French generals cause backlash with 'civil war' warning

odyssey06

Apart from writing a letter what did these army officers do to try to "take control"?

ILoveYourVibes

odyssey06 wrote: »

Apart from writing a letter what did these army officers do to try to "take control"?

Nothing.

But they certainly gave a nod to Le Pen who in turn nodded back. She is Macron's main opponent in the on coming elections.

Given what we have seen happen in the states on capital hill. This is worrying.

Its going to be a close election in France.

Overheal

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Nothing.

But they certainly gave a nod to Le Pen who in turn nodded back. She is Macron's main opponent in the on coming elections.

Given what we have seen happen in the states on capital hill. This is worrying.

Its going to be a close election in France.

The last thing you need but the first thing I expect is populist paranoia that any outcome is a stolen election etc. and then France will too know what it's like to read headlines about bamboo paper making.

Dyr

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.

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

.

Nothing of the sort has occurred yet nor will it. For the simple fact that nobody has attempted to seize control of France

Poor old Maccers has a bit of a problem, The French public seem to be leaning more towards the letter writers than him. Squeaky bum time.

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

Poor old Maccers has a bit of a problem, The French public seem to be leaning more towards the letter writers than him. Squeaky bum time.

He needs to ban letter writing...

John Doe1

Anyone above 25(When the brain fully matures)who believes that mass migration of people from cultures anathema to western liberalism is going to be amazing is incredibly naive at best and a quisling at worst.

We have had 400 yeats of conflict due to the migration of people of the same skin colour/culture/god and by stroke of luck its all going to hunky dory this time with Ahmed and the rest of his medieval throwback gang. Give me a break...

DerekC16

Michel Barnier was on France 4 this morning, he proposes suspending immigration for 3-5 years, & suspending family reunification (which the interviewer finds surprising coming from him, (saying that he has a reputation for being a moderate / reasonable man & that he's giving the impression of changing opinion). Barnier: raising his voice, "I have not changed methods, the problem of immigration is not a moderate / reasonable one, i'm trying as the politician that I am to look at the problem they way it is, & I think we should take the time to suspend immigration for 3 to 5 years,

i'm not referring to students or refugees, that we have to treat with humanity and rigor/precision, but we need to straighten out all the procedures & to discuss with our neighbours the question of Schegen, & we have to apply more rigorous border controls... (The interviewer asks: "on the exterior borders of Europe? between the European partners? how do we deal with 10,000 migrants who arrive in Italy in the last few days for example?")

Barnier: "The exterior borders of Europe have become a real sieve, so finally we've decided to create 10,000 border police posts that have to be put in place & to discuss with the countries of the region where they're coming from with regards to combating trafficking & return them to their countries if needs be, ...so there are the three main projects to find a solution to the problem of immigration which does not function at the present time".

https://twitter.com/Caroline_Roux/status/1392003190439227394?s=19

Bit late for all that. The horse bolted a long time ago.

Dyr

DerekC16 wrote: »

Michel Barnier was on France 4 this morning, he proposes suspending immigration for 3-5 years, & suspending family reunification (which the interviewer finds surprising coming from him, (saying that he has a reputation for being a moderate / reasonable man & that he's giving the impression of changing opinion). Barnier: raising his voice, "I have not changed methods, the problem of immigration is not a moderate / reasonable one, i'm trying as the politician that I am to look at the problem they way it is, & I think we should take the time to suspend immigration for 3 to 5 years,

i'm not referring to students or refugees, that we have to treat with humanity and rigor/precision, but we need to straighten out all the procedures & to discuss with our neighbours the question of Schegen, & we have to apply more rigorous border controls... (The interviewer asks: "on the exterior borders of Europe? between the European partners? how do we deal with 10,000 migrants who arrive in Italy in the last few days for example?")

Barnier: "The exterior borders of Europe have become a real sieve, so finally we've decided to create 10,000 border police posts that have to be put in place & to discuss with the countries of the region where they're coming from with regards to combating trafficking & return them to their countries if needs be, ...so there are the three main projects to find a solution to the problem of immigration which does not function at the present time".

https://twitter.com/Caroline_Roux/status/1392003190439227394?s=19

Bit late for all that. The horse bolted a long time ago.

He's gonna throw his hat into the ring for President, might as well stick out a few soundbites that suggest he's entirely changed his tune.

DerekC16

DerekC16 wrote: »

Bit late for all that. The horse bolted a long time ago.

The entire European project will implode if they don't sort it out, should have been done decades ago.

DerekC16

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The entire European project will implode if they don't sort it out, should have been done decades ago.

Freedom of movement will be gone in the next 10-15 years if not sooner. It isn't needed, it wont stop people being able to travel and it wont stop people being able to travel to work if their skills are required in the country they wish to work in.

wes

They are against anti-racism, so they are for racism? How can anyone have issues with anti-racism is beyond me.

Yellow_Fern

wes wrote: »

They are against anti-racism, so they are for racism? How can anyone have issues with anti-racism is beyond me.

Anti-racism is not the same as being against racism. Anti-racism is specific web of ideas involving how communities, justice, and politics etc should be organised. I know some of the readers of this will have doubts but I will make an analogy to show how names in politics are not always what they seem.

