[W:371]Twenty Generals Call for Coup Against Macron Warning of ‘Civil War’ and ‘Disintegration of France at Hands of Islamists’

[swing_voter]

Where did they actually call for a coup? They warned that they see the country disintegrating and call for action but overall it seems pretty benign, other than the date chosen.

The most glaring sentence is On the other hand, if nothing is done, laxity will continue to spread inexorably in society, ultimately causing an explosion and the intervention of our active comrades in a perilous mission of protecting our civilizational values and safeguarding our compatriots on the national territory.

Good luck to Macron taking on the 1,000+ former military officials who have signed on to the open letter.

If I was Macron I'd focus on making sure no more teachers get their heads lopped off for daring to show students a cartoon.

"The Sun" is known as "click bait" news source that isn't very factual.

If they used the real headline, "Generals express their concern in a letter to Macron", nobody would click on it.


.

 

[Questerr]

No it’s not.

First off the treaty was superseded and replaced with another one that didn’t contain that language, in addition the country it was made with no longer exists.

So the treaty itself doesn’t hold any legal force in contemporary America.

Treaties do not set the “Supreme law of the land” the Supreme Court in Reid v Covert held constitution remains the supreme law and treaties are only the law of the land provided they don’t contradict the constitution. So your assertion is wrong which would know if you bothered to check.

The version of the treaty provided to the Arabs did not contain article 11. Under the common law understanding of contracts the treaty was thus invalid as it contained different stipulations for each party and thus no meeting of the minds.

Plus there is no evidence that the Adams administration believed what was in article 11. Adams declared national days of prayer and fasting and proclaimed from his own mouth America was founded in Christian values.

Christians values like slavery and the oppression of anyone who wasn’t a land-owning white man?

 

[AmNat]

A group of 20 former military generals from the armed forces of France have written an open letter warning that France could descend into civil war if certain dangerous forces and trends were not kept in check.

20 generals call for coup to oust Macron to stop 'Islamist civil war'

TWENTY retired generals have called for military rule if Emmanuel Macron fails to halt what they call the “disintegration” of France “at the hands of Islamists”. A chil…

www.thescottishsun.co.uk

While a military coup would obviously be a great thing for France, I'm not getting my hopes up. If these (retired) generals actually had adequate support for it, there would be little point in publishing the letter.

 

[Somerville]

There is simply no evidence that the Indians believed in a third gender. This is something that a small group of political extremist within the Indian community invented in 1990. Out of whole cloth. I would be willing to bet that there was no such thing as gay lesbian or transgender Indians ever. In fact primitive African tribes people In recent times I have been interviewed about their sexual habits by European researchers, and the results are these people know nothing about homosexuality or masturbation.

Obviously, you don't read words that contradict your beliefs. Some tribes objected to the term "two-spirit" simply because they had more complex understandings of the nature of gay and transgendered people.

While existing terminology in many nations shows historical acknowledgement of differing sexual orientations and gender expressions, members of some of these nations have also said that while variance was accepted, they never had separate or defined roles for these members of the community. Among the Indigenous communities that traditionally have roles for two-spirit people, specific terms in their own languages are used for the social and spiritual roles these individuals fulfill.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Obviously, you don't read words that contradict your beliefs. Some tribes objected to the term "two-spirit" simply because they had more complex understandings of the nature of gay and transgendered people.

Yeah I think that’s what they tell European activists they’re allied with in contemporary times. I don’t believe them. This was never recorded by European explorers in writing that I can tell

 

[Carl Young]

Paris mayor says she agrees with military generals:

Paris mayor AGREES with military chiefs who warned of radical Islam

Eighteen serving officers who signed the open letter to Emmanuel Macron are to be fired, the country's armed forces chief confirmed today.

www.dailymail.co.uk

It's strange that warnings against radical Islam should even be necessary when the facts are out there for everyone to see. Denial plays a role as do fears of being called "Islamophobic", and both are used to encourage and promote ignorance and cowardice.

