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)

1432 - Nightfly

Nightfly
- Link

Evan - if by "President" you mean in the Husseinian sense, then yes, you're probably running even money at this point. As for the comments being from May 2001 - eh. Subsequent events have proven that this "idea" is willfully suicidal. I worry a bit more about the Spanish capitulation and what may thus happen in my own country come October or November; I worry about MoveOn.org putting out "Nothing Accomplished" bumper stickers (as obvious a lie as one is likely to see in just two words) - and having people believe it; I worry about defeatists in the governments in the West surrendering a fight which is, all told, going remarkably well. MDF, nothing can replace your homeland, of course, but make yourself free of ours - you are welcome for as long as you please.

1433 - Rob

Rob
- Link

To those who suggest that because the remarks were made in 2001, they do not relfect M. Couteaux's current thinking, I suggest you look at his website. The remarks are listed there, suggesting he still endorses them. As someone else wrote, French perfidiousness knows no bounds. We really should have let the Germans keep France back in 1871.

1434 - Mike H.

Mike H.
- Link

Nightfly, Ditto. 'Nuf said.

1435 - Rolon Kelnius

Rolon Kelnius
- Link

Your correspondents reveal their own racist fascist tendencies when they talk about the desire to nuke the Palestinians. The hatred for Arabs fostered by the US media has obviously brainwashed all your common sense away. Israel and the US are the largest terrorists in the world today and are killing Arabs and occupying their lands, stealing their oil. Wake up and smell the coffee. The torture, rape and abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was not a few bad apples but is a deliberate criminal policy of the west. We the West are the terrorists. Not the french, not the Iraqi's and not the palestinians.

1436 - the dissident frogman

the dissident frogman France
- Link

Hmmm... Rolon my boy(?) any other day, I would simply have dismissed your preposterous clichés (we occupy, we steal oil, we this, we that, and some of us have big noses) -- considering how out of phase they are with that annoying thing that's called "Reality" -- and your sorry screed would already be part of the Great Oblivion, thank to my "delete" key, but I'm in a playful mood today and it's such a joy to see that you did your homework like a nice boy and can recite "Down with US imperialist!" without errors that I'm going to let it be here for others to enjoy. Good boy(?) Rolon. Now, I won't blame you for excluding France from the West - I'm pretty much inclined to believe the same - but then, I assume that you are part of "the West" (you wrote "We" didn't you?) and therefore I wonder where that self-hatred can possibly come from? No girlfriend lately? A boring job? Or worse, a job (Oh the horror)? Anyway, I guess the more important is: how are you going to cope with the fact that you are, self- allegedly, a larger deliberate brainwashed Western criminal terrorist racist fascist hater, killing, occupying, raping, abusing and stealing oil, while asleep and until you wake up and smell the coffee? What are you going to do about that Dude? I can suggest, say, a protest. Maybe you could design one of those big signs that people would carry. It could read: "Down with larger deliberate brainwashed Western criminal terrorist racist fascist hater, killing, occupying, raping, abusing and stealing oil, while asleep and until they wake up and smell the coffee!!" And then after that you'll have a die-in or something. Gonna be fun.

1437 - Nightfly

Nightfly
- Link

No sooner do I worry about self-loathers than one shows up, as if summoned. But thank you, Rolon - because your words are so absurd, they reassure me. No way I can worry while laughing so hard. I suspect you're inhaling something much stronger than coffee. Looking back now, I don't see a single person who said we ought to nuke Palestine. One guy wanted to add France to the list of countries to nuke IF - wait for it - "IF we are ever nuked." That's not really the same thing. If Saddam had nukes, would he have shown even 60 days of restraint? We've had The Bomb for sixty YEARS, and haven't used it since WW2. Your post is a fine example of that curious malady which inverts all character flaws - it is actually the PLO and its soulmates that are vicious and embittered, and who as official policy: 1. make no distinctions between civilian and military targets; 2. intentionally maximize collateral damage; 3. refuse to follow the conventions of war (wearing uniforms and such); 4. speak of their enemies as subhuman (pigs and dogs and such); 5. torture prisoners. It's all there on MEMRI.org for the reading, so by all means don't take my word for it. Meanwhile, we broke the Abu Ghraib story ourselves, not Ibn el-Woodward of Al Ghazeera. The Army was investigating these allegations two months before the public found out, and they've already started to stick folks in the pokey for it. And our media is far tougher on us than it is on Muslims or Arabs - remember that Reuters refused even to use the word "terrorists" in connection to the 19 hijackers.

