Sarkozy’s Fatal Foreign Policy

Arab Spring helped along by jews Sarkozy and Levi!

Sarkozy’s Fatal Foreign Policy

Oct 8th 2011

Here’s an article by Catholic journalist Michel Garroté, that touches on some of the topics that have been discussed in the comment sections of my recent posts, namely the fate of Christians in the Middle East, and the treasonous policies of Nicolas Sarkozy:

Nicolas Sarkozy and Bernard-Henri Lévy are jointly responsible for the bloody chaos that reigns in Libya in 2011, knowing that Sarkozy had given his blessing urbi et orbi to Qadhafi in October 2007. By decreeing, in September 2011, the end of the secular Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad, whom he had nonetheless welcomed in great pomp on July 14, 2008, Sarkozy will bear, through his hollow words and his inconstancies, his part of the responsibility for the future fate (a tragic one) of the Christians of Syria. And, in the looming disaster in Syria, Sarkozy will also bear his part of the responsibility for the future fate (already tragic) of the Lebanese Christians.

Finally, in the looming disaster in Syria, Sarkozy will be partially responsible for the Islamist Syrian threat, a fundamentalist and theocratic threat, that will weigh heavily on the Israeli Jewish population, and which will necessarily be even worse than the current secular Syrian threat from the Alaouite dynasty.

Note: I believe the buck stops with Nicolas Sarkozy and he is wholly responsible. Lévy is powerful only because he was given power by Sarkozy. If the president cannot say no to a man who is seeking to harm the country, then Sarkozy is the traitor, Lévy merely the Iago who spins his web into which Sarkozy falls. Nicolas Sarkozy has never been qualified to be president of France. He has stated openly that the French people must mix their blood with other races, he has worked to appease Turkey and to force France into the E.U. He has courted every Muslim leader in the Middle East and showered them with contracts and promises to ease immigration restrictions. He has prevented his police force from harming dangerous criminals. He persists in his open immigration policies all the while admitting that multiculturalism has not worked.

Back to Michel Garroté who quotes extensively from a Syrian priest:

On the future Syrian disaster, the priest of Bab Sbah, in Homs, in Syria, declared on September 23:

“Ten days ago the salafists forced open the door of the ancient Saint Elian church in Homs. They thought the sacred utensils were made of gold, so they stole them. The Greek Orthodox bishop His Eminence Abou Zakhm had the courage to go to the Emir of Homs, Bilal Ken. He said: ‘We are brothers and we have always lived together. Why did you take our sacred vessels? You say you don’t need a police force, so are you going to defend us.’ Bilal reassured the bishop about the intentions of the insurgents, but denied he ordered the robbery.”

The priest: “The rebels had, in passing, emptied out the church’s cash box. Then Bilal El Ken’s henchmen kidnapped four Christian girls from a minibus traveling from Homs to Zeidal. One of them, Maya Semaan, was returned after four days, having been raped, according to the evidence. The army then intervened to place limits on the demands of the salafists. Bilal was killed on September 7, 2011 during the fighting and his headquarters were searched. The sacred vessels were found and returned to the Saint Elian church. The streets have been calmer these days. But we can still hear gunfire. Now we can go out to shop for necessities, but for two weeks we were confined to our homes.”

The priest: “Homs had become a battleground. The insurgents have heavy arms that they use indiscriminately. With the RPG (rocket-propelled grenades) they can destroy army tanks. The façade of the bishop’s residence is riddled with bullets and some windows are broken. Considering its location on a line of demarcation, the building should have been much more damaged. We have the army, advancing with extreme caution, to thank. However, the residents were not encouraged to stay there. The building now seems to be abandoned in a ravaged neighborhood that was once so peaceful. All of us, moderate Muslims (the great majority), Christians, Alaouites, Druzes, Ismaelites, and even Kurds, we all fear the coming of an Islamic State that will impose on us, as civil law, the religious laws of Islam.”

Regarding the bloody chaos that reigns in Libya in 2011, Bishop Martinelli, Apostolic Vicar of Tripoli, in Libya, where the fighting goes on near sites that have remained in the hands of troops loyal to Qadhafi, declared on September 29:

“The situation in the hospitals is tragic because there are still many wounded and the staff cannot keep up with all the emergencies.” (…) “The same is true of the wounded of Bani Walid, who have to be evacuated to other centers because there are no hospitals equipped to take them.” (…) “The country needs help in the form of doctors, nurses and medicine. I am now launching an appeal everywhere not only for aid to be sent but also for the most seriously wounded to be hospitalized in Italy or elsewhere,” concluded Bishop Martinelli.

Michel Garroté sums up his feelings:

As far as I’m concerned – and this is my closing statement – Nicolas Sarkozy, Bernard-Henri Lévy and Alain Juppé are and will remain equally responsible for the lethal threats that will weigh, even more heavily than in the past, on the Christians of Libya, Syria and Lebanon, as well as on the Israeli Jewish population. One could even wonder if Sarkozy, BHL and Juppé are in the service of the OCI (Organization of the Islamic Conference), of the salafists and of the Muslim Brotherhood. I have to admit that between imbecility and collaboration, I cannot tell which of these two explanations motivates our geo-strategical clowns. Yes, I know, some will say: both: both of them at the same time, imbecility and collaboration.

