Saturday, October 08, 2011

Sarkozy's Fatal Foreign Policy


Here's an article by Catholic journalist Michel Garroté, that touches on some of the topics that have been discussed in the comment sections of my recent posts, namely the fate of Christians in the Middle East, and the treasonous policies of Nicolas Sarkozy:

Nicolas Sarkozy and Bernard-Henri Lévy are jointly responsible for the bloody chaos that reigns in Libya in 2011, knowing that Sarkozy had given his blessing urbi et orbi to Qadhafi in October 2007. By decreeing, in September 2011, the end of the secular Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad, whom he had nonetheless welcomed in great pomp on July 14, 2008, Sarkozy will bear, through his hollow words and his inconstancies, his part of the responsibility for the future fate (a tragic one) of the Christians of Syria. And, in the looming disaster in Syria, Sarkozy will also bear his part of the responsibility for the future fate (already tragic) of the Lebanese Christians.

Finally, in the looming disaster in Syria, Sarkozy will be partially responsible for the Islamist Syrian threat, a fundamentalist and theocratic threat, that will weigh heavily on the Israeli Jewish population, and which will necessarily be even worse than the current secular Syrian threat from the Alaouite dynasty.

Note: I believe the buck stops with Nicolas Sarkozy and he is wholly responsible. Lévy is powerful only because he was given power by Sarkozy. If the president cannot say no to a man who is seeking to harm the country, then Sarkozy is the traitor, Lévy merely the Iago who spins his web into which Sarkozy falls. Nicolas Sarkozy has never been qualified to be president of France. He has stated openly that the French people must mix their blood with other races, he has worked to appease Turkey and to force France into the E.U. He has courted every Muslim leader in the Middle East and showered them with contracts and promises to ease immigration restrictions. He has prevented his police force from harming dangerous criminals. He persists in his open immigration policies all the while admitting that multiculturalism has not worked.

Back to Michel Garroté who quotes extensively from a Syrian priest:

On the future Syrian disaster, the priest of Bab Sbah, in Homs, in Syria, declared on September 23:

"Ten days ago the salafists forced open the door of the ancient Saint Elian church in Homs. They thought the sacred utensils were made of gold, so they stole them. The Greek Orthodox bishop His Eminence Abou Zakhm had the courage to go to the Emir of Homs, Bilal Ken. He said: 'We are brothers and we have always lived together. Why did you take our sacred vessels? You say you don't need a police force, so are you going to defend us.' Bilal reassured the bishop about the intentions of the insurgents, but denied he ordered the robbery."

The priest: "The rebels had, in passing, emptied out the church's cash box. Then Bilal El Ken's henchmen kidnapped four Christian girls from a minibus traveling from Homs to Zeidal. One of them, Maya Semaan, was returned after four days, having been raped, according to the evidence. The army then intervened to place limits on the demands of the salafists. Bilal was killed on September 7, 2011 during the fighting and his headquarters were searched. The sacred vessels were found and returned to the Saint Elian church. The streets have been calmer these days. But we can still hear gunfire. Now we can go out to shop for necessities, but for two weeks we were confined to our homes."

The priest: "Homs had become a battleground. The insurgents have heavy arms that they use indiscriminately. With the RPG (rocket-propelled grenades) they can destroy army tanks. The façade of the bishop's residence is riddled with bullets and some windows are broken. Considering its location on a line of demarcation, the building should have been much more damaged. We have the army, advancing with extreme caution, to thank. However, the residents were not encouraged to stay there. The building now seems to be abandoned in a ravaged neighborhood that was once so peaceful. All of us, moderate Muslims (the great majority), Christians, Alaouites, Druzes, Ismaelites, and even Kurds, we all fear the coming of an Islamic State that will impose on us, as civil law, the religious laws of Islam."

Regarding the bloody chaos that reigns in Libya in 2011, Bishop Martinelli, Apostolic Vicar of Tripoli, in Libya, where the fighting goes on near sites that have remained in the hands of troops loyal to Qadhafi, declared on September 29:

"The situation in the hospitals is tragic because there are still many wounded and the staff cannot keep up with all the emergencies." (…) "The same is true of the wounded of Bani Walid, who have to be evacuated to other centers because there are no hospitals equipped to take them." (…) "The country needs help in the form of doctors, nurses and medicine. I am now launching an appeal everywhere not only for aid to be sent but also for the most seriously wounded to be hospitalized in Italy or elsewhere," concluded Bishop Martinelli.

