Stop Them. Now. ♠ Stoppez Les. Maintenant. |

Article content

Article copy

I sincerely hope that somebody, somewhere is watching them and is ready to take action:

(Original declaration in French.)
Plenary sessions, verbatim report of proceedings/Debates:

Debates of the European Parliament

SITTING OF WEDNESDAY, 16 MAY 2001

Situation in the Middle East

Coûteaux (EDD). (FR) Madam President, the most surprising thing about our debate is our surprise, for Israel's expansionist policy is the inevitable and predictable result of the growing imbalance in the region, the stability for which we bear much of the responsibility. Firstly that is because since 1967 most of our states, with the notable exception of France, have continued to give the State of Israel ֖ a state that is growing increasingly self-assured and domineering the impression that it can violate international law and UN resolutions with impunity.

In reality, here as elsewhere we have followed Washington and persist in closing our eyes to the theocratic excesses of this religious state whose governments are under the thumb of fanatical parties and minorities that are just as bad as the other groups of religious fanatics in the region. That is why we should envisage imposing sanctions on Israel.

There is, however, another serious imbalance for which we are in part responsible, namely the imbalance of forces. I have no hesitation in saying that we must consider giving the Arab side a large enough force, including a large enough nuclear force, to persuade Israel that it cannot simply do whatever it wants. That is the policy my country (DF: i.e. France) pursued in the 1970s when it gave Iraq a nuclear force. We have now destroyed it. So we will carry on with our policy of imbalance and what is happening today is merely the annoying but inevitable result of our collective blindness and cowardice.

No matter the "we", I'll set aside the fact that this degenerate EUrocrat is openly deploring that Saddam Hussein's regime was destroyed. He can only cry a river and wet his diapers out of frustration here, thank to the Coalition.

Yet the worse is of course that he is advocating "balancing" the force by handing in nuclear weapons (again) to the remaining tyrants in the Middle East.

He is advocating that idea today, [UPDATE: Well, not really, or at least, not as voicely. See the update #2 at the end of this post. Yeah, yeah, bad Frogman] in the current wartime context, while we know exactly what Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia are up to. And while we're closing to the 60th anniversary of D-Day... and the third of 9/11.

If that doesn't make him a declared enemy of the free world, I wonder what will.

Besides, he is doing it in a public debate at the European Parliament, no less. He's a French "sovereignist", which is to say a right wing Socialist, however you should make no mistake: if most of the others, whatever their side, may not be at the point where they would say that as clearly - not yet -, you'll be hard pressed to hear them disagree anyway. He is simply expressing what they more or less secretly think, hope or even work to.

France, her "sovereignists" and just about all her different kind of Socialists is at war too. Against America and the ideals she stands for.

What is America waiting for to fight back?

(Thank to E.B. for the information)

UPDATE:

That bloke has a website.

UPDATE II

All right: too much work, not enough wine (or could it be the opposite?) and I simply missed it:

First, my remark about the timing of the sovereignist sordidness is wrong indeed, as some more alert commentators noticed. The transcript is pre-9/11, not post. Yet does it make less sense? I'm afraid I don't think so.

For more recent "material", visit his website where you will find other transcripts of his intervention at the European Parliament (and enjoy his rhetoric, notably on Iraq, in the line of "the goal is to massively destroy Iraq to achieve the ideological industrial meccano of the little gang of wallet holding zealots that reign in Washington"). I couldn't find any "let's give 'em nukes again", but many that would really be over the top in our day and age - which is actually the reason why I've been so outraged when I received the link.

Profuse apologies, I'll have more wine next time.

Having said that:

BJL from Revue Politique writes to tell me that they are the busy bees who found the information on the European Parliament site and wrote an extensive article on the inspired right wing socialist, on May the 19 (yeah, this year): "When villiéristes want nuclear weapons for the Arab countries" ("villiéristes" being one of the flavor of the sovereignist's... let's "gang" shall we? You know, the Grandeur de la France® and all that). Many thanks to Revue Politique for that.

Somebody asked if, considering that this declaration was indeed preceding 9/11, the position of this Equitable European MP could have changed. Revue Politique thinks that it's very unlikely, and I'm inclined to agree with them:

Not only is there no reason to believe that September 11 changed anything, but looking at the slip in the French political debate, it is certain that this kind of stance came out bolstered by the rampant anti-Zionism and ant-Americanism

So there you go. Make up your own mind, at the light of, say, France's fervid activity in the Iraqi crisis.

UPDATE III:

Okay, I'm way behind the curve on this one: Merde in France had the Sinister Sovereignists exposed a few days ago. From a different source though.

UPDATE IV:

In the comments, Harald remarks:

Now, what really scares me is that there were enough morons in the electoral districts to elect such a bloke

Indeed, contrarily to the members of the European Commission, the members of the Parliament are elected.
Having said that, and when it comes to that EUropean monstrosity, I can't make any distinction between co-opted autocrats and mediocrats elected by abstention, really.