I would just add to imbecility and collaboration an impenetrable wall of stubbornness, a refusal to question the ideology of the globalists/multiculturalists who have the most extremely limited view of “democracy” that it is possible to imagine, a will to break, rather than bend to reality. I think too that these men have delusions of grandeur, delusions of being “movers and shakers” in a great world-wide sloughing off of the old and ringing in of the new. For them it’s like New Year’s Eve, and tomorrow the world will be better. They are turning their “dreams into reality” as the slogan from 1968 said. They want to be rewarded for their efforts. And indeed they shall, but it won’t be in this world. Garroté’s title for his article is “War Crimes in the Name of Human Rights”, which says it all.

On a side note, Michel Garroté spoke of the Israeli “Jewish” population. There is, as you may know, an Israeli Arab population of two million. Nicolas Sarkozy is aware of this as a short entry from right-wing Israeli blog Samson Blinded shows:

Words of truth from Sarkozy

A Jewish organization slammed French president for saying that Israel with her two million Arabs cannot be called a Jewish state, and so Netanyahu is wrong to demand that from Palestinians.

Now, what’s wrong with his opinion? Rabbi Kahane and ourselves kept saying that for years. Only the Israeli government fails to acknowledge that commonsense fact.

The irony is too funny. If, for Nicolas Sarkozy, Israel is not a Jewish State because of its two million Arabs, then what about France??? Soon, very soon, Nicolas Sarkozy will not be able to speak of the French State. These “words of truth” are a rare moment of lucidity for the usually clueless Sarkozy.

Photo at top from March 2011 shows Libyan rebels on a tank that once belonged to Qadhafi. From Boston.com, where you can find more.

Thursday, October 06, 2011
Sarkozy in Libya

This story goes back almost four weeks but its repercussions will probably be felt for some time to come. Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron (above) were greeted as heros on their arrival in Benghazi, Libya on September 15. RFI reported the story:

After their arrival this morning in Tripoli, the French president and the British prime minister had a rendez-vous with the people of Benghazi, in eastern Libya, the site of the uprising that finally led to the fall of Moammar Qadhafi. Even if it was a quick visit, it was to the acclamations of the crowd that the two leaders presented themselves to city. (…)

The British prime minister spoke first and praised the courage of the revolutionaries of Benghazi who started it all, “those who have chosen freedom”, and who have become, according to David Cameron, “a source of inspiration.”

Memorable too was the image of Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron holding hands, arms raised to the heavens, two allies at the head of the military intervention in Libya, to the hurrahs and applause of a very enthusiastic, if not very numerous, gathering: about 1500 persons.

The article attempts to explain the small number by the exceptional security measures and the cordoning off of the square.

Before Benghazi, it was in Tripoli this morning that the main speeches were delivered before the leaders of the CNT (National Libyan Transition Council). The French president wanted especially to stress that, even in flight, Moammar Qadhafi remained “a danger” that there was therefore “work to be finished.”

Meanwhile, on the ground, a major advance seemed to be taking place, since the armed forces of the CNT declared that their fighters had penetrated into Syrte, Qadhafi’s birthplace and last bastion of his partisans.

A companion article in RF1 summarizes in glowing terms the major role played by France in the overthrow of Qadhafi (who was, you may recall, given the red carpet treatment in Paris by newly elected president Nicolas Sarkozy in 2007):

The first to recognize the CNT (National Transition Council), the first to support the military intervention of NATO, Nicolas Sarkozy will also be the first head of State to walk on Libyan soil since the flight of Moammar Qadhafi. A courageous president whispered a member of the CNT on September 14, for the war is not over and the former rebels are not yet organized.

On the front lines, side by side with the insurgents, France has been involved for several weeks now in the preparations for what will come after Qadhafi. On September 1, Paris welcomed an international conference of friends of Libya. The representatives of 60 States made the trip for a family photo, around Nicolas Sarkozy.

In a world on the move, France is an agent of change: this is the new credo of the French president. Paris missed the boat of the Tunisian revolution and has tried ever since to redeem herself.

This total commitment in Libya should pay off and benefit notably the French economy. The CNT has promised that those who supported it will be rewarded. The reconstruction market will certainly be lucrative for those enterprises that manage to participate. And France will also be able to carve out a golden place for herself in the oil market.

There we have the financial justification for intervening in Libya – France will prosper from it.

What these articles don’t say is that through his intervention Nicolas Sarkozy has aligned his country’s foreign policy with the Muslim Brotherhood. Here are the remarks of Catholic writer Bernard Antony:

And so the first undeniable political result of the NATO operation inspired by Nicolas Sarkozy’s France, under strong pressure from Bernard-Henri Lévy, is the replacement of the regime of the “madman of Tripoli”, Qadhafi, certainly an odious figure in many ways, but an extinguished volcano in terms of terrorism and very hostile to al-Qaida, by a more orthodox Islamic regime.