 

[Carl Young]

While a military coup would obviously be a great thing for France, I'm not getting my hopes up. If these (retired) generals actually had adequate support for it, there would be little point in publishing the letter.

You didn't mention that Mayor of Paris agrees with them also. Of course not all Muslims are terrorists but some certainly are. The trick is to tell which is which, an almost impossible task.. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50053555

 

[sanman]

 

[Carl Young]

58% of the French people agree with the letter.

 

[Carl Young]

Christians values like slavery and the oppression of anyone who wasn’t a land-owning white man?

Do you have any idea of who those were who worked to put an end to slavery? Probably not.

 

[Questerr]

Do you have any idea of who those were who worked to put an end to slavery? Probably not.

Do you have any idea who those were who fought tooth and nail to keep slavery in place?

 

[Carl Young]

I don't know exactly where you get the idea, but in general you don't get people to change their minds by mocking them about their beliefs, especially something as intrinsic as their culture and faith.

There is much more to it than 'mockery', your word. It can be criticized from all angles and perspectives, as it should be. When someone's "culture and faith" includes the degradation of women, the murder of Gays, the calling for the deajh of Jews, etc. then I believe they should be called out for it.

It seems clear you're more concerned about "Islamophobia". a recently invented propaganda tool, than you are about human rights and freedoms. Democrats have long felt this way, going back almost 200 years.

 

[Carl Young]

Do you have any idea who those were who fought tooth and nail to keep slavery in place?

Of course. The Democrats. Are you that unaware of American history?

There was a Civil War fought on the issue of slavery where almost 1 million people were dead or seriously wounded. If you don't believe you can look it up. Have you heard of Jim Crow laws? They were also enacted by Democrats.

 

[Questerr]

Of course. The Democrats. Are you that unaware of American history?

There was a Civil War fought on the issue of slavery where almost 1 million people were dead or seriously wounded. If you don't believe you can look it up. Have you heard of Jim Crow laws? They were also enacted by Democrats.

Why did those Southern conservative devout Christian Democrats hate black people so much that they were willing to go to war to keep them as slaves?

Why did those same Southern Conservative devout Christians hate black people so much that they then instituted Jim Crow laws?

 

[skeptic llc]

Of course. The Democrats. Are you that unaware of American history?

There was a Civil War fought on the issue of slavery where almost 1 million people were dead or seriously wounded. If you don't believe you can look it up. Have you heard of Jim Crow laws? They were also enacted by Democrats.

I don't think playing on the evolution of parties is informative, it's much more of a misleading fun fact/gotcha. Southern Dems were what they were, then there was the Southern Strategy, and now those people are Rs. The fact that the southern racist voting block used to be largely in the D party, then re-aligned to the R party, is not some kind of an argument against current Ds.

 

[skeptic llc]

Why did those Southern conservative devout Christian Democrats hate black people so much that they were willing to go to war to keep them as slaves?

Why did those same Southern Conservative devout Christians hate black people so much that they then instituted Jim Crow laws?

It's just southern whites, saying they used to be in a different party is a dumb deflection. Remarkable that no matter how much time passes, whites in the confederacy continue to poison our entire society.

 

[Jredbaron96]

There is much more to it than 'mockery', your word. It can be criticized from all angles and perspectives, as it should be. When someone's "culture and faith" includes the degradation of women, the murder of Gays, the calling for the deajh of Jews, etc. then I believe they should be called out for it.

It seems clear you're more concerned about "Islamophobia". a recently invented propaganda tool, than you are about human rights and freedoms. Democrats have long felt this way, going back almost 200 years.

The idea that can change the worldview of billions of people by making fun of their religion and culture without any negative consequences is an argument made by someone who has clearly never debates anyone in a professional setting.

You can call it "Islamaphobia" if you like (since you clearly can't debate without it) but if you think that I could convince Catholics to stop going to Church by yelling "You worship a Jewish Zombie!" Then I dont know what to tell you.