Christian democrats are not always christian, feminism is not just about women as it is also concerns men, conservatives don't always want to conserve, sometimes they want to change laws.

wes

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Anti-racism is not the same as being against racism.

Being against Anti-racism, is imo no different then being against LGBT or Women's rights. If a group said we must stop Women's rights, or stop LGBT rights, how would expect people to take what they are saying? Clearly they would be against such rights.

If they have issues with specific groups, then they should name them. The fact they chose the term anti-racism and put it in the same space as Islamism tells me, we aren't dealing with the brightest bulbs, or more likely they are racist.

*EDIT*
To further expand my point, a lot of people don't like Tran Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs), and they explicitly name why they have an issue with them, to separate them from the wider feminist movement. The only conclusion I can come to, for people who are against Anti-racism is that they are racists and being remarkable straight forward about it as well.

wes

wes wrote: »

No racists are just trying to make out they are the victims.

From what Ive seen of your posts, you seem to think that anyone who doesn't agree with your pov is a racist.

BTW, racism has killed more white French than any other ideology, lest we forget France was occupied by Nazi Germany, but then we need to realize a lot of French agreed with Nazis at least as far as the racism, hence so many Vichy French, who are still around and the main opposition.

Germany occupied France under the guise of nationalism, and imperialism. No different a reason for a thousand years of warfare in Europe. Not racism. If anything it was more about cultural(ism)... with a hefty desire for revenge over Versailles.

It's utterly bizarre the lengths people will go to apply racism to everything.

TomTomTim

francois wrote: »

textbook strawman

How is it a strawman? Many "anti racist" activists only feel comfortable attacking one race, the white race. It should go without saying that being racist devalues their supposed "anti racism".

wes

wes wrote: »

They are against anti-racism, so they are for racism? How can anyone have issues with anti-racism is beyond me.

Because anti-racism is a ploy to allow the application of reverse racism, and double standards.

Those who talk about anti-racist seek to elevate their chosen protected race above others. The pedestal of victimhood.

Yellow_Fern wrote:

Christian democrats are not always christian, feminism is not just about women as it is also concerns men, conservatives don't always want to conserve, sometimes they want to change laws.

Feminism is about women's rights. It's not a movement aimed at equality. It only concerns men, because they're "the enemy" within feminist literature, and as such, will be used as springboard to elevate women above men in society.

Its the same with all victim groups. There's always an enemy, who is responsible for repressing them. In the case of minorities in western nations, the enemy is White people.

Overheal

Imagine that, a victim being someone acted upon by a malicious third party. Who knew!

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Imagine that, a victim being someone acted upon by a malicious third party. Who knew!

Sure.. although these being victims based entirely on perceived association/sharing of being a victim, because of their race/religion/whatever. As opposed to individual circumstances.

WrenBoy

wes wrote: »

Being against Anti-racism, is imo no different then being against LGBT or Women's rights. If a group said we must stop Women's rights, or stop LGBT rights, how would expect people to take what they are saying? Clearly they would be against such rights.

If they have issues with specific groups, then they should name them. The fact they chose the term anti-racism and put it in the same space as Islamism tells me, we aren't dealing with the brightest bulbs, or more likely they are racist.

*EDIT*
To further expand my point, a lot of people don't like Tran Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs), and they explicitly name why they have an issue with them, to separate them from the wider feminist movement. The only conclusion I can come to, for people who are against Anti-racism is that they are racists and being remarkable straight forward about it as well.

Remember when in the US there was a panic because there were paper signs put up saying "it's ok to be white" and it was reported on the news as something shocking.... How come they didn't just take that at its face value like we should for these examples ?
Isn't it ok to be white after all, or is it that there is meaning behind terms and slogans etc ?

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sure.. although these being victims based entirely on perceived association/sharing of being a victim, because of their race/religion/whatever. As opposed to individual circumstances.

Oh, so like the ‘victims’ offended by the intake of refugees? Going on about perceived victimhood of their “culture” whatever as opposed to their individual circumstances?

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Oh, so like the ‘victims’ offended by the intake of refugees? Going on about perceived victimhood of their “culture” whatever as opposed to their individual circumstances?

Why is culture in inverted commas there? French culture actually exists. Sovereign nations have a right to control their borders and a duty to maintain their own way of living.

Remember the generals are attacking American influence too. Which is a good thing.

Yellow_Fern

wes wrote: »

Being against Anti-racism, is imo no different then being against LGBT or Women's rights. If a group said we must stop Women's rights, or stop LGBT rights, how would expect people to take what they are saying? Clearly they would be against such rights.

If they have issues with specific groups, then they should name them. The fact they chose the term anti-racism and put it in the same space as Islamism tells me, we aren't dealing with the brightest bulbs, or more likely they are racist.

*EDIT*
To further expand my point, a lot of people don't like Tran Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs), and they explicitly name why they have an issue with them, to separate them from the wider feminist movement. The only conclusion I can come to, for people who are against Anti-racism is that they are racists and being remarkable straight forward about it as well.