Michel Garroté sums up his feelings:

As far as I'm concerned - and this is my closing statement - Nicolas Sarkozy, Bernard-Henri Lévy and Alain Juppé are and will remain equally responsible for the lethal threats that will weigh, even more heavily than in the past, on the Christians of Libya, Syria and Lebanon, as well as on the Israeli Jewish population. One could even wonder if Sarkozy, BHL and Juppé are in the service of the OCI (Organization of the Islamic Conference), of the salafists and of the Muslim Brotherhood. I have to admit that between imbecility and collaboration, I cannot tell which of these two explanations motivates our geo-strategical clowns. Yes, I know, some will say: both: both of them at the same time, imbecility and collaboration.

I would just add to imbecility and collaboration an impenetrable wall of stubbornness, a refusal to question the ideology of the globalists/multiculturalists who have the most extremely limited view of "democracy" that it is possible to imagine, a will to break, rather than bend to reality. I think too that these men have delusions of grandeur, delusions of being "movers and shakers" in a great world-wide sloughing off of the old and ringing in of the new. For them it's like New Year's Eve, and tomorrow the world will be better. They are turning their "dreams into reality" as the slogan from 1968 said. They want to be rewarded for their efforts. And indeed they shall, but it won't be in this world. Garroté's title for his article is "War Crimes in the Name of Human Rights", which says it all.

On a side note, Michel Garroté spoke of the Israeli "Jewish" population. There is, as you may know, an Israeli Arab population of two million. Nicolas Sarkozy is aware of this as a short entry from right-wing Israeli blog Samson Blinded shows:

Words of truth from Sarkozy

A Jewish organization slammed French president for saying that Israel with her two million Arabs cannot be called a Jewish state, and so Netanyahu is wrong to demand that from Palestinians.

Now, what’s wrong with his opinion? Rabbi Kahane and ourselves kept saying that for years. Only the Israeli government fails to acknowledge that commonsense fact.

The irony is too funny. If, for Nicolas Sarkozy, Israel is not a Jewish State because of its two million Arabs, then what about France??? Soon, very soon, Nicolas Sarkozy will not be able to speak of the French State. These "words of truth" are a rare moment of lucidity for the usually clueless Sarkozy.

Photo at top from March 2011 shows Libyan rebels on a tank that once belonged to Qadhafi. From Boston.com, where you can find more.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

20 Comments:

At October 09, 2011 5:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am looking for an appartment in Paris. Four of the six responses I have received from private persons have been fraudulent attempts to steal my money.
Yesterday I had a coffee at an upscale bistro, the waitress stole some the change. I suddenly remebered that I had a coffee at the same restaurant four years ago. A different waitress stole some change that time too.
On the brighter side, yesterday, a black attendent at the Metro was a true gentleman who went out of his way to help a foreigner use a new automatic ticket dispenser. A turkish owned bistro one block away from the more expense shopping street provide a bread and coffee breakfast for two Euros instead of six or eight. The change is always correct.

Robert in Arabia

 
At October 09, 2011 12:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BHL

Being that wealthy, what pressure might be a constant threat on him?

How free is he to not do "things"?

 
At October 09, 2011 12:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The way I see it, NS takes every opportunity to defend Israel and Jews, speaking up for Gilad Shalit at every occasion in particular, for instance.

From my humble point of view, I think there is such a constant pressure on NS both from accumulated infiltration over decades as well as external pressure, that his room to move must be rather limited.

After all, this is about islam, and deceit, taqiyya, kitman all the way.


So far, he did manage to get rid of his three muslim/African ministers/secretaries, Rama Yade, Rachida Dati, Fadela Amara.

Fadela Amara is of Kabyle descent, but is she caught inbetween Algeria and civilisation? She became known to the public for fighting against the islamic veil, by "Ni putes, ni soumises", Neither whores, nor subjects.

 
At October 09, 2011 4:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I am looking for an appartment in Paris. Four of the six responses I have received from private persons have been fraudulent attempts to steal my money.
Yesterday I had a coffee at an upscale bistro, the waitress stole some the change. I suddenly remebered that I had a coffee at the same restaurant four years ago. A different waitress stole some change that time too.
On the brighter side, yesterday, a black attendent at the Metro was a true gentleman who went out of his way to help a foreigner use a new automatic ticket dispenser. A turkish owned bistro one block away from the more expense shopping street provide a bread and coffee breakfast for two Euros instead of six or eight. The change is always correct.