 

[Carl Young]

Why did those Southern conservative devout Christian Democrats hate black people so much that they were willing to go to war to keep them as slaves?

They were ignorant and perhaps then, as now, they were fearful of saying out loud what many felt and what was painfully obvious.. Is it your understanding that the Civil War was fought on the basis of religion?

 

[Carl Young]

I don't think playing on the evolution of parties is informative, it's much more of a misleading fun fact/gotcha. Southern Dems were what they were, then there was the Southern Strategy, and now those people are Rs. The fact that the southern racist voting block used to be largely in the D party, then re-aligned to the R party, is not some kind of an argument against current Ds.

The Democrats supported slavery and Jim Crow laws. That's just historical fact. If they had evolved they wouldn't now be accusing Republicans of being 'racist', or using race as a political issue. it is destroying the country, and is quite deliberate.

And that Democrats still don't much care about human rights and freedoms is their unwillingness now to speak out against the evils in Islam, just as they were against speaking out against the evils of slavery.

 

[Carl Young]

The idea that can change the worldview of billions of people by making fun of their religion and culture without any negative consequences is an argument made by someone who has clearly never debates anyone in a professional setting.

Quote me directly or don't bother. And of course there are several ways to change a culture as to what is socially accepted or not. You never noticed this?

You can call it "Islamaphobia" if you like (since you clearly can't debate without it) but if you think that I could convince Catholics to stop going to Church by yelling "You worship a Jewish Zombie!" Then I dont know what to tell you.

I don't use "Islamophobia" except to debate those who do. As mentioned, it is a manufactured propaganda tool invented by Islamists who encourage the most simple minded in society that it's a problem, whereas the problem is in Islam itself.

 

[skeptic llc]

The Democrats supported slavery and Jim Crow laws. That's just historical fact. If they had evolved they wouldn't now be accusing Republicans of being 'racist', or using race as a political issue. it is destroying the country, and is quite deliberate.

And that Democrats still don't much care about human rights and freedoms is their unwillingness now to speak out against the evils in Islam, just as they were against speaking out against the evils of slavery.

But you are aware that they switched parties, aren't you? The Dem block you are noting was wooed to the R party and switched over. They are now Rs. Calling them by the political affiliation of their ancestors is just an attempt to mislead. Is this silliness what passes for conservative thought?

 

[skeptic llc]

Quote me directly or don't bother. And of course there are several ways to change a culture as to what is socially accepted or not. You never noticed this?

Sorry, I hate that I have to post this when I am pretty sure you are pretending ignorance, but just in case:

As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party. It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

The racist formerly-Democrat block was successfully wooed by the R party. They are Rs now.

 

[Carl Young]

But you are aware that they switched parties, aren't you? The Dem block you are noting was wooed to the R party and switched over. They are now Rs. Calling them by the political affiliation of their ancestors is just an attempt to mislead. Is this silliness what passes for conservative thought?

They did not 'switch parties'. That's political nonsense put forward by Democrats in an attempt, successful in many quarters it seems, to bury their own past and paint others with their own racist history.

 

[skeptic llc]

Th3ey did not 'switch parties'. That's political nonsense put forward by Democrats in an attempt, successful in many quarters it seems, to bury their own past and paint others with their own racist history.

Oops, the very powerful denial of what happened by just pretending to not know, great stuff. So you're not really speaking in good faith, just saying whatever helps your side? And you think the tens of millions of southern racists are still happily a part of the D party, while Rs have inexplicably gained a stronghold in the south in a coincidental result that matches their strategy? Yeah. Bye.

 

[Carl Young]

Sorry, I hate that I have to post this when I am pretty sure you are pretending ignorance, but just in case:

As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party. It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

The racist formerly-Democrat block was successfully wooed by the R party. They are Rs now.

This was in 1972, not the 50's or 60's, and is not based on opinion or feelings or revisionism. There is plenty of evidence that the Democrats are a racist party, then as now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries