French generals cause backlash with 'civil war' warning

jackboy

eleventh wrote: »

It's not that obvious that it will fail. I don't see that at all. It's the west that is falling or failing.

It will fail. It seems successful at the moment as it is being used as a tool by the ambitious to get into power. The true believers will never lead anything and are almost entirely made up of wasters. There is no substance or strength behind the ideology. In the long run it is detrimental to the vast majority of the population, especially those that it dishonestly pretends to advocate for.

Danzy

jackboy wrote: »

It will fail. It seems successful at the moment as it is being used as a tool by the ambitious to get into power. The true believers will never lead anything and are almost entirely made up of wasters. There is no substance or strength behind the ideology. In the long run it is detrimental to the vast majority of the population, especially those that it dishonestly pretends to advocate for.

It's been brutalizing in it's homeland and every where it spreads for centuries now.

It may not have ultimate victory but it can continue to ruin lives and societies for many more and in greater numbers.

Your other points still stand.

grassylawn

jackboy wrote: »

I don’t think what the Generals were highlighting was aimed specifically at immigrants or immigration. It was aimed at a highly dangerous ideology which is sweeping through the west at the moment. They recognise that the ideology is highly likely to fail at some point, but if encouraged and promoted by those in power, the fall is likely to occur through violence which would be a disaster for French society.

What are you guys on about? You seem to have all been drinking the same kool-aid. Should I know what this ideology is?

eleventh

jackboy wrote: »

It will fail. It seems successful at the moment as it is being used as a tool by the ambitious to get into power. The true believers will never lead anything and are almost entirely made up of wasters. There is no substance or strength behind the ideology. In the long run it is detrimental to the vast majority of the population, especially those that it dishonestly pretends to advocate for.

I am no supporter of Islam, but there are some obvious things in its favour.
From a point of view of long-term stability, it has more going for it than the ideology that prevails now in the west. That is why it could win, rather than in itself being a good ideology.

eleventh

eleventh wrote: »

Colonisation in the sense of permanent settlements. They're not political units; they don't have to be.
Enclave, settlement, colony, I see them as similar terms. Where colony in the past pointed more to acquiring territory, territory is still acquired but more after the fact, over time, so it's less clear what is taking place.
It's not a natural migration of peoples; it's deliberate re-settlement.

Colonialisation would either require serious numbers, and/or the manipulation of the political system to give them greater rights than other people.

The first I don't think likely because immigration accounts for a wide range of nationalities, and because of the divisive nature of multiculturalism, there wouldn't be a population from a singular migrant group to take over.. even if they shared a particular religion like Islam.

The second is a worry because of the virtue signalling that tends to come from western politicians, looking to score points by being nice to others. All the same, we are seeing a pushback against the extreme pro-immigration policies of our politicians (not so much in Ireland yet, but the attitude is changing in Europe). And while I don't hold much faith in the political systems under European democracy, I do hold some faith in various European populations to actively/violently let their displeasure known.

Dunno about it being deliberate as opposed to just taking advantage of their circumstances. The migrant groups nor the NGOs, wouldn't be able to assure themselves of political support. Nah. I just think they're taking advantage of how divided Western societies are, and also the misguided guilt/shame that Westerners are going through right now.

gw80

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

By whom and for what reasons?

It is absolutely deliberate.
There are a lot of factors going on at the same time to facilitate this,
If the EU wanted to stop the migrant boats, they could do so over night, but instead we have a taxi service patrolling the north African coast looking to pick up people and ship them into Europe!
In Libya the Americans and the French took out Gaddafi, after the "people" rose up against him, and then they basically just left, opening the floodgates for migrants and chancers to pile in,
Homogeneous societies are harder to control, more likely to band together under a common cause,
If you plant different societies and cultures together,1 you will get division and fighting amongst the different cultures, and 2, if the culture's mix then you will have people with no real sense of belonging to either cultures or countries of origin, so no sence of national pride, so again easier to control.

I really think it's a combination of it benefiting the hard left and the powerful elite at same time, the left get to feel less guilt and more of the feels, while at the same time they are doing the dirty work of the elite who get their cheap labour and more maluable population, to busy fighting themselves to band together and stand up to the powerful.

eleventh

eleventh wrote: »

I am no supporter of Islam, but there are some obvious things in its favour.
From a point of view of long-term stability, it has more going for it than the ideology that prevails now in the west. That is why it could win, rather than in itself being a good ideology.

