France: Muslim man claims Islamophobic attack

The 'Natives of the Republic' is a radical, reactionary group formed by French blacks and Muslims.  IT claims to be anti-imperialist, anti-racist and anti-Islamophobic.  They're also anti-Zionism, anti-USA, pro-Hezbollah and pro-Palestinian terror.


Twelve days after being attacked, Nouredine Rachedi (30), still bears the marks of the beating he received on the night of July 24th at Guyancourt in Yvelines in the north of France.  A swollen eye, scars on his head and hesitant steps.  This French Muslim, who has a diploma in statistics and is currently studying customer management, was coming back home shortly before 1am and cut through a public park.

According to his statement to the police, two "European type" men, without any distinct clothing, asked him at a distance for a cigarette.  Rachedi says he didn't have more than two and so told them he couldn't give them any.

One of the men then came closer and asked if he was a Muslim, Rachedi told the police.  He answered 'yes'.  He was then asked how long he was in France.  He answered he was born in France and always lived there.  

After these question, Rachedi asked why they wanted to know.  The second man approached and said 'because we are Nazis."  He then asked Rachedi what he thought of the state of Yugoslavia.  This took place four days after the announcement that Radovan Karadzic was arrested.  

Rachedi answered that he didn't have an opinion on it.  The first individual then hit him on the head.  Rachedi says he fell to the ground and then received more kicks to his body and head.  He says he protected himself as best as he could by curling up and covering his chest with his hands.  He was attacked for less than a minute, and then heard one of them say it's enough, let's go.  

Rachedi got up and called for help, which then took charge.  He was given 21 days of complete rest from work by the medical-legal unit at Versailles due to bruising, a collapsed lunge and injuries to his head requiring suturing.  

The young man, who's never suffered violence, appears very influenced. He says he can't stop going over what happened in his mind.  He was very scared but doesn't want this "racist, anti-Muslim attack to remain unpunished".  After the attack Rachedi, who's a delegate of the CFDT trade union, turned to the Indigènes de la République association (Natives of the Republic), of which he's been a member since April, for support.

The association contacted two lawyers.  Rachedi says he's confident that his case isn't the only one but that others preferred to keep quiet.

The Versailles prosecution indicated they're working on it.  One of the alleged attackers, known for similar cases, has been identified.

The police originally classified the offense as willful violence committed by 'a gang'.  The prosecution notes that according to the victim the remarks were clearly racist, and that the classification might change, based on the results of the investigation.

Source: Le Monde (French)


Anonymous said...

Those Nazis need to study their Third Reich history. Hitler loved Muslims. He used to bemoan the fact that he had to rule over "flabby, soporific Christians" and not easily-militantized Muslims. He also considered Arabs and Persians to be Aryans, and therefore worthy of his "master race." Muhammad was Hitler's idol: Read the Koran back-to-back. Mein Kampf was modeled on the Koran, albeit in a far more logical and easy-to-digest, less repetitive fashion. He also enlisted the Muslims to carry out the Eastern end of the Holocaust, with great success. He even enlisted an Arab version of himself to militantize the Arabs, Amin al-Husseini, who even imitated his speaking style to the letter:

And two guys do not constitute a "gang."

Esther said...

Hi jdamn13,

Who said the Nazis agreed with Hitler? Nazis killed Muslims quite well, when they wanted to.

As for 'a gang', that's my translation. I think the idea is 'more than one', "attack in concert', but I couldn't think of a good word for it.

Anonymous said...

Hi Esther,

The Nazis agreed with Hitler. Nazism was a cult just like Islam, Mormonism, or Branch Davisianism. They faithfully followed their leader and held him to his own Nietzshean moral standards. Like all cults, you can't subscribe to part of the ideology and discard the rest. That's one of the main characteristics that separate cults from religions or straight-up political movements. Cults always tie up politics with an invariably ridiculous, supremacist theology, and one must either buy into it hook, line, and sinker, or reject it outright. Cults are by definition polarizing in that respect. The Third Reich came to power through legitimate democratic means, and Hitler never wavered opportunistically in his ideology. He was a very by-the-book guy, so long as the book was Mein Kampf.

Esther said...

Hi jdamn13,

How do you know all the Nazis agreed with Hitler on this? I doubt anybody would have spoken up, if they wanted to stay alive anyway.

I've read an interview with an ex-Nazi who said that at the time he and his friends couldn't understand what Hitler was doing with the Muslim semites, whom he saw as being little better than the Jews.

So I suppose all the Nazis except this guy and his friends agreed with Hitler.

Anonymous said...

I could never make sense of Hitler's theories of who was "worthy" and who wasn't, but he loved Muslims, the original Judeophobes/Jew-killers. He had really demonized Jews in his mind and ascribed a whole bunch of crazy characteristics to them that he did not ascribe to Muslims, but which would have been perfectly valid if applied to them (i.e., they're troublemakers, they only look out for one another, they have crazy dietary practices, etc.). He also seemed to have a paranoia about Jews that did not apply to Muslims, like that they controlled the monetary system, etc. But he categorized Arabs and Persians as Aryan, and the Semitic Jews as un-Aryan. He really loved the Persians, which is understandable, given their history. I never said that Hitler made sense or wasn't a ridiculous hypocrite, or that he ever "proved" a single point he ever made with anything but empty rhetoric and logical fallacies, or that all the Nazis agreed with him. Obviously in any system there are vastly differing viewpoints, which is why totalitarianism never prevails. He had Jewish blood in his veins anyway, so go figure. When I said "Nazis" I meant those who subscribed to the Nazi ideology as laid out in Mein Kampf, the prototypical Nazis.