I dunno. It's early in the morning and all, but I keep reading over this story and it keeps saying the same thing. Could the London bombings have awakened Jacques Chirac? Or does he find it expedient to appear as if that were so? Or is it something he ate?
"Chirac: Iran's nuclear plan may lead to sanctions," from Haaretz, with thanks to Sr. Soph:
French President Jacques Chirac has told Haaretz that if European negotiations with Iran fail to eliminate the threat of nuclear proliferation, then the issue will have to be moved to the UN Security Council.Chirac's statements regarding the possibility of imposing sanctions on Iran, which, according to observers, is the first time he has taken such a firm position in the matter, came in an interview with Haaretz on the eve of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's state visit to France Wednesday....
And that's not all:
The French president, meanwhile, spoke highly of Sharon and Israel, in preparation of the premier's upcoming visit to Paris."I wish to convey my profound admiration and friendship I feel toward the State of Israel and the Israeli people - a great people of tradition and culture, which is looking to the future," Chirac said.
"In welcoming Prime Minister Sharon to Paris, France is sending its friend, Israel, a message of trust: A profound belief that peace is possible, a desire to contribute to the peace, an aspiration to be Israel's top-ranked partner politically, economically, and culturally, in keeping with the depth of the ties uniting our peoples and in accordance with the lofty mission assigned to both peoples because of their common heritage."
Officials in Jerusalem were highly gratified by Chirac's warm and unusual statements. A Prime Minister's Bureau source said that "Sharon intends to respond to Chirac in kind," and that the visit - Sharon's first state visit to Paris since 2001 - is expected to be "a visit of agreement" that will reflect the substantial warming of bilateral relations over the past two years.
And even that is not all:
In the same vein, Chirac said that "mothing can justify terror... We understand well [Israel's contention with Palestinian terrorism], and we have always condemned the acts of terror of which Israelis are the victims." Asked specifically about Israel's "targeted assassinations" in the territories, Chirac opted to avoid addressing the question and not to repeat previous condemnations.Chirac also took a categorical and surprising stance against Hamas in the interview. "Hamas is a terrorist organization that cannot be an interlocutor of the international community, as long as it does not renounce violence and does not recognize Israel's right to exist. This is the unambiguous position of the EU and it will not change."
But alas, poised on the brink of the abyss, Jacques drew back:
However, like British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Chirac believes that when it comes to terrorism, "We must deal with all the factors that nourish the hatred and the frustrations: the unresolved conflicts, the religious intolerance, the rejection of the other, and the economic instability."
The jihad ideology? Mais non!
Could it be? One of Islam's most 'useful idiots' and best 'friends with benefits' dhimmi is awakening to the fact that he has been had by the taqiyyamasters? Me thinks some of these political readers are reading Eurabia and they don't like it one bit. The elites brought this plague onto Western civilization, and now we must suffer greatly to correct.
"...in keeping with the depth of the ties uniting our peoples and in accordance with the lofty mission assigned to both peoples because of their common heritage."
From Chirac? LOL!
Although most commendable. Way to go. Whatever he has been drinking, give him another!
Chirac`s going to die soon, and he bequeaths this to Faris:
Mohammad Jamal al Din catches a bus after the prayer. There is no place to sit inside of the bus, most of the riders are standing inside or sitting on top of the bus. Mohammad also climbs the ladder and finds a place on the roof. In this year of 2090, City of Faris is overcrowded and inefficient government has done nothing for the citizens. Faris is an Arabic word, meaning horseman or a knight. Twenty years ago, at the beginning of Islamic movement, suicide bombers used to ride horses and blow themselves up in the middle of the crowd. To honor those brave souls, it was decided that the name of this city would be changed to Faris. This also helps the Arabs, the new masters of the country to pronounce it. They do not have "P" in their alphabet. 1400 years earlier, they changed Parsi into Farsi when they invaded and subdued Iran.
At the beginning of this century, this country had a population of about 60 million of which 10% or 6 million were Muslims, far more than 2% of protestant and 1% of Jews. Although 83% of population were Roman Catholic, their birthrate was awfully low, merely .35% compared to 3% of Muslims. At the end of 2070, Muslims from all over the country moved to five Northwest regions. Soon high birthrates and the flood of Muslim immigrant outnumbered others.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/SherKhan40829.htm
As Ariel Sharon likes to say, "Deeds, not words." I'm very skeptical of the notion that Jacques Chirac has undergone a sudden conversion. This seems to me like a politician telling his audience what it wants to hear.