Islam is a traditional religion as opposed to an ideology. Don't interchange the words, because it makes it harder to deal with discussions about it. Religion has structure. Ideologies tend to be far more formless, and harder to stamp out.

The west is simply divided. That's all. Once people realise the danger of this woke nonsense, and embrace a series of nationalistic attitudes, the divisions, and weaknesses will dissipate.. along with the introduction of a wide range of deportations and curtailing of freedoms extended to people not of the native population.

Just remember that big changes at the political level, local or national, occur from when you hold the balance of power. You don't need to gain outright majority or even come close. This % will vary based on the political make up...sometimes just a handful of independents hold it.

The crux of these arguments fall down to a few points. Do you believe that moderate Muslims get pushed into stricter adherence of their faith when surrounded by a larger group. I think the evidence shows that even a majority of moderates can be pushed the other way by a few fanatics.

This of course would fly in the face of Western values. Only a fool would bring this situation on themselves.

Another crux in these arguments hangs on whether its morally acceptable to do what Trump did, a Muslim ban. If the above argument is correct then you need to ban moderates too. Or at the very least have a migration program that does not result in enclaves of people who do not support your way of life. A migration program that actively discriminates against good people, because of a minority certainly does present moral hazard. But if it prevents severe compromise of Western laws and essentially civilisation then I would back it.

If there is a better way of doing it I want to know.

Pretending that there is no problem, ala you're more likely to be hit by a bus, totally ruins your credibility and does damage to the other side of the debate

jackboy

I think some on the thread are getting distracted by Muslims and Islam. The Generals are not calling for Muslims to be deported nor are they blaming them for what is going on in France.

They are blaming the mostly white western politicians and others in power who are pushing the prevalent dangerous ideology which is anti democratic and pro inequality while pretending to be doing the opposite.

jackboy

jackboy wrote: »

I think some on the thread are getting distracted by Muslims and Islam. The Generals are not calling for Muslims to be deported nor are they blaming them for what is going on in France.

Aren't they? When the biggest threats to Frances culture and society have come from groups of Muslims, and individuals who declared their faiths before engaging in violence.

They are blaming the mostly white western politicians and others in power who are pushing the prevalent dangerous ideology which is anti democratic and pro inequality while pretending to be doing the opposite.

Cause and effect. They're blaming both the politicians, and the policy that allowed such immigration to occur, and the failures of politicians/government to effectively manage these issues associated with immigration. ie, putting migrants above the needs of French people, and not applying the laws of the land everywhere.

jmreire

Akrasia wrote: »

I ‘might’ be hit on the head by a meteorite while out for a walk

I ‘might’ also be beaten up by a neo nazi who believes himself to be a conservative Christian

Neither are very likely, and I’m equally as unafraid of having my head cut off by an Islamic terrorist

Location is everything.Try criticising or offending Islam in an Islamic state, Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan? I'd say Samuel Paty might have once viewed it as akin to a meteor strike too ( or maybe not, France and Europe having a history of such deaths.) But go ahead and see how you get on.

jmreire

grassylawn wrote: »

This is an interesting assertion. My brief googling has not supported or refuted it. Can you provide sources?

My impression was from my viewing of the film Bitter Lake and photos shown to me by someone ages ago.

The idea that the Soviet Union was a progressive force there is at odds with my knowledge of that country otherwise. But everything is relative and iirc they apparently treated the country as a utopic project.

I lived in Afghanistan for several years, both under the Taliban and aftter Sept 11th. basically, after the Russians left, the warlords started fighting amongst themselves, and did massive damage to the infrastructure, especially in Kabul. This war was stopped by the arrival of the Taliban, who swarmed out of the religious madrassa's in Pakistan. And basically, under the Taliban, Afghanistan became a pariah state, where strict religious dogma ruled. Everything deterioted, Schools, Hospitals, Roads, Infrastructure, water supplies. etc. They destroyed any kind of social life...women confined to the home, except under strict circumstances, music , song and dance outlawed ( Afghans, like any other culture,had their own culture long before either the Russians or Taliban arrive on the scene. The Country was in a very bleak condition.
Then the US arrived. Now we hear a lot of criticism about the US, and its "occupation", but after they arrived , a massive rebuilding program began, Hospitals, schools, water pumping stations were renovated,roads repaired or rebuilt. All freedoms removed by the Talibam were replaced. And basically, Afghans had a much improved Life style. But all of this is build on a very old civilisation, and once you travel out side the main Citys, you will find that the Life there has not really changed, its still very much rooted in the past.
And now, it seems that the Taliban will be back in power again soon, and according to them, compared to the past, the "new" version will be "Taliban Light" Now if we could see 5 years into the future, we would be able to compare the results as to who was the "Best Invader" for the Afghan People. For sure they deserve a lot better, its a fascinating Country, and a lovely people.