Yet the real question now is: will the sinister Coûteaux run again in the upcoming 13 June elections? And in the affirmative, will he be reelected despite - or thank to - his genocidal proposals?

UPDATE V:

He is running for the elections. See the next post.

Article copy (alternate language)

J'espère sincèrement que quelqu'un, quelque part est en train de les surveiller tout en étant prêt à passer à l'action :

Séances plénières, Compte rendu in extenso des séances/Débats :

Débats du Parlement européen

SÉANCE DU MERCREDI 16 MAI 2001

Situation au Moyen-Orient

Coûteaux (EDD). - Madame la Présidente, le plus étonnant dans notre débat, c'est notre étonnement, car la politique expansionniste d'Israël est le résultat inévitable et prévisible du déséquilibre croissant dans la région, équilibre dans lequel nous portons une très grande part de responsabilité. D'abord parce que la plupart de nos États - à l'exception notable de la France -n'ont pas cessé, depuis 1967, de donner l'impression à l'État d'Israël - un État de plus en plus sûr de lui et dominateur - qu'il pouvait impunément violer la loi internationale et les résolutions de l'ONU.

En réalité, nous avons suivi, là comme ailleurs, Washington et nous persistons à fermer les yeux sur la dérive théocratique de cet état religieux dont les gouvernements se trouvent placés sous la coupe de partis et de minorités fanatiques qui n'ont rien à envier aux autres fanatismes religieux de la région. Pour ces raisons, nous devrions envisager des sanctions à l'encontre d'Israël.

Mais il y a un autre déséquilibre grave où notre responsabilité est engagée, c'est le déséquilibre des forces. Il faut que nous envisagions - je n'hésite pas à le dire - à doter la partie arabe d'une force suffisante, y compris d'une force nucléaire suffisante, pour qu'Israël ne se croit pas tout permis. C'était la politique qu'avait engagée mon pays (DF : c.a.d. la France) dans les années 70 en dotant l'Irak de l'arme nucléaire. Nous l'avons détruite. Nous allons donc persister dans notre politique de déséquilibre et ce qui arrive aujourd'hui n'est que le résultat fâcheux, mais inévitable, de notre aveuglement et de notre lâcheté collective.

Qu'importe le "nous", je laisserai de côté le fait que cet EUrocrate dégénéré déplore ouvertement la destruction du régime de Saddam Hussein. Il ne peut que pleurer sa mère et mouiller ses couches de frustration sur ce point, grâce à la Coalition.

Cependant, le pire est qu'il défend "l'équilibre" des forces en fournissant (à nouveau) des armes nucléaires au reste des tyrans du Moyen Orient.

Il défend cette idée aujourd'hui [MISE A JOUR: Eh bien, pas vraiment en fait, en tout cas, pas à voix aussi haute. Voyez la mise à jour n°2 à la fin de ce post. Ouais, ouais, vilain Frogman] dans le contexte de guerre actuel, alors que nous savons exactement ce qu'il en est de la Syrie, de l'Iran ou de l'Arabie Saoudite. Alors que nous approchons du 60eme anniversaire du Jour-J... et du troisième du 11 Septembre.

Si cela n'en fait pas un ennemi déclaré du monde libre, j'ai peine à concevoir ce qu'il y faudrait.

De plus, il s'y livre au sein d'un débat public au Parlement Européen, pas moins. C'est un "souverainiste" français, en d'autres termes un socialiste de droite, mais vous ne devriez cependant pas vous y tromper : si la plupart des autres, quel que soit leur camp, n'en sont peut être pas - encore - au point de faire ce genre de proposition aussi ouvertement, vous seriez bien en peine de les entendre différer quoi qu'il en soit. Il exprime simplement ce qu'ils pensent, souhaitent ou même mettent en oeuvre, plus ou moins secrètement.

La France, ses "souverainistes" et toute la gamme de ses socialistes est en guerre elle aussi. Contre l'Amérique et les idéaux qu'elle représente.

Qu'attends l'Amérique pour riposter ?

(Merci à E.B. pour l'info)

MISE A JOUR :

Ce type a un site web.

MISE A JOUR II :

D'accord: trop de travail, pas assez de vin (ou l'inverse ?) et je l'ai tout simplement manqué :

Tout d'abord, ma remarque sur le timing de la sordidité souverainiste est incorrecte en effet, ainsi que de plus alertes commentateurs l'ont remarqué. La transcription est antérieure au 11 Septembre et non pas postérieure. Cela est il pourtant moins pertinent ? J'ai bien peur que non.