Iran has in place a massive energy contract with China. That is their ace-in-the-hole for when they have full nuke potential. That is the their flow of cash and bear in mind that fundamentalist regimes don't need to spend money on social services and education - they don't need to sustain regulatory agencies and infrastrucuture in remote areas. So when they have full nuke capability and China on their side, they can disavow any sale of nuke material to terrorists to use in the form of suitcase nukes against America and Israel. It is that simple and Chirac may well get a suitcase nuke too for banning headscarves and other such religious accouterments in French schools.
The other piece of news I have is Parliment in England is considering mandatory therapy for all non-muslims, least people develop suspicions about muslims and ostracize them and blame them for the rowdiness and indiscretions of a few youth that played with explosives. Boys will be boys you know, even muslim boys.
Perhaps something profound is happening, perhaps our leaders have been broken out of the complacency that being nice and reasonable is going to make a difference to Islamics.
Perhaps they have seen that there is more to it then they thought, perhaps they have tried to understand it having not bothered before, perhaps they now see that the problem is much worse than they thought and likely to get worse, perhaps now they will start to unravel the mess their policies have created, if I who was a mtuli-culturist can see the light when it comes to Islam, perhaps our leaders have, perhaps Chirac listened to Howards speach, I don't know but at last we have some movement, long may it last, we are in a war against Islam, Ali Sina is the way to go and if that does not work, well we all know what is next.
There is something about Chirac at times, he is a passionate man, remember the war veteran taken back to Paris in Chirac's jet after the D-day celebrations he had missed his coach, and he adopted a Vietemnese woman, I respect those actions.
I am astounded!
Unimpressed.
Wait to see how he treats Israel after Sharon has played his last concession card.
Forked tongues.
Chirac channeling Charles (the Hammer) Martel? I'm gobsmacked. They finally are begining to see that the poision policies of the EAD, and the resulting antisemitism from mostly their millions of Moslems (but elites as well) has a good chance of killing France.
Num 24:9 He lay down, he rested as a lion, and as a young lion; who shall stir him up? they that bless thee are blessed, and they that curse thee are cursed.
"And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee." (Genesis 12:2)
France is getting what it deserves.
We may have to change his name to :
Jacques Charcuterie!
Of course, the French are getting roasted by their own loonily lax immigration policies, as are the Brits.
The U.S. has more room to absorb its untracked infil-traitors, but this Fifth Column will show itself explosively again.
As the federal politicians dither over meaningless flapdoodle like 'who really leaked the name of a minor CIA agent?' and the current Supreme Court 'beauty contest', the nation's borders remain as porous as a Congressman's conscience.
The most chilling aspect of the penetration across the southern 'non-border' is brought to light in author Paul L. Williams' book "Osama's Revenge, the Next 9/11", wherein he describes the possibility of a multi-U.S. city Hiroshima-level a-bomb strike, using black market soviet ordnance (battlefield artillary warheads and 'suitcase' nukes) .
If it such an armageddon should ever come to pass (7 cities vaporized), every surviving current Washington politician should be rounded up, forced into orange overalls, shackled together, and made to personally excavate the remains of the de facto victims of these airheaded beltway p.c. pimps. (Sending them to work deep inside the gamma ray zones until they succumb to radiological poisoning themselves... as the only answer to their current incredible indifference to the apocalyptic threat).
And all suspect in-country Muslim invited to take a one-way trip to Mecca (or what's left of it).
Jacques Chirac is a back stabber. Jacques Chirac is a skunk. I don't trust him worth a damn. Watch what he does with Israel, not what he says. If he can do a few positive things in the Middle East that's great. But no one should believe he finally grew a conscience and some ethics. The Eurabian French have been sucking up to Arabs and their oil for decades and that ain't gonna change.
The Muslims have said time and again that to lie to a kaffir for Islam is on the books.
Maybe Chirac has already converted?
Well Dennis and Big Sleep:
Give him some credit for getting rid of headscarves in Schools!
Fine, he is nobodys favorite a*#hole but this is something he had the balls to do and our countries haven't done that yet.
I must admit: My grandfather was a Frenchman from Paris, but that's where my sympathy for Chirac ends.
On the other hand, when I read your post again, Dennis, when I think about this preposterous frog experimenting with nukes in the Pacific and blowing up the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland.....
No. No credit to this piece of s*#t.
But then again...
OK: Give him the benefit of the doubt....
Well Dennis and Big Sleep:
Give him some credit for getting rid of headscarves in Schools!
Fine, he is nobodys favorite a*#hole but this is something he had the balls to do and our countries haven't done that yet.