grassylawn

jmreire wrote: »

I lived in Afghanistan for several years, both under the Taliban and aftter Sept 11th. basically, after the Russians left, the warlords started fighting amongst themselves, and did massive damage to the infrastructure, especially in Kabul. This war was stopped by the arrival of the Taliban, who swarmed out of the religious madrassa's in Pakistan. And basically, under the Taliban, Afghanistan became a pariah state, where strict religious dogma ruled. Everything deterioted, Schools, Hospitals, Roads, Infrastructure, water supplies. etc. They destroyed any kind of social life...women confined to the home, except under strict circumstances, music , song and dance outlawed ( Afghans, like any other culture,had their own culture long before either the Russians or Taliban arrive on the scene. The Country was in a very bleak condition.
Then the US arrived. Now we hear a lot of criticism about the US, and its "occupation", but after they arrived , a massive rebuilding program began, Hospitals, schools, water pumping stations were renovated,roads repaired or rebuilt. All freedoms removed by the Talibam were replaced. And basically, Afghans had a much improved Life style. But all of this is build on a very old civilisation, and once you travel out side the main Citys, you will find that the Life there has not really changed, its still very much rooted in the past.
And now, it seems that the Taliban will be back in power again soon, and according to them, compared to the past, the "new" version will be "Taliban Light" Now if we could see 5 years into the future, we would be able to compare the results as to who was the "Best Invader" for the Afghan People. For sure they deserve a lot better, its a fascinating Country, and a lovely people.

Interesting. To clarify, when I said they were doing better before the USA got involved I did specify their arming of the Wahibbis - who were probably the same people who became The Taliban. I didn't think that the country was better off under The Taliban than American occupation. I think they were better off before The Taliban became so powerful.

jmreire

grassylawn wrote: »

Interesting. To clarify, when I said they were doing better before the USA got involved I did specify their arming of the Wahibbis - who were probably the same people who became The Taliban. I didn't think that the country was better off under The Taliban than American occupation. I think they were better off before The Taliban became so powerful.

The Wahibbism is a specific branch and interpration of Islam. Insofar as it goes, its the most extreme ( or pure, if you are a Wahibbi) form of Islam, and it has its foundation in Saudi Arabia. For many centuries, it has been the religious power behind the Saudi Family. But its interpretation has been used by many, and even extrapolated on, IE, ISIS. the Pakistani Madrassas ( Religious Schools ) teach many young Pakistanis's ( and Afghans too ) who would not have an education other wise. Unfortunately, some of these Madrassas teach an extreme form of Islam, and it was from these schools the Taliban came from( BTW the name Taliban means Student ) You mean maybe better off under the Russian's? Because after the Russians left, complete chaos reigned. Had the Taliban not intervened, hard to say where Afghanistan would be today...Afghanistan was and is highly tribal. For centurys they have sorted out their own problems themselves, for important issues facing them they have what they call a " Loya Jirga" where all the leaders sit down together and discuss, and agree on matters. To this day, they still use the same system. But for sure, the Taliban has to be one of the worst, if not the worst times in Afghan History for the Afghan peolpe. And what ever economic drive that exists there now, it will be largely due to what the US have spent there.

grassylawn

KeepItLight wrote: »

It is really neo-colonialism though. Except its a colonisation of ideals and political structures rather than people. To nobody's benefit but the hegemon of course.

And the consequences to Europe are very real. More so than they are for the avg. US citizen (the non-soldiers at least).

I'm not saying it's ideal. However I have no responsibility for it, and for people in Europe, it should be put into the context of how they have involved themselves in matters that concern us more directly, in particular their containment of the USSR during the Cold War.

You don't even have to think about that in terms of morality. Their armanent of Wahibbis was ovbviously less than ideal, but did so because they were proxy fighters against the USSR. More directly, their plan in the event of Soviet invasion of Western Europe was to use thousands of nuclear weapons against every Communist country. And one factor in that being successful as a deterrent was the fact that they demonstrated a readiness to use them when they did so against Japan - in particular Nagasaki, which was bombed while Japan was actively trying to surrender.

biko

A Paris mayor has backed the military chiefs.
Rachida Dati, mayor of Paris' 7th arrondissement, and born to North African parents, is a former presidential advisor and served as justice minister under Nicolas Sarkozy, before becoming a Parisian MEP.