Pour de plus récents "matériaux", visitez son site web où vous trouverez d'autres transcriptions de ses interventions au Parlement Européen (et où vous apprécierez sa rhétorique, notablement sur l'Irak, dans la ligne de "le but poursuivi est de détruire massivement l'Irak pour satisfaire au meccano idéologico-industriel de la petite bande d'illuminés à portefeuille qui règnent à Washington."). Je n'ai pas trouvé mention de "refilons leur encore du nucléaire", mais peut être cela serait il vraiment trop dans le contexte actuel - raison de mon outrage lorsque j'ai reçu le lien.

Profondes excuses, je me servirai plus de vin la prochaine fois.

Cela dit:

BJL de Revue Politique écrit pour m'informer qu'ils sont les vaillants chercheurs derrière l'exhumation de cette transcription sur le site du Parlement Européen et qu'ils ont écrit un long article sur le socialiste de droite inspiré, le 19 mai (ouais, de cette année): "Quand des villiéristes veulent l'arme nucléaire pour les pays arabes" (Les "villiéristes" étant l'un des parfums du... disons, "gang" des souverainistes. Vous savez, la Grandeur de la France® et tout). Tous mes remerciements à Revue Politique pour cela.

Quelqu'un s'interrogeait sur la possibilité que, considérant que cette déclaration a précédé le 11 Septembre, la position de cet Equitable MP Européen ait pu changer. Revue Politique pense que c'est peu probable, et je suis incliné à partager ce point de vue :

Il n'ait non seulement aucune raison que le 11 septembre y ait changé quelque chose, mais au vue même du glissement du débat politique en France, il est certain que ce genre de positionnement s'est trouvé renforcé par l'antisionisme et l'anti-américanisme ambiant.

Et voilà. Faites vous votre propre idée, à la lumière de, disons, l'activité fébrile de la France dans la crise irakienne.

MISE A JOUR III :

Ok, je suis loin derrière sur ce coup là: Merde in France a exposé le Sinistre Souverainiste il y a quelques jours déjà. Avec une source différente cela dit.

MISE A JOUR IV:

Dans les commentaires, Harald remarque:

ce qui me fiche vraiment la trouille, c'est qu'il y ait, dans des circonscriptions électorales, assez de neuneus pour voter pour des types pareils.

Effectivement, contrairement à la Commission, les membres du Parlement européen sont élus. Cela dit, en ce qui concerne cette monstruosité EUropéenne, entre autocrates cooptés et médiocrates élus à l'abstention, je ne saurais franchement faire de distinction.

La question maintenant est: le sinistre Coûteaux est il sur les rangs pour les élections du 13 juin prochain. Et dans l'affirmative, sera-t-il réélu, en dépit de - ou grâce à - ses propos génocidaires ?

MISE A JOUR V :

Il se présente aux élections. Voyez le post suivant

Other

About

the dissident frogman

I own, built and run this place. In a previous life I was not French but sadly, I died.

Contact

Random (somewhat) related entries

Comments

Comments thread (41)

1422 - Papertiger

Papertiger
- Link

You realise these are fighting words, right? Lets be very clear about this. If he is a lone nutter from some predominately ultra-lib district, who is re elected sans opposition due to demographics, we can over look it . After all Nancy Pelosi is the speaker of the house. From all appearances we have to conclude that this wasn't a concern at the time of utterance. Maybe we need more context. A transcript of the minutes of the meeting and the other ministers responces? DF, You might want to take that trip you have been thinking about. Not just yet, but I would keep the bags packed.

1423 - Maryse

Maryse
- Link

Cela fait froid dans le dos !

1424 - Frank Warner

Frank Warner
- Link

Why is anyone surprised that someone would support giving nuclear weapons to a dictator? There are imbecils who still believe that giving nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union was a good thing, "balancing" power between the United States and another comparable "pole." The trouble is, because the Soviet pole was trying to establish permanent police states in its totalitarian image all over the world, its possession of nuclear weapons effectively stymied, for four decades, America's 20th-Century push for global freedom and democracy. To counter the Soviet pathology, the United States itself had to make temporary deals with autocratic dictatorships. However, since the Soviet Union collapsed, the United States has been able to press on for democracy. Every nation in the Western Hemisphere, except Cuba, has held elections (yes, some were freer than others), with U.S. support. And even in Iraq, where the Soviet threat once suffocated democratic aspirations, liberation finally is possible. The point is this: For freedom, the worst thiing in the world is dictatorships with nuclear weapons. Free nations have an obligation to help the oppressed, but they cannot be expected to commit suicide to liberate an imprisoned nation. Nuclear dictatorships are especially dangerous because of their secret decision-making, their unpredictability, and the lack of accountability of dictators to the press, to opposition political parties, to courts or to voters. Russia today has about the same number of nuclear weapons that it had before the Soviet Union died, but because Russia has established rudimentary democratic institutions, its decision-making is open just enough to remove the unpredictability that made the Soviet Union so dangerous. (Let's urge the Russians to make their democracy even stronger.) Openness and accountability are the reasons that no two democracies went to war with each other in the entire 20th Century. Secrecy and unaccountability are the reasons that dictators killed more of their own people in those 100 years than all the world's wars combined. That record is proof that democracies must replace every dictatorship in the Middle East. We should not be making dictators more powerful. We should be helping the people in every dictatorship to claim their human right to democratic power. When the Middle East is free, it finally will see peace. Frank Warner

