{"id":66601,"date":"2005-07-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-07-17T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2005\/07\/17\/les-attentats-de-londres-le-blitz-et-la-france-archaique-contre-blair-le-chevalier-moderniste\/"},"modified":"2005-07-17T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2005-07-17T00:00:00","slug":"les-attentats-de-londres-le-blitz-et-la-france-archaique-contre-blair-le-chevalier-moderniste","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2005\/07\/17\/les-attentats-de-londres-le-blitz-et-la-france-archaique-contre-blair-le-chevalier-moderniste\/","title":{"rendered":"Les attentats de Londres, le \u2018Blitz’ et la France archa\u00efque contre Blair le chevalier moderniste<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Les attentats de Londres, le Blitz’ et la France archa\u00efque contre Blair le chevalier moderniste<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

\t17 juillet 2005 Nous pr\u00e9sentons un ensemble de textes et de r\u00e9flexions qui permettent d’entretenir une certaine clart\u00e9 sur plusieurs sujets :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Les commentateurs \u00e9clair\u00e9s du monde occidental apr\u00e8s les attentats de Londres.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s de la guerre contre le terrorisme par rapport au virtualisme de l’imagerie type-Deuxi\u00e8me Guerre mondiale.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• La r\u00e9alit\u00e9 de la querelle comparative entre l’archa\u00efque France et le triomphant Blair dans ce secteur jug\u00e9 essentiel pour le sort de la civilisation qu’on nomme la guerre contre le terrorisme.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBonne lecture<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Vous avez dit: Blitz?<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

\tCertes, il y a l’horreur des attentats. Gloser l\u00e0-dessus, en se d\u00e9cha\u00eenant contre la barbarie, est une attitude classique. Cela permet de mesurer l’inculture et de grossi\u00e8ret\u00e9 de la pens\u00e9e marquant le commentaire de ce qu’on pourrait nommer la presse officielle (presse aveugl\u00e9ment pro-gouvernementale dans nos pays).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLes attentats de Londres en furent l’occasion. Le symbole y invitait, d’une fa\u00e7on presque magn\u00e9tique. Bien des textes, bien des auteurs install\u00e8rent leur pens\u00e9e sur le souvenir de 1939-45. Prenons-en un au hasard: le Chicago Sun Times<\/em> du 12 juillet, avec ce titre: Can today’s Brits resist the Blitz’ of terrorism?<\/em> (1). L’auteur, J. O’Sullivan, d\u00e9veloppe la parall\u00e8le entre l’attitude h\u00e9ro\u00efque des Britanniques durant le Blitz<\/em> et cette m\u00eame attitude, \u00e9galement h\u00e9ro\u00efque, durant les attentats.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab The London bombings took place the week that Britain celebrated the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War in a series of nostalgic public events prompted in many minds a slightly unsettling question: Would the current generation of Brits resist as bravely and as successfully as their forefathers of the Blitz?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Within a few hours of the bombs exploding last Thursday, it was clear that Londoners would show the same spirit of resistance. <\/em>[…] If stoical endurance is the test, then Londoners today pass it. But endurance alone wins no wars. What wartime Britain also had was determination to defeat the enemy. That determination lent a firmness and even ruthlessness to the British war effort. In the end Berlin and Hamburg suffered worse destruction from the skies than London.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tCes comparaisons sont aujourd’hui l\u00e9gion. Elles sont accompagn\u00e9es d’erreurs montrant que leurs auteurs sont bien peu qualifi\u00e9es en mati\u00e8re d’analyse historique (\u00ab For 41\/2 years London was pounded<\/em> \u00bb, \u00e9crit O’Sullivan, liant le Blitz<\/em> d’ao\u00fbt-octobre 1940 et les attaques de V1 et de V2 en octobre 1944-janvier 1945. Il ignore qu’entre les deux p\u00e9riodes, il n’y eut pas d’attaque allemande sur Londres.) Ce qui est insupportable, c’est le parall\u00e8le fait entre les attentats et la Deuxi\u00e8me Guerre mondiale, dans une intention politique \u00e9vidente, appuy\u00e9e sur la seule \u00e9motion de l’instant. Les deux \u00e9v\u00e9nements n’ont aucune commune mesure.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tOn ne peut comparer les puissances respectives, les destructions respectives, les enjeux respectifs. La guerre conventionnelle (la Deuxi\u00e8me Guerre mondiale) suppose une rupture totale avec un ennemi parfaitement identifi\u00e9. On va m\u00eame jusqu’\u00e0 suivre la strat\u00e9gie de la capitulation sans conditions, qui traduit cette rupture au plan militaire. La guerre contre le terrorisme suppose de ne jamais<\/strong> perdre le contact intrusif avec l’ennemi, \u00e0 aucun prix.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLa guerre d’Alg\u00e9rie est l’arch\u00e9type de la guerre contre le terrorisme (terrorisme urbain, gu\u00e9rilla, etc). Elle fut militairement gagn\u00e9e par la France (en 1960) et c’est la seule volont\u00e9 politique de De Gaulle, pour des motifs de politique g\u00e9n\u00e9rale tout \u00e0 fait acceptables, qui aboutit \u00e0 l’ind\u00e9pendance de l’Alg\u00e9rie. Pendant cette guerre, jamais<\/strong> la France ne perdit le contact intrusif avec l’ennemi. Elle l’infiltra constamment, opposant des fractions rivales entre elles. La principale force combattante fran\u00e7aise \u00e9tait faite des 150.000 harkis<\/em> (rebelles du FLN ralli\u00e9s \u00e0 la France). Les infiltrations des services secrets fran\u00e7ais culmin\u00e8rent avec l’ affaire Si Salah’ et l’op\u00e9ration d’intoxication nomm\u00e9e bleuite’ : la volont\u00e9 de ralliement \u00e0 la France d’un des cinq grands chefs de r\u00e9gions militaires du FLN (le Front National de la R\u00e9volution, principal parti rebelle) avec toutes ses troupes, suivie de la plus formidable purge interne (la bleuite’) que connut le FLN, orchestr\u00e9e par les services fran\u00e7ais. Pendant la guerre d’Alg\u00e9rie, il y a eu plus de morts arabes dus \u00e0 l’action du FLN, massacres de civils, purges internes, lutte contre le parti nationaliste alg\u00e9rien concurrent MNA, que dus \u00e0 l’action de l’arm\u00e9e fran\u00e7aise. Si l’on parle beaucoup des tortures de l’arm\u00e9e fran\u00e7aise, on en dit bien peu des centres de torture organis\u00e9s du FLN pendant la guerre, contre les cadres FLN purg\u00e9s’. (2)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLes attentats de Londres sont simplement le r\u00e9sultat d’une politique inepte du gouvernement Blair, qui lutte contre le terrorisme en inventant une nouvelle Deuxi\u00e8me Guerre mondiale. Le sp\u00e9cialiste du Moyen-Orient Daniel Pipes, un des neocons<\/em> les plus extr\u00e9mistes, peu suspect de sympathie pro-fran\u00e7aises, \u00e9crit le 15 Juillet: \u00ab Thanks to the war in Iraq, much of the world sees the British government as resolute and tough, the French as appeasing and weak. But in another war, the one against terrorism and radical Islam, the reverse is true: France is the most stalwart nation in the West, while Britain is the most hapless.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t(1) Nous avons d\u00e9j\u00e0 parl\u00e9 de ce texte dans ‘Bloc-Notes’<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t(2) NDLR : voir notamment, au Seuil (avril 2004), le livre de R\u00e9my Madoui J’ai \u00e9t\u00e9 fellagha, officier fran\u00e7ais et d\u00e9serteur Du FLN \u00e0 l’OAS<\/em>, avec le chapitre 5 sur \u00ab Coups d’\u00c9tat et guerre civile au sein du FLN<\/em> \u00bb et le chapitre 7, \u00ab Torture<\/em> \u00bb, sur le mois pass\u00e9 par M\u00e9doui dans un camp de torture du FLN en 1960, apr\u00e8s cinq ann\u00e9es de lutte au sein de la Willaya<\/em> IV comme cadre dirigeant le renseignement.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t[N.B.: ce texte est l’original fran\u00e7ais de l’\u00e9ditorial \u00e0 para\u00eetre dans Context<\/em> (en anglais) n\u00b086, juillet 2005, les notes \u00e9tant rajout\u00e9es.]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