Robert in Arabia

October 09, 2011 5:50 AM




robert in arabia again off-topic
and lots of taqyia

 
At October 09, 2011 4:54 PM, Blogger DP111 said...

Among the nations on the ME, Syria is the only one where Christians can be themselves without worrying about their faith becoming public. Syria is the only country that has given sanctuary to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians ethnically cleansed out of Iraq by the allies of Western forces.

So now we are attacking the one place in the ME where Christians are safe. Wonderful.

The only way I can understand this mad cap policy is to assume that the West is deliberately destabilising even those regimes are sort of friendly to the West, and replacing them with Islamic regimes, is that they want a caliphate to form. It is their intent to divide the world in another Iron curtain(Iran burqa) and the West. Then deal with the caliphate in much the same way as we did with the Warsaw pact.

Fine. So be it. In the grand scheme of things, this may not be such a bad idea.

 
At October 09, 2011 5:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Arab Spring turning into Arab Winter in Egypt
19 killed

http://www.copts.com/english/
SUNDAY OCTOBER 9TH 2011

 
At October 09, 2011 5:53 PM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ DP111

I'm not sure I agree with you. If the world were divided into two blocs and if the outcome of the struggle were to determine the fate of the West, I would bet on the Islamic bloc, because of its huge size AND because there would be so many collaborators from the West.

Most western countries at the present time are themselves divided into two blocs - the older tradition-oriented patriots, and everybody else. The "everybody else" contains leftists, Muslims, other immigrants, atheists, feminists, homosexuals, and many "neo-conservatives."

It seems to me that the first thing we have to do is get our own act together and become a united West against Islam. Then maybe we would have a chance. But this means a TOTAL AWAKENING on the part of the Left and its allies. This has never happened. (Possibly the patriotic feelings of the American Democratic Party during WWII and the French Resistance as well are examples after all).

You are saying that Sarkozy et al. are setting up a two-bloc world for the purpose of defeating the Islamic bloc. That is quite a stretch. Sarkozy has done everything he can do to BUILD UP the Islamic bloc - with military contracts, aid, judicial laxness, non-stop multicultural "métissage" propaganda. Why would he do this if not to "mongrelize" the whole Western world and make any defeat of Islam impossible?

Still, your point is interesting. I've never heard it before.

It sounds as if you cannot accept the fact that Western leaders are selling out their country, and you need to find an underlying motivation. Michel Garroté spoke of "imbecility". Don't rule it out. The counter-culture of the 60's has taken its toll. Its ideological descendents are now in seats of power. It shows what propaganda can do to the human soul.

 
At October 09, 2011 5:58 PM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ anonymous

I posted your comment about Robert in Arabia. I cannot respond to it because there is little in his comment that proves anything except that there is always some decency in some people in some situations. That fact changes nothing. We are still being invaded, and even if some of them are "decent", they will have to make a major existential choice at some point in the future.

I leave it to Robert in Arabia to answer if he chooses.

 
At October 09, 2011 6:07 PM, Blogger tiberge said...

I have not published several one or two-word comments that contained the notion that Sarkozy and BHL are traitors. I feel that is obvious from the article and from many articles I have posted on Sarkozy and his "consultants."

It might be more beneficial to trace the history of the French Fifth Republic and try to determine how such a thing could happen.

 
At October 10, 2011 8:25 PM, Blogger DP111 said...

tiberge

The awakening has taken place. A majority in the West now feels that Muslims are a threat to our civilisation. This is so even though the MSM and the government has done its level best to demonise the unPC, and even taken legal action against those who speak the truth about Islam ** (See not below).

As for the fellow travelers of Islam, the Leftists, they were even more of a handicap when the USSR was a going concern. But that did not stop us from taking action we saw fit. In the present case, the link/sympathy between the Leftists and Islam is much weaker. Once the situation changes and the boot is on the other foot, things will take on a different hue.

------------------------

**BTW, I hope you wont object to my posting the following

A chance to help out Fjordman

http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=38811

 
At October 10, 2011 8:28 PM, Blogger DP111 said...

tiberge wrote: It sounds as if you cannot accept the fact that Western leaders are selling out their country, and you need to find an underlying motivation.

Yes. I cannot believe what seems impossible - that elected politicians of a whole group of Western countries (in fact all of them bar Switzerland, for obvious reasons) has freely chosen to betray their people, culture and nation. One I could just about believe, but all of them?

