what a great idea.....

[Eden]

I know this is long but eerily familiar (will post the whole thing in two responses):

Address by Edouard Daladier, Premier, in the Chamber of Deputies, September 2, 1939.
Gentlemen,
The Government yesterday decreed general mobilization.
The whole nation is answering the call with serious and resolute calm. The young men have rejoined their regiments. They are now defending our frontiers. The example of dignified courage which they have just set to the world must provide inspiration for our debates. In a great impulse of national brotherliness they have forgotten everything which only yesterday could divide them. They no longer acknowledge any service but the service of France. As we send them the grateful greeting of the nation let us all pledge ourselves together to be worthy of them.
Thus has the Government put France into a position to act in accordance with our vital interests and with national honor.
It has now the duty of setting forth before you the facts as they are, fully, frankly, and clearly.
Peace had been endangered for several days. The demands of Germany on Poland were threatening to provoke a conflict. I shall show you in a moment how - perhaps for the first in time history - all the peaceful forces of the world, moral and material, were leagued together during those days and during those nights to save the world's peace. But just when it could still be hoped that all those repeated efforts were going to be crowned with success, Germany abruptly brought them to naught.
During the day of August 31 the crisis reached its peak. When Germany had at last let Great Britain know that she agreed to hold direct negotiation with Poland, a course which she had , let it be said, refused to me, Poland, in spite of the terrible threat created by the sudden armed invasion of Slovakia by the German forces, at one endeavored to resort to this peaceful method. At one o'clock in the afternoon M. Lipski, the Polish Ambassador to Germany, requested an audience from Herr von Ribbentrop. Peace seemed to be saved. But the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs would not receive M. Lipski till 7:45 P.M., seven hours later. While the latter was bringing the consent of his Government to direct conversations, the German Minister refused to communicate Germany's claims to the Polish Ambassador, on the pretext that the Ambassador had not full powers to accept or reject them on the spot.
At 9 P.M. the German wireless was communicating the nature and the full extent of these claims; it added that Poland had rejected them. That is a lie. That is a lie, since Poland did not even know them.
And at dawn on September 1 the Fuhrer gave his troops the order to attack. Never was aggression more unmistakable and less warranted; nor for its justification could more lies and cynicism have been brought into play.
Thus was wear unleashed at the time when the most noteworthy forces, the authorities who ewre at the same time the most respected and the most impartial, had ranged themselves in the service of peace; at the time when the whole world had joined together to induce the two sides to come into direct contact so as to settle peacefully the conflict which divides them.
The Head of Christianity had given voice to reason and feelings of brotherhood; President Roosevelt had sent moving messages and proposed a general conference to all countries; the neutral countries had been active in offering their impartial good offices. Need I say that to each of these appeals the French Government gave an immediate welcome and complete assent?
I myself, Gentlemen, if I may be allowed a reference to my own person, thought it my duty as a Frenchman to approach Herr Hitler directly. The Head of the German Government had let me know on August 25, through M. Coulondre, our Ambassador in Berlin, that he deplored the fact that in case of an armed conflict between Germany and Poland, German blood and French blood might be shed. I immediately had a definite proposal put to the Fuhrer, a proposal wholly inspired by the real concern to safeguard without any delay the peace of the world now imperiled.
You were able to read, I think in fact that you must have read these texts. You know the answer I was given; I will not dwell on it.
But we were not disheartened by the failure of this step, and once more we backed up the effort to which Mr. Chamberlain devoted himself with splendid stubbornness. The documents exchanged between London and Berlin have been published. On the one side impartial and persevering loyalty; on the other side, embarrassment, shifty and shirking behavior. I am also happy at this juncture to pay my tribute to the noble efforts made by the Italian Government. Even yesterday we strove to unite all men of goodwill so as at least to stave off hostilities, to prevent bloodshed and to ensure that the methods of conciliation and arbitration should be substituted for the use of violence.
Gentlemen, these efforts towards peace, however powerless they were and still remain, will at least have shown where the responsibility lies. They insure for Poland, the victim, the effective co-operation and moral support of the nations and of free men of all lands.
What we did before the beginning of this war, we are ready to do once more. If renewed steps are taken towards conciliation, we are still ready to join in.
If the fighting were to stop, if the aggressor were to retreat within his own frontiers, if free negotiations could still be started, you may well believe, Gentlemen, the French Government would spare no effort to ensure, even today, if it were possible, the success of these negotiations, in the interests of the peace of the world.
But the time is pressing; France and England cannot look on when a friendly nation is being destroyed, a foreboding of further onslaughts, eventually aimed at England and France.
Indeed, are we only dealing with the German-Polish conflict? We are not, Gentlemen; what we have to deal with is a new stage in the advance of the Hitler dictatorship towards the domination of Europe and the world. How, indeed, are we to forget that the German claim to the Polish territories had been long marked on the map of Greater Germany, and that it was only concealed for some years to facilitate other conquests? so long as the German-Polish Pact, which dates back only a few years, was profitable to Germany, Germany respected it; on the day when it became a hindrance to marching towards domination it was denounced unhesitatingly. To-day we are told that, once the German claims against Poland were satisfied, Germany would pledge herself before the whole world for ten, for twenty, for twenty-five years, for all time, to restore or to respect peace. Unfortunately, we have heard such promises before!
On May 25, 1935, Chancellor Hitler pledged himself not to interfere in the internal affairs of Austria and not to unite Austria to the Reich; and on March 11, 1938, the German army entered Vienna; Chancellor Shuschnigg was imprisoned for daring to defend his country's independence, and no one to-day can say what is his real fate after so many physical and moral sufferings. Now we are to believe that it was Dr. Schuschnigg's acts of provocation that brought about the invasion and enslavement of his country!
On September 12, 1938, Herr Hitler declared that the Sudeten problem was an internal matter which concerned only the German minority in Bohemia and the Czechoslovak Government. A few days later he maintained that he violent persecutions carried on by the Czechs were compelling him to change his policy.
On September 26 of the same year he declared that his claim on the Sudeten territory was the last territorial claim he had to make in Europe. On March 14, 1939, Herr Hacha was summoned to Berlin: ordered under the most stringent pressure to accept an ultimatum. A few hours later Prague was being occupied in contempt of the signed pledges given to other countries in Western Europe. In this case also Herr Hitler endeavored to put on the victims the onus which in fact lies on the aggressor.
Finally, on January 30, 1939, Herr Hitler spoke in loud praise of the non-aggression pact which he had signed five years previously with Poland. He paid a tribute to this agreement as a common act of liberation, and solemnly confirmed his intention to respect its clauses.
But it is Herr Hitler's deeds that count, not his word.
What, then, is our duty? Poland is our ally. We entered into commitments with her in 1921 and 1925. These commitments were confirmed.
I, myself, in the Chamber said, on May 11 last:
"As a result of the journey of the Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs to London and of the reciprocal pledges of guarantee given by Great Britain and Poland, by a common agreement with this noble and brave nation we tool the measures required for the immediate and direct application of our treaty of alliance."