Not identifying as feminist is not the same as being anti feminist. Being anti third wave feminism is not the same as being anti second wave feminism. The english language is plenty flexible enough to allow everyone's stances to be defined in their own terms. Making it 'if you are not with us, you are against us' is unnecessary.

Overheal

fvp4 wrote: »

Why is culture in inverted commas there?

For emphasis. Folks in that category often are quoted as going on and on about the culture being under attack.

WrenBoy

Im not a close follower of French politics. Is Le Pen close enough to have recent events push her ahead in votes, if the election was held this year instead of the next?

Dyr

wes wrote: »

They are against anti-racism, so they are for racism? How can anyone have issues with anti-racism is beyond me.

anti racism is just racism in a new hat

Chips Lovell

Bambi wrote: »

anti racism is just racism in a new hat

We're well and truly through the looking glass now folks

Dyr

Chips Lovell wrote: »

We're well and truly through the looking glass now folks

Thats what happens when people come up with terminology to create a Motte and Bailey argument


"does not merely mean “against racism,” as one might assume of the term, is absolutely standard in Social Justice. In fact, it reflects the core tenet of critical race Theory that racism is ordinary and pervades everything. "


https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-antiracism/

gw80

wes wrote: »

Being against Anti-racism, is imo no different then being against LGBT or Women's rights. If a group said we must stop Women's rights, or stop LGBT rights, how would expect people to take what they are saying? Clearly they would be against such rights.

If they have issues with specific groups, then they should name them. The fact they chose the term anti-racism and put it in the same space as Islamism tells me, we aren't dealing with the brightest bulbs, or more likely they are racist.

*EDIT*
To further expand my point, a lot of people don't like Tran Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs), and they explicitly name why they have an issue with them, to separate them from the wider feminist movement. The only conclusion I can come to, for people who are against Anti-racism is that they are racists and being remarkable straight forward about it as well.

If a woman's rights group claimed in their manifesto that "all men should die" buy you're logic you would still support them because they have the words "womens rights "in their name,

Chips Lovell

Bambi wrote: »

"does not merely mean “against racism,” as one might assume of the term, is absolutely standard in Social Justice. In fact, it reflects the core tenet of critical race Theory that racism is ordinary and pervades everything. "

Critical race theory? You're assuming that everyone who considers themselves antiracist is a proponent of of critical race theory or has even heard of it. I think the formulation you're looking for is: "Some anti-racists may be racists themselves".

jmayo

AmyMurphy22 wrote: »

French army were pussies. The generals who signed the letter probably are too - waited until they retired to avoid any actual fighting. If there's a French civil war, it'll be a race to see who can surrender first.

Ahh FFS.
Someone that watched and listened to a few yanks or Brits sound off and think they know it all.
Our education system stinks and they wanted to remove history from the curriculum. :rolleyes:

Stihl waters wrote: »

Coupled with the fact that they had the second highest human loss after Russia in ww1, total devastation of every town and village in France caused primarily by German forces and the fact that every country in Europe descended on france to hash out their differences, theres a village in the south of France where every man that went to fight died in battle, not 1 man returned, and you're telling me that it was a weak government, there was no appetite for another war where a generation of men were wiped out defending Europe from the Germans

For anyone that has wandered around France and not just the tourist places, but the small villages in middle of nowhere the amount of memorials that were built to the dead of WW1 is astounding.
Of course over the years they added WW2, Indochina, Algeria, etc, but the numbers of WW1 dead are the real big ones.

KeepItLight wrote: »

probably from the same cohort that quotes Dunkirk as if it was a victory

Knock it all you want, but actually it was a huge achievement.
They got hundreds of thousands of men basically off the beaches and got to live to fight another day.
Now one can argue that the Germans put the brakes on, but the British showed huge courage in going for it with normal people risking their lives to get close to shore to pick up men.

And even the most ardent shinner should be somewhat grateful that the Brits did live to fight another day, because the alternatives of the Germans would have been far far worse.
Anyone that thinks hitler would somehow adopt us is deluded in the extreme, we would be seen as at best slave labour like the Slavs.

grassylawn wrote: »

The Germans used wireless communications. They had faster though weaker tanks. The crews were larger and had dedicated roles. Squads were expected to use their initiative. They pursued a fast-moving aggressive and highly risky strategy, grasping at any chance of a decisive victory in a fight they thought would be very tough. Their tank units were able to move beyond infantry. They were well-trained and experienced with mobile tactics. They also had air superiority.

The Allies still used phones and couriers to communicate with each other. They were trained in static formations rather than mobile warfare. Soldiers were expected to wait until receiving instructions from the top, and not use their own initiative. Their use of tanks was restricted to supporting infantry.

All in all, the Germans were dynamic, fast and used an exceptionally aggressive strategy. he allies were static and slow.

- Summarised from reading about it in wikipedia

You forgot one very important ingredient.
The Germans were as high as kites on methamphetamine.
Pervitin was widely available and given by the tonnes to soldiers, pilots, etc.
It was even worked into chocolate bars.

Tanks crews were going days without sleep.

So really Blitzkrieg was really fueled by good old drugs.

Anyway Vive la France.
Pardon Vive l'Armée Francaise
Vive les trois armées.