La parole \u00e0 Daniel Pipes, qui vous parle du mod\u00e8le anglais versus le French non-model<\/em><\/strong> en mati\u00e8re de lutte antiterrorisme<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

\tPuisque nous citons Daniel Pipes dans le texte ci-dessus, quelques mots plus pr\u00e9cis sur le personnage, qui tient le r\u00f4le de sp\u00e9cialiste du Moyen-Orient (et du terrorisme qui va avec). Daniel Pipes est le fils de Richard Pipes, universitaire, sp\u00e9cialiste de l’URSS et id\u00e9ologue dur de l’administration Reagan, apr\u00e8s avoir men\u00e9 en 1976-77 le fameux Team B<\/em> qui contesta les analyses de la CIA sur la puissance de l’URSS et lan\u00e7a la seconde Guerre froide<\/a>. Daniel a suivi les traces de son p\u00e8re comme analyste, mais en se tournant vers le Moyen-Orient. On trouve un portrait tr\u00e8s complet du personnage dans une analyse de Jim Lobe<\/a>, dont on peut retenir cet extrait pour le d\u00e9finir :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab Like many of his fellow-neo-conservatives, Pipes has also been an outspoken supporter of positions taken by the governing Likud Party in Israel, to the extent even of opposing the U.S.-backed road map’ designed to lead to an independent Palestinian state. To encourage moderation among Palestinians, he has written, the Palestinians need to be defeated even more than Israel needs to defeat them.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tOn comprend ce que nous voulons dire lorsque nous \u00e9crivons que Pipes n’est pas vraiment un ami de la France. Son \u00e9loge radical de l’action antiterroriste de la France, par contraste avec la faiblesse et la stupidit\u00e9 de l’action des Britanniques, vaut d’autant plus. (Cet \u00e9loge est paru dans un texte du Chicago Sun Times<\/a>, reproduit ci-dessous.) Cela alimente comme il faut la querelle bien franco-fran\u00e7aise (et europ\u00e9enne par intermittence) entre mod\u00e8le anglais’ et mod\u00e8le fran\u00e7ais’.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

