| To: lorne who wrote (1701) | 8/28/2002 10:20:33 AM | | From: GUSTAVE JAEGER | | | | LOL! No, verlan is a much older story than France's postwar immigration --if anything, it's been merely adopted by the latest wave of North African immigrants... but they didn't invent it!
Verlan
The re-ordering of syllables to form new words is not a new innovation, it is thought to date back to the 12th century (see Lefkowitz,1991 pp50-54 for an account of the historical evidence for verlan). The current enthusiasm for 'verlan' among young people living in the 'banlieues' arose in the climate of social unrest in the seventies. It was adopted both as a means to obscure meaning, by those who wished to communicate about taboo or private matters, from sex to drugs, and as a means of identifying others with common interests or live-styles, in other words as an in-group marker of social identity. It is thus used in playful contexts, or in contexts where there is some threat of aggression or danger from outsiders to the group.
[...]
well.ac.uk |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Spytrdr who wrote (1695) | 8/28/2002 11:04:14 AM | | From: GUSTAVE JAEGER | | | | OOOoops....
China deals U.S. blow over Iraq
August 27, 2002 Posted: 11:38 PM EDT (0338 GMT)
By Willy Wo-Lap Lam
CNN Senior China Analyst
(CNN) -- In a further blow to Washington's effort to get global support for a possible war on Iraq, Beijing has indicated it is against the use of force to resolve Baghdad's differences with the West.
Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan told visiting Iraqi counterpart Naji Sabri on Tuesday that using force or threats of force could not solve the Iraqi problem and "would only cause regional tension and instability."
The official China News Service on Wednesday quoted Tang as saying questions about Iraq should only be resolved within United Nations mechanisms, and "only political and diplomatic methods should be used."
Tang added Beijing was concerned about the suffering of the Iraqi people who had lived under conditions of Western embargoes for a long time.
[...]
cnn.com
Right now, I'm afraid the ONLY sensible strategy for the US is, FIRST, to nuke Europe, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Switzerland... and then, take on the pièce de résistance, namely, Iraq.... |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (1693) | 8/28/2002 12:25:07 PM | | From: Thomas M. | | | | There is no dispute. Israel was the aggressor, as agreed upon by the U.S. as well as the UN. Was it a preemptive strike? Perhaps, but the evidence is extremely shaky, and you certainly have not provided any.
If Israel was worried about its security, and launched the war as a preemptive strike, then Israel would obviously have been delighted when the Arab countries offered them peace treaties and recognition. Israel was not.
On the issue of Jews being barred from the Wailing Wall, that was indeed an injustice. But, given the hostile manner in which the Zionists treated the indigenous Moslems, it is understandable. Remember that Jewish community got along fine with the Moslems before the Zionists came along. And during this period of injustice, these indigenous Jews were supporting the PLO.
Tom |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Thomas M. who wrote (1692) | 8/28/2002 1:28:56 PM | | From: pie-faced-mutt | | | | LOL
We should attack before Iraq attacks us! Lets call it preventive maintenance and while we have the jet engines warmed up, lets do North Korea later in the day. |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (1699) | 8/28/2002 1:48:18 PM | | From: pie-faced-mutt | | | | The American farmer, most likely corporate, is efficient and providing foodstuffs, but it seems to be slowly killing its people causing obesity and diabetes at alarming rates.
Are Europe's farmers primarily corporate entities?
"And the US doesn't fuss over genetically-engineered foodstuffs"
The US doesn't fuss over much as long as the profits continue to roll in. The FDA is supposed to be a watchdog, but seems to be a corporate shill for the agribusiness. |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3) |
|
| To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (1702) | 8/28/2002 9:40:07 PM | | From: lorne | | | | Gus. You said...." LOL! No, verlan is a much older story than France's postwar immigration --if anything, it's been merely adopted by the latest wave of North African immigrants... but they didn't invent it!".....
Gus,gus, gus. sigh. Do you ever bother to read the full article before you make a reply?
This is what I posted...." " Within a couple of decades, Verlan has spread from the peripheral housing projects of France's poorest immigrants, heavily populated with Africans and North African Arabs, and gained widespread popularity among young people across France. "
Message 17927149
Go back and read. Verlan is pretty well explained in the article. My point in posting this article was to show that there are now enough arab muslims in france to cause a language change and more comming every day.
No one said the arabs invented verlan you just dreamed that up all by yourself.
Now, could you explain to all why you LOL |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: pie-faced-mutt who wrote (1708) | 8/28/2002 11:22:57 PM | | From: lorne | | | | FBI to Indict Three on Terror Charges in Detroit.
Wednesday, August 28, 2002
WASHINGTON — The government will indict three individuals of Middle Eastern descent Wednesday on terrorism charges in Detroit, Fox News has learned.
Sources told Fox News that one of the three is named Kareem Koubriti. A judge has put a gag order on the case, but the Detroit FBI is expected to issue a paper statement on Wednesday.
Full story >>>
foxnews.com |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3) |
|
| To: epicure who wrote (1700) | 8/28/2002 11:24:25 PM | | From: lorne | | | | U.S. sings Beijing's tune on 'terrorists'
State agrees with Jiang about status of separatists in western China
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 28, 2002
5:00 p.m. Eastern
As both Washington and Beijing maneuver diplomatically ahead of a meeting between Chinese President Jiang Zemin and U.S. President George W. Bush in October, the White House has appeased the Chinese government by calling an ethnic Uighur militant group in western China a "terrorist group."