I must admit: My grandfather was a Frenchman from Paris, but that's where my sympathy for Chirac ends.
On the other hand, when I read your post again, Dennis, when I think about this preposterous frog experimenting with nukes in the Pacific and blowing up the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland.....
No. No credit to this piece of s*#t.
But then again...
OK: Give him the benefit of the doubt....
More interesting than the comments of Jacques Chirac, who cannot be trusted, and whose remarks, while welcome, fall far short of what Europeans need now to realize -- the relentless Jihad against Israel, as an Infidel state, though it has been recently diguised using the language of "occupation" and "legitimate rights" of the "Palestinian" people, and so on, is exactly what the European nation-states are facing, not directly on the battlefield, but through terror, the money weapon, Da'wa, and above all demographic conquest. Israel's disastrous withdrawal not from Gaza (everyone appears to forget that the Israelis have essentially been out of Gaza, out of the areas where the Arabs live, for years) but from those Jewish villages that are legal (according to the Palestine Mandate of the League of Nations), historical and morally justified (as bestriding the classic invasion routes from the south), and will, it appears, hearten not only the primitive chorus of screaming "Palestinians" world-wide, but all Jihadis everywhere. Anything that anywhere can plausibly be presented as a "victory" for Islam will hearten Muslims everywhere, in their own local manifestations of Jihad. The Israeli pull-back or retreat in Gaza, undertaken by an obstinate man, supported by a war-weary, exhausted, self-deluding Israeli public that is instructed by a sinister media that depicts those opposed to withdrawal as gun-toting "Bible-mad" fanatics when they are in fact among the most realistic of people, and their realism is supported by all the most far-seeing Israeli military and security analysts (e.g., Ephraim Halevy) and students of Islam (Raphael Israeli, Moshe Sharon, many others).
It is humanly understandable why Israelis, like Europeans, wish to deny what they are up against. It is too painful. It means that the enmity of Islam is forever -- and so it is. It means that instead of some "solution" (even that absurdity, the "two-state solution"), there is only a long-term standoff, and the hope, that possibly, forces within Islam will cause division, dissension, demoralization. Those forces exist. They can be played upon, as in Iraq -- if we leave quickly, rather than stay to work against our own long-term interest as Infidels.
Israel is in the midst of the Muslim Arab world. But those who ruled Israel for so long never understood, never thought they needed to understand, Islam. The so-called tough-minded realists knew that "the Arabs" were opposed to "the Jews." But if "the Jews" held firm, in the end "the Arabs" would recognize the permanence of Israel. That remains the hope of many Israelis today. But it is a forlorn hope.
For it is not the dislike of "Arabs" for "Jews" but of Muslim Arabs (with some sufficiently dhimmified islamochristian Arabs along for the self-serving and ethnic-pride ride) for a Jewish -- i.e. Infidel -- state. Such a state cannot be permitted, in the long run, to exist. Whatever it takes, it must go. And the Israelis, needed to overlook the Islamic basis of opposition to them. They were, after all, attempting to cultivate as allies a few Muslim states -- Iran under the Shah, pseudo-Kemalist and therefore impermanently "secular" Turkey. It would not do to tell the truth about Islam under such circumstances -- not while one was trying to have as allies two Muslim states that, for their own historical reasons, feared or despisted "the Arabs" as Turks and Iranians are quick to insist, to foreign Infidels, they do (and in this case, many are telling the truth).
But this failure of the Israelis to understand what they faced helped, in a way, to make Western Europeans less aware of what they would face if they let into their midst millions of Muslim immigrants. And that is exactly what happened -- a criminal negligence, a failure to study Islam, a willingness to believe the apologists for Islam. Toward the end of his life, in France, Charles Emmanuel Dufourcq, a man of the old school, who knew the history of Muslim Spain, and much else about Islam, worried about the Muslim immigration into France. He knew it would lead to no good. He was right.
Now some of those who pooh-poohed the whole thing are coming around. Just look at the case of Olivier Roy, who as recently as a few monhths ago was still spouting the party line about Islam, and who to this day does not admit that the war against Israel is a classic, unassuageable Jihad. Yet in today's New Duranty Times there he is, come si niente fosse, impudently telling us something like the truth -- that Iraq, "Palestine," Chechnya, and any number of so-called "reasons" for Muslim behavior are just excuses, for the real reason is Islam itself, the impulse to Jihad. He does not tell us, the New and Improved Oliver Roy, that for years he has been speaking and writing and advising quite otherwise, and only recently, only very slowly and reluctantly and still not quite getting it, has be begun to descry the truth through the mist that he, among thousands of other "experts" on Islam or on "terrorism," helped to create.