1438 - Ded

Ded
- Link

France has no monopoly on idiots for politicians, simply read the news and you will find the inept, ideological bloodsuckers in every country. Although the quote is "old", the thoughts behind it are alive and well today as they were when first uttered. The world seems to have turned upside down. Europeans had no problems killing each other in the millions until after WWII. Now there seems to be resentment for countries like Israel and the U.S. who have tired of bleeding because their neighbors or ideological enemies insist on trying to eliminate them and their way of life. The U.S. has given aid and shed blood for almost every country in the world and Israel simply wants to exist, yet the howls for their demise come from those who would benefit the most from simpy discarding their status as "victims" and work to come into the 21st Century. The Palestinians have managed to make almost every nation in which they resided cast them out and they insist on continuing to live in poverty instead of ridding themselves of the idea of destroying the jews and instead educate their children while making true peace with the Israelis. Eventually, the rest of the world is going to decide that socialism and despotism are the true threats to peace and will no longer tolerate them. China and Russia will come to the point where ideology is trumped by the knowledge that cooperation will further their comforts they have become used to than by trying to take it by force which means that N. Korea will be forced to give up it's nuclear blackmail because China has too much to lose in supporting a lunatic that may cause their destruction by default. One can only pray that these things come to pass before some fool decides to martyr themself and in turn cause the nuclear holocaust we so feared in the last century!

1439 - Don M

Don M
- Link

Rolon: Israel and the US are not terrorists. We win, but no other nations so contrain themselves to fight by the agreed laws of war. Certainly France does not. Why do we win? Because we fight on the side of freedom, law, goodness and right, and hence we are able to find allies. France fights for its bureaucracy, and hence its most effective fighting unit consists of soldiers not from France (La Legion Etrangere). The Jews are fighting for survival, to stop fiends who would murder them all, and thinks that beginning with a few women and children is appropriate. Such people are terrorists. Israel did not steal land, but rather won it in a war started by the Arabs. The US continues to relinquish land whenever and wherever we conquer, as we did in 1944-1945. The land we have gained since then joined the US by vote. By comparison, France was evil in Morocco, odius in Algeria, and disgusting in the Ivory Coast.

1440 - Mr. James Simon

Mr. James Simon
- Link

For those who think that the Jews won their land honestly I can say that they have a hole in their head. The land was usurped or taken by stealth under the pretence that it was given to them by God. What a ridiculous idea!. If God wanted them to have this land they wouldn't have to go and kill people from the Helicopters against human beings unarmed. Why then God led the Jews go in circle for forty long years without telling them where they should be. Gaza was never a Jewish land from the beginning of the world's existence, and yet they claim that it is. Babylon was never a Jewish land. Isarael as we know it now was nothing more than a few tribes. Wake up people of the world the Jews wants it all exactly like the Muslims, by force helped by the damn Americans.

1441 - Rich L.

Rich L.
- Link

A Jewish homeland is all that the Israelis want, not conversion of the entire world like the extremist Muslims. Why Israel was created and how is rather between the extremes, in my take from the History section of the following site: http://www.israelipalestinianprocon.org/ . It is apparently very easy to become Islamic: all one has to say is that "I am a Muslim" to a witness. Once so identified, it becomes fatal, again in the Extremists' eyes, to fail that religious doctrine. Reading the Koran (in English, another blashphemy aparently) shows it regards compassion toward the less advantaged as one of the pillars, in giving alms to the poor. But criticize Islam, either from within or without, and it appears that Islam contains the ability to issue death threats that are grabbed up by a wide ranging population... see Salman Rushdie, for instance. Islam as a whole for years didn't SEEM to have a problem with Judaism. It's the Zionists and their imperative to have the land once occupied by their ancestors that clogs the throats of Islam, especially at the cost of their brethren in Palestine/Israel. Objectively looked at, on the site listed above, the creation of Israel wasn't so black and white, but was deemed by many to be called for in light of widespread anti-Semitism over the years. When Israel finally did become a reality, there were shops, businesses, families existing next to each other that were both Jewish and Muslim, and they existed in a sort of dark harmony, but not overall in conflict. But it has been the governments of the Arab countries all around Israel, and others in the MIddle East and North Africa, that have several times tried to extinguish Israel. Never mind that the Arabic peoples have themselves been at odds with each other for centuries, even before definitive nations evolved. It leads one to see it all as: We are a family (Arabic peoples), and can fight and insult each other, but anyone outside pays dearly for that act. Distantly related, in my view, to some Blacks in the U.S. calling each other N****r, but having that derogatory epithet spouted by someone not within that racial definition considered (rightly so) heinous. Islam already has a nuclear-capable entity: Pakistan. It is currently balanced, in no small part, by their neighbor and antipathetic power, India. And in Pakistan exists a great conundrum to the world that wants to see a democratic tide free numerous peoples: it is run by a military dictator. That he has worked with the forces attempting to quell the extremes of Islam in that corner of the world, has been friendly toward the U.S. and allies in a war on terror, doesn't negate the fact that he took power from the parliamentary process. The majority of people in Pakistan, I'm not sure what their stance would be on the world's troubles there. That the Pakistani bomb would be used if in the hands of the representatives of the majority there would be more likely. Where it would be used: local region, most likely. Would it be used against Israel? A greater liklihood if the powerfully opinionated in Pakistan had the power. A mirror, of sorts, of other Islamic powers' intents? Not out of the question. That is why allowing any other Islamic nation to possess nuclear weapons would ignite a conflagration that those of us old enough to remember was feared through the middle and late decades of the 20th century.

Add a comment

the dissident frogman