During a two-day visit to Beijing Aug. 25 and 26, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said that, after careful study, Washington had determined that the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, or ETIM, was a "terrorist group" that had "committed acts of violence against unarmed civilians without any regard for who was hurt." Beijing has spent nearly all of the last year trying to convince Washington and others that the group and other Muslim Uighur separatists from China's western Xinjiang region are part of the larger international terrorist threat.
Armitage was not alone in granting diplomatic concessions during the trip. Just prior to his arrival, Beijing announced new regulations to tighten control over the export of missile parts and technology, something Washington had been urging for years. Both sides are trying to shore up relations prior to Jiang's highly symbolic October visit to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. As the date approaches, the rhetoric from both sides will take on a more congenial tone, although they still harbor serious differences.
But, more important than appearances, the Crawford meeting may set the tone for Chinese-U.S. ties for years to come. Relations between the two plummeted after the April 2001 collision of a Chinese fighter and a U.S. surveillance aircraft near the southeastern Chinese coastline. The shifting U.S. foreign policy after the Sept. 11 attacks did little to improve the situation, as China was relegated to the backburner of U.S. interests and Washington used basing agreements with several Central Asian states to gain a presence in China's backyard.
In the past few months, Beijing and Washington have slowly moved to ameliorate this dismal state of affairs. Peter Rodman, the U.S. assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, traveled to Beijing in June to discuss the re-establishment of bilateral military ties curtailed after the April collision. A month later, following the release of a U.S. Congressional report warning of China's growing military and economic threat, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell downplayed the danger and said it was natural that China would transfer some of its growing economic strength into modernizing its military.
More recently, the U.S. commander of the Pacific Air Forces, Gen. William Begert, told reporters Aug. 23 that China had been "very professional" in monitoring U.S. surveillance aircraft over its coast, which would be a noted change from the aggressive actions of Chinese pilots that led to the April 2001 incident. And during his visit to Beijing, Armitage told his Chinese counterparts that Washington had made no decision on attacking Iraq yet and would consult with China before taking action.
The latter comment was particularly pleasing to Chinese officials, as it seemed to confirm Beijing's impression of itself as a major player in international events.
Yet not everything is well in Beijing-Washington relations, as Armitage's visit made clear. China still opposes U.S. military action in Iraq, and Beijing hosted Baghdad's foreign minister just hours after Armitage left. On the contentious issue of Taiwan, Armitage stated that the United States did not support Taiwanese independence, a comment much repeated in the official Chinese media. But he added that Washington did not necessarily "oppose" independence either.
And even Armitage's declaration of the ETIM as a terrorist organization may prove a mixed blessing for Beijing. State Department officials in Washington were quick to clarify that the group had not been added to the list of foreign terrorist organizations, but had simply been labeled "a group that would be subject to Executive Order 13224."
This bureaucratic hair-splitting means that the ETIM is one of hundreds of groups linked to overseas terrorist activities – and thus is subject to domestic U.S. financial sanctions – but is not a designated terrorist organization subject to broader international action.
For Beijing, just mentioning the ETIM in the same breath as "terrorism" was a good enough bonus for now, but in the long run it may present new difficulties for China. While a temporary boon to Chinese relations, Washington's action was just as much for the benefit of Kyrgyzstan and other Central Asian states that are also threatened by Uighur militants.
The United States is strengthening military, political and economic ties in Central Asia, particularly in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, where it has around 2,000 troops and support personnel stationed. These states, as well as Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, have been the scene of several bombings and killings that Beijing has linked to the ETIM or other Uighur militant separatists.
Kyrgyzstan recently deported two suspected Uighur militants for the assassination of a Chinese diplomatic official and an ethnic Uighur Chinese businessman in June. If the United States recognized the ETIM as a terrorist organization, it would strengthen its military ties with Kyrgyzstan and solidify Washington's military position near China's western frontier, giving the United States the ability to directly impact Beijing's ongoing crackdown on suspected Uighur militants and dissidents.
The U.S. military presence in Central Asia, as well as the broader shift in U.S. military relations and deployments after Sept. 11, remains at the core of U.S.- Chinese ties, particularly as Beijing prepares for a long-awaited leadership transition later this year and early next year. It is this change in leadership, as much as anything else, that both Beijing and Washington are focusing on as the two nations' presidents prepare to meet in October.
The Crawford summit is a highly symbolic occasion for Jiang, and he has been trying to gain an invitation to Bush's ranch for more than a year. The visit would solidify his position among the pantheon of Chinese leaders, making him the recognized successor to Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping and proving that he was a world leader on par with the U.S. president.
Jiang is desperate to have everything go as smoothly as possible, and the next two months likely will prove a public relations blitz for the Chinese leader as he shapes ties with Washington to try to show that the two sides are equals.
For Washington, the summit may prove even more important. The U.S. administration also is hoping to shape the transition process in China, and treating Jiang and China well may help guarantee that the so-called reformers, or at least the more pragmatic Chinese leadership, emerge on top. If Washington continues to give the impression that China doesn't matter – or worse, that China is a threat – U.S. officials are concerned that it could lend credence to the other factions, bringing a more belligerent regime to power in Beijing.
As both nations anxiously look toward the Crawford summit, more instances of diplomatic concessions are likely. And any public statements of disagreement will be carefully managed to allow the deliverer to state his position without risking derailing bilateral ties.
worldnetdaily.com |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| |