 
At October 10, 2011 8:35 PM, Blogger DP111 said...

tiberge wrote: Sarkozy has done everything he can do to BUILD UP the Islamic bloc - with military contracts, aid, judicial laxness, non-stop multicultural "métissage" propaganda.

The West did everything to bolster Saddam's Iraq - they provided him with weapons, and even a nuclear capability. Then look what we did to Iraq. Iraq is finished as a powerful state. Its army is destroyed, its infrastructure obliterated under the weight of air bombing and sanctions. Iraq is a shell.

Egypt is now undergoing rapid descent into chaos. It too will no longer be a potent force. There are no other contending forces in the Arab world that are a match to Israel, leave alone the West.

The real problem is the internal demographic growth of Muslims in the West. But we know how to handle this sort of problem.

 
At October 11, 2011 12:51 AM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ DP111

What you say is very interesting, and even plausible.

But when we built up Sadaam Hussein we didn't know we would be attacked. Then after 9/11, we believed all the intelligence (including French intelligence) that pointed to WMD's. It's true that we tore him down, but it was to the benefit of the more extreme Muslims who set about destroying what was left of Christianity. If we had torn down Sadaam Hussein to install a better regime that would have been at least bearable. I believe we became totally confused, and Bush, rather than reflect and take good advice, persisted in a headstrong way to empower the Muslims and to diminish the rights of the Christians. He was (and is) a "neo-con", a word that has come to mean the same thing as RINO (Republican in name only).

The "Arab Spring" is very similar. Bad men are unseated by "neo-cons" in order to set up worse men.

Now we have to tear down the worse men and install even worse than worse men? Or will we at last have learned a lesson?

I don't know. But your ideas are intriguing.

I think we always are forced to kill a threat to our national security. It just takes forever and a day for us to recognize our enemies. There's really a lack of education in the foreign ministries of both Europe and America. And there is the stranglehold of this ideology we in America call "liberalism". It intoxicates people with delusions of universal equality, love and harmony. And it brings hell on earth.

 
At October 11, 2011 8:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Montebourg - The French O b@ma?

- I'm Montebourg, Arnaud Montebourg..

"Montebourg: "Barack Obama, il a commencé comme moi" #limprobablescénario"

« Je suis Arnaud Montebourg et j'approuve ce message. »


Undercurrents?

- Ecoutez.... What if there were a link between the two, as part of the bigger scheme?

Ramallah was already long before the elections, acting as if O bama was already in the House.

So, what forces are behind Montebourg, which are not visible to the naked eye?

He's bragging about being Arab
He's got his journalist "room mate" of the right color

What could stop him if enough diversity voters took his side?

He's flying extremely high these days

"Au début de son clip de campagne pour la primaire socialiste, Montebourg reprend la formule utilisée par les candidats à l'élection présidentielle américaine :

« Je suis Arnaud Montebourg et j'approuve ce message. »"

http://www.rue89.com/2011/06/27/montebourg-se-prend-pour-obama-211069



How could they let Audrey Pulvar sit at the talkshow "On n'est pas couché" (We're not in bed yet) as a political commentator while her other half is running for president?

Audrey Pulvar doesn't seem to understand the problem, as she is blinded by the idea of being independent-woman-journalist and not moving for anything

When you see her on TV, you can't separate her from PS and Montebourg as presidential candidate and her as First Wife at L'Elysée.

Makes you wonder what good her glasses are for

Last Saturday, it seems that they were pushing it at France 2, as they had to talk about Montebourg and the first round of the PS elections, and at the same time either wanted to make her talk, or make her stay silent, to prove the dilemma of still having her as a political commentator on the channel.

 
At October 11, 2011 8:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Montebourg - The French O b@ma?

- I'm Montebourg, Arnaud Montebourg..

"Montebourg: "Barack Obama, il a commencé comme moi" #limprobablescénario"

« Je suis Arnaud Montebourg et j'approuve ce message. »


Undercurrents?

- Ecoutez.... What if there were a link between the two, as part of the bigger scheme?

Ramallah was already long before the elections, acting as if O bama was already in the House.

So, what forces are behind Montebourg, which are not visible to the naked eye?

He's bragging about being Arab
He's got his journalist "room mate" of the right color

What could stop him if enough diversity voters took his side?