There are lots of these people running around. Some of them are now in the process of changing their tunes. We should not forget what they have said for so long. When someone at the Kennedy School (a nest of ninnies) begins to start to try to attempt to perhaps believe that maybe there is something about Islam itself, not confined to a "handful of believers" that helps explain Darfur (not a word on Islam from the ballyhooed much-publicized Darfur expert at the Kennedy School), and "Palestine" (while Michael Ignatieff, who has just delivered himself of his take on Iran for The New Duranty Times
Sunday Magazine, or Julia Kayyem, whose previous career at Boston Universit Law School gave not the slightest hint, nor has she subsequently, that she is a true "expert on terrorism" as she is now billed along with Jessica Stern, another one of those pluralizers of terrorism, who Karen-Armstrong like prefers never ever to single out Islam (the very title of her book "Terror in the Name of God" shows what direction she has taken). As, one by one, the Kayems and the Sterns and the Ignatieffs and the Olivier Roys find that, either they will lose the vaunted "experitese" they posseess -- the expertise that comes from reading the newspapers and travelling, and not much else -- unless they begin to account for the mounting evidence of what Islam teaches, and what Muslims act upon, or support, whether openly or secretly -- they should not be permitted to ignore the years of their misinformation.
And if that 33rd-Degree Idiot, Tom Friedman, shows signs of at long last understanding something about the Middle East -- you know, based on Islam (he may even have to read a book or two, and learn what the Hadith are all about -- can you believe it?), should we forgive or overlook his more than two decades of nonstop vulgar self-promotion and complete ignorance of that one subject he is supposed to know about, if he knows about anything - the Middle East.
Let us welcome their change of tone, when it comes. But let's not forget the idiocy of these people. Let's not let them pretend that was what they had been "saying all along."
----------------
dennisw wrote:
Jacques Chirac is a back stabber. Jacques Chirac is a skunk. I don't trust him worth a damn. Watch what he does with Israel, not what he says. If he can do a few positive things in the Middle East that's great. But no one should believe he finally grew a conscience and some ethics. The Eurabian French have been sucking up to Arabs and their oil for decades and that ain't gonna change.
----------------
Exactly.
Time will see if I am right.
Chirac tries a new approach to getting back to the EU. The EU was shut down by citizens concerned primarily with liberalism of immigration.
What better way to change that approach, then to "appear" to move away from the immigrants that are concerning your citizens, and to appear more conservative.
No...the French do not like Isreal. But, he will definatly appear conservative to the 60% that voted no. And it will appear as if he takes a more middle of the road stance. And I believe we will start seeing this from him in the future.
BUT....This will not be the true Chirac (as we know). When the time is ready, he will slaughter the innocents.
Frog Prince speak with forked tongue. Carefully watch its' hands to see what it does before investing anything in its' words to the Isreali press. De Villianpinhead made assurances to SoS Powell before the Iraqi war that turned out to be nothing more than Eurabian al taqiya.
"...in keeping with the depth of the ties uniting our peoples..." is not such a great benchmark from a man standing in the smoking rubble of synagogues burned by his islamo-pals. This could be the measure of his insincerity. One would hope to do much better. There is a reason Sharon recently invited french Jewry to find relief from their oppression in Isreal.
Interesting. Now a thread on "frogs."
Islam sucks, now Chirac is a frog. Oh, but noooooooo. This website has nothing to do with hate whatsoever.
The hypocricy is so dense that it can be sliced and served on toast with a gherkin.
Frontpage Magazine has had two articles on the toughness of the French towards Islamic Terror.The articles contrasted the softness of the Brits with the toughness of the French. These articles point out that ALL Mosques are monitored in France and that "clerics" are required to learn French and preach in French.Scumbag "clerics" who preach hate in France can be quickly deported from France. The articles also said the last place a Jihadi would want to be interrogated is in France.I remember seeing a terrorism expert on FOX a few years ago who said the French have a reputation for brutality. So much so that the US might not want to be associated with France and some of the terrible things they can do.
The articles also noted the French ban on hijabs. Muslims worldwide had their usual temper tantrums, took hostages in Iraq, threatened terrorism in France, yelled "Death to Chirac" at their usual demonstrations. Yet the French did not cave and the hijab ban stood.I predicted that Isreal would become Europe's best friend which each terrorist attack. Isreal will prove an invaluable ally in the coming years because of their intelligence capabilities and experience in fighting this enemy.