Links in English
https://www.worldmilitarynews.com/2021/04/30/mayor-of-paris-district-agrees-with-generals-threatening-to-seize-control-amid-civil-war-danger/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9525485/Paris-mayor-says-AGREES-military-chiefs-warned-disintegration-France.html

grassylawn

jmreire wrote: »

The Wahibbism is a specific branch and interpration of Islam. Insofar as it goes, its the most extreme ( or pure, if you are a Wahibbi) form of Islam, and it has its foundation in Saudi Arabia. For many centuries, it has been the religious power behind the Saudi Family. But its interpretation has been used by many, and even extrapolated on, IE, ISIS. the Pakistani Madrassas ( Religious Schools ) teach many young Pakistanis's ( and Afghans too ) who would not have an education other wise. Unfortunately, some of these Madrassas teach an extreme form of Islam, and it was from these schools the Taliban came from( BTW the name Taliban means Student ) You mean maybe better off under the Russian's? Because after the Russians left, complete chaos reigned. Had the Taliban not intervened, hard to say where Afghanistan would be today...Afghanistan was and is highly tribal. For centurys they have sorted out their own problems themselves, for important issues facing them they have what they call a " Loya Jirga" where all the leaders sit down together and discuss, and agree on matters. To this day, they still use the same system. But for sure, the Taliban has to be one of the worst, if not the worst times in Afghan History for the Afghan peolpe. And what ever economic drive that exists there now, it will be largely due to what the US have spent there.

I'm saying that Afghanistan was worse off for the Taliban coming to power there. So I think we are on the same page basically. My point is that they were able to come to power because of the support they received from the USA while they were fighting the Soviets. Therefore the USA's involvement at that point had a negative outcome.

The [Taliban] was formed in the early 1990s by Afghan mujahideen, or Islamic guerilla fighters, who had resisted the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979–89) with the covert backing of the CIA and its Pakistani counterpart, the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate (ISI).

-- https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/taliban-afghanistan

jmreire

grassylawn wrote: »

I'm not saying it's ideal. However I have no responsibility for it, and for people in Europe in should be put into the context of how they have involved themselves in matters that concern us more directly, in particular their containment of the USSR during the Cold War.

You don't even have to think about that in terms of morality. Their armanent of Wahibbis was ovbviously less than ideal, but did so because they were proxy fighters against the USSR. More directly, their plan in the event of Soviet invasion of Western Europe was to use thousands of nuclear weapons against every Communist country. And one factor in that being successful as a deterrent was the fact that they demonstrated a readiness to use them when they did so against Japan - in particular Nagasaki, which was bombed while Japan was actively trying to surrender.

Grassylawn, are you mistaking the wahabbi's ( from Saudi Arabia ) with the Afghan Mujahideen? Because it was the Mujahideen who were armed by the US, via Pakistan, and caused the departure of the Russians. I think that in a large part, it was the US revenge for the Russian support to the Vietnamese.

grassylawn

jmreire wrote: »

Grassylawn, are you mistaking the wahabbi's ( from Saudi Arabia ) with the Afghan Mujahideen? Because it was the Mujahideen who were armed by the US, via Pakistan, and caused the departure of the Russians. I think that in a large part, it was the US revenge for the Russian support to the Vietnamese.

I understood that the Mujahideen were Wahibbis, or closely related to them. My understanding is that the super-violent jihadist form of Islam is rooted in Wahibbism, and that it is being actively propagated internationally via those schools you mentioned as well as other channels. You seem to be saying that this is not the case though.

jmreire

Yes,Whabbism was and is being actively propagated by the Saudis..in the Balkan war, Saudi send many wahibbi fighters to Bosnia, and after the war ended, not all of them went home, unfortunately, and the remainers are presently pushing their extreme version of Islam there. But you are right about the Saudis pushing it world-wide. But in Afghanistan, it was the Sunni version of Islam that was followed during the fight against the Russians.Within the variations of Islam, Wahabbis believe that they are the true est form of Islam...but there's widespread argument against this by non Wahabbis..especially as they claim to be the sole guardians of Mecca.