1425 - the dissident frogman

the dissident frogman France
- Link

Paul: "right wing Socialist" That sounds like "fascist" to me. How accurate is that perception? Very accurate indeed. I could be nitpicking as to define fascism strictly as right-wing, but that's a minor issue really. The "sovereignists" are a part of the larger nationalist swamp, among which you'll find for instance, Mr Le Pen. They are not lepenists, at least not technically, but they do share a great deal of views with them. Troy: Can anyone tell me how important this guy is? Is he in the ruling party? (…) Not exactly. Well… no, not really, even though they are closer to Chirac's ruling party than, say, the Green. To put it very briefly, Chirac's party is a spawn of Gaullism, that emanated from de Gaulle, while the "sovereignists" are the kind of blokes that don't really believe de Gaulle is dead (as well as Napoleon and Jehan of Arc actually). As to know if Mr. Chirac had anything to say about that, well, I can't tell really. But then, bear in mind what this guy recalls: " That is the policy my country pursued in the 1970s when it gave Iraq a nuclear force. ", and that is to say… Mr Chirac precisely, who was France's Prime Minister at the time (I imagine everybody saw that picture of young Chirac and Hussein having fun in white casaque). Papertiger: I agree that more contexts could be interesting (mind you: the bloke is an MP, not a minister) but then, the simple idea that elected members of the European Parliament can even think about such policy is way off limits. This is, to put it bluntly, an open call for genocide. As for the trip, I can tell you that I'm closer to it than I've never been so far. I still have a long way to America, but I should be definitely and permanently entering the Anglosphere (at least) pretty soon. That's a start, and I'm so sick with France that I just can't stand it anymore, anyway. Frank: Thanks for that extensive comment. Take a seat, be my guest in the dacha. And welcome to my blogroll.

1426 - Victor Bueno

Victor Bueno
- Link

"I have no hesitation in saying that we must consider giving the Arab side a large enough force, including a large enough nuclear force, to persuade Israel that it cannot..." That's really scary. Sounds like a stupid dumbass paying for his own death. Thanks for the bullet, here's the tip, mr.Ossama. It's really ashaming to read how our takes are used. paying those Eurocrappers his bullshit. Before i used to think France was the only one country stupid enough to act this way, after the elections in my country i realized i was wrong. Yes, i'm from Surrenderstan.

1427 - Chris Edwards

Chris Edwards
- Link

I have just returned to the UK after a week in Normandie, the majority of the population seem to have a real sense of gratitude for the sacrifices of D Day, intrestingly the Germans have 40 thousand buerried there, america 30 thou, England 20 thou and French civillian losses 20 thou and French army seventeen (not thousand just seventeen!) I think the French are great, but we need to remember that France is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship, it adds up if you look at it like that.

1428 - the dissident frogman

the dissident frogman France
- Link

we need to remember that France is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship Technically no, and practically... Well, sort of indeed. I believe that we should use such terms (dictatorship) carefully - France is not Cuba to that respect - but I certainly understand what you mean. I would agree that there is a de facto ruling class that gets going almost for life, with a few polls in between that happen to be nothing but a simulacrum of people's choice. Face it, most if not all, of the mainstream French politicians have been running the show for the last 10, 20 or even 30 years, which is one of the reasons why they're so utterly corrupted: it's just too easy to help yourself (and "friends") in that context. And I won't mention nepotism as a general rule. Besides, electoral regulations protect the said nomenklatura by making it outstandingly difficult for any new alternative to arise with any significant chance in the ballots. I'm not even sure they was more than a couple of genuinely new alternatives able to balance the corrupted old order in that country for the last 60 years - the endless row of mix-ups, splits and (re)united fronts of all kind doesn't count of course. It's just there to help the money laundring.

1429 - Harald

Harald
- Link

Ce qui est inquiétant en premier lieu, c'est que notre système de santé que la terre entière nous envie n'ait pas détecté ce dangereux malade pour l'interner dans un asile. Maintenant ce qui me fiche vraiment la trouille, c'est qu'il y ait, dans des circonscriptions électorales, assez de neuneus pour voter pour des types pareils. La France est vraiment un pays foutu.

1430 - isa

isa
- Link

France , véritable "état voyou " ...!

1431 - Evan

Evan
- Link

By the time my kids are my age, there will be a French President named Mohammed

Add a comment

the dissident frogman