large enough group to be a threat), fairly well educated and from far away enough to not be a threat. Someone south of the border may have a different experience, I'm guessing.

 

I am speaking of second, third generation immigrants. My kids are American. There is no question as to their identity. This is their home, their only language, and their only home. I am questioning if you can ever identify as French, or Armenian (using those as examples) if your ancestry isn't of that exact ethnicity. Even a third generation immigrant could never be really considered French, so integrating a massive e immigrant population where national identity is tied to ethnicity is much harder. Am I wrong on this? 

[madteaparty]

I am speaking of second, third generation immigrants. My kids are American. There is no question as to their identity. This is their home, their only language, and their only home. I am questioning if you can ever identify as French, or Armenian (using those as examples) if your ancestry isn't of that exact ethnicity. Even a third generation immigrant could never be really considered French, so integrating a massive e immigrant population where national identity is tied to ethnicity is much harder. Am I wrong on this?

So I have only anecdotes. I have a friend born in France with Algerian name and father who went to Sorbonne and is unambiguously French. I have eastern European friends with very Italian children. I also have one friend who was raised in France but is from a former colony who would never raise his biracial children in France. I don't know. I don't even want to argue the point as I don't feel there is a right or wrong, I mean people are informed by their own experiences and mine cannot be more valid than yours. I will concede western Europe can be a bit more racist towards "outside of EU" people. But looks what happens here with police brutality, etc.

[Laura Corin]

My France anecdotes:

 

White immigration: I did a French exchange in the 1970s to a settled immigrant family in provincial France.  The grandfather was Italian and had come to France as an acrobat/actor.  The father was raised in that tradition (he would walk around the flat on his hands to amuse us all) but when I met him he had his own successful building firm and was raising a family in very middle-class circumstances.  His French wife and children had all taken his Italian name.  As far as I could tell, they were completely assimilated.

 

North-African and Sub-Saharan-African immigration: I lived in Paris for a year in the mid-80s and did feel that it was a very segregated society.  There was Paris, which was almost uniformly white, and then there were the suburbs, beyond the ring road, where the HLMs (social housing apartments) were and where a lot of non-white immigrants lived.  London at that time definitely had areas where there were more white or more non-white people, but the areas flowed into each other through central London, rather than having that rigid divide.

 

For comparison with the UK and US statistics on non-white people in parliament, this article suggests that France is lagging, with 2% non-white representation in parliament, compared to 10% in the population

[abcmommy]

France has big issues with Islam and North african immigrants/ arab immigrants.  "Secularism" may be one word for it but I would call it racism. 

 

https://www.rt.com/news/234019-france-racism-jews-muslims/

 

http://frenchmorning.com/en/racism-france-not-skin-color/

 

All Things Considered had excellent coverage this weekend, too.

[Murphy101]

Hmm. Maybe it's a fine line between preserving a culture's values and racism?

 

Someone on my FB feed posted this link about Japan.

 

http://en.rocketnews24.com/2015/11/17/10-factors-that-make-japan-a-safe-country/

 

I make no claims to its accuracy. But it's final point is valid. They have taken steps to make sure that their culture values remain dominate and in control in their country and they limit the ability of the outside world to intrude to the point of disrupting that.

 

I can understand that and I can see how France would want to do the same. Or any country for that matter.

 

And yet... Yuck too.

[Murphy101]

For clarity, I'm not condoning the cruel acts of those articles either.

 

I hadn't read them before posting my link and question.

[TravelingChris]

They are mad at France for fighting them in Syria.   They are mad at us too,  The guy who masteminded the operation grew up in Brussels, Belgium so it was easier for him to plan an attack on Paris then on places he hadn't been to.  It is cheaper too to drive across the border versus fly across the ocean.  Isis wants very much to attack us and frankly we have been lucky so far not to have been attacked.  The FBI has more than 900 Isis investigations going on in all 50 states. THey are here.