The last news
Generals which wrote the letter been punished some lost them ranks some lost them pensions
The letter been ignored
The new letter been wrote to government ministers and president of France
This time letter been wrote by army generals which in army service now.
Looks like things in France getting serious

ILoveYourVibes

My understanding is to be a good military professional being calm is considered a requirement.

I don't think threatening civil war...can ever be considered calm. Quite the opposite. I would be very worried about the personal at the top in the French army. This seems ...bat**** crazy.

Its an over reaction.

jackboy

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

My understanding is to be a good military professional being calm is considered a requirement.

I don't think threatening civil war...can ever be considered calm. Quite the opposite. I would be very worried about the personal at the top in the French army. This seems ...bat**** crazy.

Its an over reaction.

They are not threatening a civil war. They are highlighting that current policies in France make civil war likely, which is obviously true. The army are the ones then who will be asked by government to squash any such outbreak.

ILoveYourVibes

jackboy wrote: »

They are not threatening a civil war. They are highlighting that current policies in France make civil war likely, which is obviously true. The army are the ones then who will be asked by government to squash any such outbreak.

https://www.thesun.ie/news/world-news/6921805/eighteen-officers-booted-french-army-threatening-macron/

I don't think so.

Its not the behavior of professional soldiers its the behavior of extremists.

EIGHTEEN officers are set to be booted out of the French Army after they reportedly threatened to seize control of the country in an attempted coup.
Leaving officials “revolted,” the proposal claimed that urgent action was needed to fight the radical Islamists or there would be "thousands of deaths."
They join thousands of retired militarily officials who have already signed an open letter warning that France was heading for "civil war."
Mr Macron's government condemned the letter as an "outrage," and compared it to the failed coup against President de Gaulle 60 years ago

Marine Le Pen also welcomed the letter 'urging followers to join the battle'

jackboy

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

https://www.thesun.ie/news/world-news/6921805/eighteen-officers-booted-french-army-threatening-macron/

I don't think so.

Its not the behavior of professional soldiers its the behavior of extremists.

Let’s stick to the facts at least.

ILoveYourVibes

jackboy wrote: »

Let’s stick to the facts at least.

Fact : Macron has compared the letter to a historical attempted coup.

Fact : 18 officers who signed said letter in the french army have been kicked out for attempting to seize control of France.

Fact : There has been 2 letters the first only signed by retired generals. The second signed by serving officers.

Quote of the second letter is rather disturbing. Its like something you would read on an extremist Islamist site.
The authors describe themselves as serving soldiers from the younger generation of the military, a so-called "generation of fire" that has seen active service.

"They have offered their lives to destroy the Islamism to which you have made concessions on our soil."

Fact : these serving officers who signed the second letter are NOW facing a military court.

Hervé Grandjean, the defence ministry spokesman, said on Thursday that by “openly criticising the government or appealing to comrades to take up arms on national territory”, the signatories had clearly broken military rules

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/29/french-soldiers-to-face-military-court-over-letter-warning-of-civil-war


This is interesting.

The letter was published last week on the 60th anniversary of a failed coup d’état by generals opposed to France granting independence to Algeria.

Algeria of course..is a Muslim country.

Im certain the timing is not lost on those who published the letter.

Timberrrrrrrr

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Fact : Macron has compared the letter to a historical attempted coup.

Fact : 18 officers who signed said letter in the french army have been kicked out for attempting to seize control of France.

Fact : There has been 2 letters the first only signed by retired generals. The second signed by serving officers.

Quote of the second letter is rather disturbing. Its like something you would read on an extremist Islamist site.
The authors describe themselves as serving soldiers from the younger generation of the military, a so-called "generation of fire" that has seen active service.


Fact : these serving officers who signed the second letter are NOW facing a military court.



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/29/french-soldiers-to-face-military-court-over-letter-warning-of-civil-war


This is interesting.



Algeria of course..is a Muslim country.

Im certain the timing is not lost on those who published the letter.

And was posted on a known right wing site.

ILoveYourVibes

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And was posted on a known right wing site.

Exactly.

Kaybaykwah

eleventh wrote: »

I am no supporter of Islam, but there are some obvious things in its favour.
From a point of view of long-term stability, it has more going for it than the ideology that prevails now in the west. That is why it could win, rather than in itself being a good ideology.

Oops! Careful not to substitute stability for stagnation.

ILoveYourVibes

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

Oops! Careful not to substitute stability for stagnation.

That's a fair point to say about many countries that happen to fall to religious extremism in general.

I guess people point to Dubai ...as an example of a country that has outgrown that ...even with all its issues.