Nepal and France
Reader comment on item: [Nepal and France:] Two Opposite Responses to Terrorism

Submitted by Raf Wugalter (Canada), Sep 14, 2004 at 19:41

Could you substantiate the last paragraph of your Sept. 14 article, in which you speculate, citing history as a guide, that "the Nepalese (...) made a repetition of atrocities against themselves less likely (a)nd the French made such a repetition more likely?" Even perceived "attacks" on Muslims lead to the usual menu of violence and threats of violence against non-Muslims. Why should the Nepalese rioters' violence be met with anything but those menu items?

My comment is obviously not an endorsement of either the French or Nepalese approach. However, here's a question about France's reliance on Muslim intercession. Can Westerners be blamed for thinking Islamo-fascists only care about Muslim points of view, and will make concessions to Western foreign policy only to the extent that such policy can, er, "reach" them? After all, such is the world-view of the Muslim extremist: Was der Kufr glaubt ist einerei: in die Rasse liegt die Schweinerei!

If that hunch is correct, how, other than relying on Muslim intercession, could France actually free hostages whose location is unknown to the French?

Maybe I'm rehashing old questions; if so, a few hyperlinks would help.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.