Yes and for the same reason they didn't attack Iraq even though they should have. In both Syria and Libya they helped the local oppressed who had risen out of their own courage. I'm sure that, were a civil war to break in NK, rebels would be helped in a similar way.
They didn't help the "local oppressed", they helped armed groups against a sovereign state for their own geopolitical aims. Do you see a subtle difference, monsieur ? Do you see Iraq helping pro independence Afram parties in the US with weapons ? I'm no fan of Saddam/Kadhafi but if you see now wrong here...
As a part of the metropole, Algeria got benefits and integration that colonies elsewhere didn't get, which is why the independence movement was so bloody, as opposed to what happened in say the subcontinent. Your argument that France was worse than the Anglo-Saxons ignores this distinction.
Yes, a lot of "benefits", which includes demographic shift : millions of peoples brought from France, but even Spain and Italy, to get the jobs of the Arabs. Other "benefits" includes the Crémieux decree, which gave French citizenship to the local Jews, but the Muslims were second class "indigenous"... in their own lands. Other "benefits" include few 100 000s of deaths and, contrarily to the British, no academic institution to even mention... in fact, very much like the British, they methodically beheaded the indigenous educational system.
Lol, high treason to whom? Did Algeria exist as a state when France annexed it? Loyalism was just as much a valid stance as secessionism, they didn't deserve to get persecuted for it.
That reminds me of the Indian argument about Kashmir, that you yourself mentioned, you know, Kashmir was handed out to the Dogras on a golden plate because of their treason of Sikhs. Do you seriously think "Algerians", or the "indigenous", gave any thought to such legal and sociological considerations ? That if they were a "state", a "nation", a "tribe", ... for them, you collaborate with invaders, you're a traitor - as simple as that.
There were a lot of French Algerians who felt closer to the newly independent state than the metropole,
Camus for example. But they had to flee all the same.
Those profited of the system, namely the Jews and the Pieds Noirs, Europeans like Camus. Only few "native" Algerians were pro France, they were called harkis and all went to France anyway. Few thousands.
Who did France massacre in Africa after the decolonization unless you are counting Boko Haram and other such anti-state outfits against whom the states specifically requested assistance? If there is any exploitation by France then it is purely economical and thus no worse than China's.
Have you heard of something called "Rwanda" ? The late François-Xavier Verschave wrote dozens of full books on this very issue but apparently you missed it.
Francafrique (as it exists today) is a cultural and geopolitical cooperation concept based on a shared past (and guilt trip by the French), not unlike the British commonwealth and similar to the concept of Francophonie. Do you feel exploited being part of both of these things?
Yeah you're right, modern Francafrique is about wine and caviar.
ALLAH save all the humans from these animals.