As has already happened before, in the Muslim world, Qadhafi was one of those megalomaniacs proclaiming himself Caliph and, with his little green book, fancying himself the continuer/innovator of Mohammed, even his equal. And this caused the ensemble of the Islamic world to have a low regard for him. Then Mustafa Abd-el-Jalib, president of the National Transition Council so dear to our politicians, clearly explained in which direction the transition was immediately going: towards a return to SHARIA as the “inspiration for the laws”, the usual and Islamically correct formula for declaring that henceforth laws will be in conformity with sharia. The fantasy-regime, known as the Jamahiriya, concocted by the Guide, who was not so long ago warmly welcomed in Paris, Rome and Madrid, had managed to avoid this. Sharia is, to be exact, the law according to the Koran.

The Koran, according to Muslim belief, is the text of the true religion, deformed by the Jews and Christians, and finally rectified. It says for all time and in all places, in all realms, everything necessary for men. In the Koran, received, recited and transmitted by Mohammed, the words: “Obey God and his prophet” are constantly repeated.

Sharia is the law instituted in Medina by Mohammed. It constitutes forever and everywhere the basic reference on all aspects of Muslim law, called the Fiqh, which differs only secondarily by its four schools of interpretation.

All Muslims consider Islam as a regime that is perfect, just, measured, hence moderate, of course!

It’s true that according to the historic circumstances sharia can be more or less strictly applied. One would have to be completely ignorant of the reality of Islam to believe the claim by its leaders that they desire a “moderate Islam”. Naturally, a “moderate” Islam is better than a terrorist Islam.

Note: This means that Islam is “moderate” only when it has conquered. While it is in the conquering phase it cannot be “moderate” because it must conquer first. Naive Westerners imagine Islam capable of living in harmony with other cultures and religions once the “bad guys” have been gotten rid of. This is George Bush’s fallacious notion of a “great religion hijacked by terrorists.”

Bernard Antony concludes with what he knows is an impossible outcome:

We would be very happy, very pleasantly surprised, and we would congratulate them, if Messrs. Sarkozy, Lévy, and Juppé would bring us an assurance that henceforth in Libya the following principles would be guaranteed by a very moderate application of sharia:

– Juridical equality of men and women

– Religious liberty, hence conversion from one religion to another

– No stoning of adulterous women

– Freedom of discussion and refusal of Islamic theocracy

– Freedom for women to wear the veil or not

– Freedom to follow or not to follow ramadan

– Prohibition on judging non-Muslims according to sharia

– We will soon find out if it was really so urgent to propel Mr. Mustapha Abd-el-Jalib and his brothers to power in Tripoli.

Below, Nicolas Sarkozy and his “adviser”, jet-setting philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy.

Here, in the words of Mahmoud Gozlan, spokesman for the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, is a statement about Egypt, that is no doubt true of Libya as well:

“The Egyptian people are believers, they refuse laïcité totally and desire the application of Islamic sharia.”

H/T: Islamisation

From Michel Garroté, who writes at Drzz.fr:

(…) the president and number 1 in the Libyan National Transition Council (CNT), Mustapha Abdeljalil, in his first public speech in Tripoli announced the tone: “Islam will be the principal source of legislation” in the new Libya.

(…) As a reminder, when a Muslim leader declares that “Islam will be the principal source of legislation” in his country, that means, quite simply, that sharia and the Islamic laws will constitute the basis of the laws governing the lives of the citizens.

We congratulate in particular the ex-gendarme Sarkozy and the ex-philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, for having been the principal initiators of what seems to be – today – a Caliphate in Libya.

Besides the Arab League, the Islamist autocrat Erdogan, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestinian mafiosi, the non-representative and illegitimate U.N. General Assembly, we have now on our backs the Organization of the Islamic Conference. It is, we are told, the advance of the “Arab spring”, of “democracy”, of “freedom” in the lands of Islam.

And as accomplices, an irresponsible president and a ridiculous maker of public opinion.

Note: Both Garroté and Antony mentioned the role of Bernard-Henri Lévy in the Libyan intervention. It seems that Lévy facilitated the meeting between Nicolas Sarkozy and the representatives of the CNT who opposed Qadhafi.

Former Defense Minister under François Mitterand, Jean-Pierre Chevènement, made the following comments:

“What was very bizarre was the intervention of Mr. Bernard-Henri Lévy on the steps of Elysée. (…) There are ministers, diplomats, these are serious things, you can’t set a country on the path of improvisation. It all smells of amateurism.”

Below, Sarkozy and Abdeljalil last month. From Rue 89, where French readers can read more on the new dangers in Libya.

Below, Sarkozy greeting Qadhafi in Paris in 2007.

Note: There were two different spellings of the name of the Muslim leader in Libya: Abd-el-Jalib and Abdeljalil.

http://galliawatch.blogspot.com/

One response to “Sarkozy’s Fatal Foreign Policy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s