He's flying extremely high these days

"Au début de son clip de campagne pour la primaire socialiste, Montebourg reprend la formule utilisée par les candidats à l'élection présidentielle américaine :

« Je suis Arnaud Montebourg et j'approuve ce message. »"

http://www.rue89.com/2011/06/27/montebourg-se-prend-pour-obama-211069



How could they let Audrey Pulvar sit at the talkshow "On n'est pas couché" (We're not in bed yet) as a political commentator while her other half is running for president?

Audrey Pulvar doesn't seem to understand the problem, as she is blinded by the idea of being independent-woman-journalist and not moving for anything

When you see her on TV, you can't separate her from PS and Montebourg as presidential candidate and her as First Wife at L'Elysée.

Makes you wonder what good her glasses are for

Last Saturday, it seems that they were pushing it at France 2, as they had to talk about Montebourg and the first round of the PS elections, and at the same time either wanted to make her talk, or make her stay silent, to prove the dilemma of still having her as a political commentator on the channel.

 
At October 11, 2011 9:30 PM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ anonymous,

You have brought up a lot of information. I am familiar with the current popularity of Arnaud Montebourg, and was rather surprised by it. But guess who is supporting him, besides some leftists - the Bloc Identitaire! I find that shocking, but I have not yet researched the topic enough. The Bloc should be backing Marine Le Pen, or one of its own candidates, but it has thrown its weight behind Montebourg. Possibly over the issue of "globalism", but I am not sure.

Meanwhile, staunch Catholic Bernard Antony who is suing Houria Bouteldja for offenses to the French people (and I agree with his action) has publicly stated he does not want to be in any way associated with the Bloc, with whom he disagrees on major issues, but again, I need precise information.

Personally, I think the Bloc does not like Marine, and never has, because she is not a regionalist. They needed to find a candidate of their own choosing whom they can back so they don't have to vote for Marine. She will thus lose some votes from the Bloc, and I think this is terrible. To vote for Montebourg (who was Ségolène Royal's assistant - or something like that - during the last presidential election) instead of Marine is disgusting.

I had come to like the Bloc, but they don't like America or Israel, and even though I hate to sound chauvinistic, these petty hatreds do affect the validity of their movement. The Bloc is not Christian, but not anti-Christian either as far as I know.

What all this means is that we're in the same mess as before - the French Right cannot unify.

 
At October 11, 2011 10:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Damascus - unworried regarding faith
- For how long?

It seems that in the backstreets of Damascus have become a center for islamists from all corners of the world, South Africa, England, Scandinavia..

In particular they appeared here during the islamists' parades with thouse retouched caricatures, in those days

 
At October 12, 2011 10:37 AM, Blogger DP111 said...

Tiberge

This is the really intriguing bit, and has been in my thoughts for ya lon while.

How come it is that Western politicians can and do disagree on almost everything. BUT on the question of Islam, they all agree to sell out their own nations. All of them- no exceptions except Switzerland(which is a unique case because of its unique direct democracy). Even in the case of Switzerland, its politicians and MSM were all for minarets but got trumped by the people.

Why? This is weird, as it is against human nature.

 
At October 15, 2011 5:18 AM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ DP111

A belated response to your question.

It IS weird, and it does go against human nature because "liberalism" goes against human nature. What we call the "Left"(and this includes much of the false "Right") lives in an alternative reality where human beings must not be allowed the freedom to be men and women. They must be denatured and forced to fit into some pre-determined mold that removes all differences, all transcendence, and all quests for objective truths. There can be no hierarchy, no visible signs of superior intelligence or higher level of culture. Those who have more must be made to feel guilty; those who have less are entitled to take from those who have more.

But in this insane drive for absolute equality, one thing is certain. The future will be divided between the dominators and the dominated. The Left seeks total dominance over the forces of human nature, natural law and the normal desire of any population to save itself from extinction.

Nature must in the end win, otherwise there will be no life possible. The ancient traditions of marriage, and normal parenthood, and the Christian moral code must be restored and maintained if there is to be a future.

This is called "archéo-futurism", where the ancient traditions serve as the basis for the future. Without them there is no future.

The leaders of the West are products of the 60's, as I've said before. They have no loyalty to the past. They only care about the future. They hate anything that reminds them of the world that existed before they were born. Totally inculcated with the dogma of anti-racism, they will make their respective countries pay for any sign of "Islamophobia". Until the day comes when they can no longer deny the truth.

 
At October 18, 2011 4:16 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

The West continues it death march.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home