France tops Britain in fighting terrorists <\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tBy Daniel Pipes, Chicago Sun Times, July 15, 2005<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThanks to the war in Iraq, much of the world sees the British government as resolute and tough, the French as appeasing and weak. But in another war, the one against terrorism and radical Islam, the reverse is true: France is the most stalwart nation in the West, while Britain is the most hapless. Consider:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tU.K.-based terrorists have carried out operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel, Morocco, Russia, Spain and the United States. Many governments — Jordanian, Egyptian, Moroccan, Spanish, French, and American — have protested London’s refusal to shut down its Islamist terrorist infrastructure or extradite wanted operatives. In frustration, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak denounced Britain for \u00a0\u00bbprotecting killers.\u00a0\u00bb One American security group has called for Britain to be listed as a terrorism-sponsoring state.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCounterterrorism specialists disdain the British. Roger Cressey calls London \u00a0\u00bbeasily the most important jihadist hub in Western Europe.\u00a0\u00bb Steven Simon dismisses the British capital as \u00a0\u00bbthe Star Wars bar scene\u00a0\u00bb of Islamic radicals. More brutally, an intelligence official said of last week’s attacks: \u00a0\u00bbThe terrorists have come home. It is payback time for… an irresponsible policy.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tWhile London hosts terrorists, Paris hosts a top-secret counterterrorism center, code-named Alliance Base, whose existence was just revealed by the Washington Post, where since 2002 six major Western governments share intelligence and run counterterrorism operations.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMore broadly, President Jacques Chirac instructed French intelligence agencies just days after 9\/11 to share terrorism data with their U.S. counterparts \u00a0\u00bbas if they were your own service.\u00a0\u00bb Former acting CIA Director John E. McLaughlin calls this bilateral intelligence tie \u00a0\u00bbone of the best in the world.\u00a0\u00bb The British may have a \u00a0\u00bbspecial relationship\u00a0\u00bb with Washington in Iraq, but the French have one in the war on terror.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tFrance accords terrorist suspects fewer rights than any other Western state, permitting interrogation without a lawyer, lengthy pretrial incarcerations and evidence acquired under dubious circumstances.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe myriad French-British differences regarding radical Islam can be summarized by the example of what Muslim girls may wear to state-funded schools. Denbigh High School in Luton, 30 miles from London, has a student population about 80 percent Muslim. Years ago, it accommodated the sartorial needs of their faith and heritage, including a female student uniform made up of Pakistani shalwar kameez trousers, a jerkin top and hijab head covering. When Shabina Begum, a teen of Bangladeshi origins, insisted in 2004 on wearing a jilbab, which covers the entire body except for the face and hands, administrators said no.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tTheir dispute ended up in litigation and the Court of Appeal ultimately decided in Begum’s favor. As a result, by law U.K. schools must now accept the jilbab. Not only that, but Cherie Booth, wife of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, was Begum’s lawyer at the appellate level. Booth called the court’s judgment \u00a0\u00bba victory for all Muslims who wish to preserve their identity and values despite prejudice and bigotry.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIn contrast, also in 2004, the French government outlawed the hijab, the Muslim head scarf, from public educational institutions, disregarding ferocious opposition in France and among Islamists worldwide. In Tehran, protesters shouted \u00a0\u00bbDeath to France!\u00a0\u00bb and \u00a0\u00bbDeath to Chirac the Zionist!\u00a0\u00bb The Palestinian Authority mufti, Ikrima Sa’id Sabri, declared that \u00a0\u00bbFrench laws banning the hijab constitute a war against Islam as a religion.\u00a0\u00bb When the \u00a0\u00bbIslamic Army in Iraq\u00a0\u00bb kidnapped two French journalists, it threatened their execution unless the hijab ban was revoked. Paris stood firm.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tWhat lies behind these contrary responses? The British have seemingly lost interest in their heritage while the French hold on to theirs; even as the British ban fox hunting, the French ban hijabs. The former embraced multiculturalism, the latter retain a pride in their historic culture. This contrast in matters of identity makes Britain the Western country most vulnerable to the ravages of radical Islam, whereas France, for all its political failings, has retained a sense of self that may yet see it through.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDaniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t[Notre recommandation est que ce texte doit \u00eatre lu avec la mention classique \u00e0 l’esprit, Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only..]<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Les attentats de Londres, le Blitz’ et la France archa\u00efque contre Blair le chevalier moderniste 17 juillet 2005 Nous pr\u00e9sentons un ensemble de textes et de r\u00e9flexions qui permettent d’entretenir une certaine clart\u00e9 sur plusieurs sujets : • Les commentateurs \u00e9clair\u00e9s du monde occidental apr\u00e8s les attentats de Londres. • Les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s de la guerre… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66601","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66601","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66601"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66601\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66601"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66601"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66601"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}