[Eden]

(here is the rest)

Parliament approved this policy.
Since then we have never failed both in diplomatic negotiations and in public utterances, to prove faithful to it. Our Ambassador in Berlin has several times reminded Herr Hitler that, if a German aggression were to take place against Poland, we should fulfill our pledges. And on July 1, in Paris, the Minister for Foreign Affairs said to the German Ambassador to France:
"France has definite commitments to Poland. These engagements have been further strengthened as a result of the latest events, and consequently France will at once be at Poland's side as soon at Poland herself takes up arms."
Poland has been the object of the most unjust and brutal aggression. The nations who have guaranteed her independence are bound to intervene in her defense.
Great Britain and France are not Powers that can disown, or dream of disowning, their signatures.
Already last night, on September 1, the French and British Ambassadors were making a joint overture to the German Government. They handed to Herr von Ribbentrop the following communication from the French Government and the British Government, which I will ask your leave to read to you:
"Early this morning the German Chancellor issued a proclamation to the German Army which indicated that he was about to attack Poland.
"Information which has reached His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the French Government indicates that attacks upon Polish towns are proceeding.
"In these circumstances it appears to the Governments of the United Kingdom and France that by their action the German Government have created conditions, (viz., an aggressive act of force against Poland threatening the independence of Poland) which call for the implementation by the Government of the United Kingdom and France of the undertaking to Poland to come to her assistance.
"I am accordingly to inform your Excellency that unless the German Government are prepared to give His Majesty's Government satisfactory assurances that the German Government have suspended all aggressive action against Poland and are prepared promptly to withdraw their forces from Polish territory, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will without hesitation fulfill their obligations to Poland."
And indeed, Gentlemen, it is not only the honor of our country: it is also the protection of its vital interests that is at stake.
For a France which should allow this aggression to be carried out would very soon find itself a scorned, an isolated, a discredited France, without allies and without support, and doubtless, would soon herself be exposed to a formidable attack.
This is the question I lay before the French nation, and all nations. At the very moment of the aggression against Poland, what value has the guarantee, once more renewed, given for our eastern frontier, for our Alsace, for our Lorraine, after repudiation of the guarantees given in turn to Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland? More powerful through their conquests, gorged with the plunder of Europe, the masters of inexhaustible natural wealth, the aggressors would soon turn against France with all their forces.
Thus, our honor is but the pledge of our own society. It is not that abstract and obsolete form of honor of which conquerors speak to justify their deeds of violence; it is the dignity of a peaceful people, which bears hatred toward no other people in the world and which never embarks upon a war save only for the sake of its freedom and of its life.
Forfeiting our honor would purchase nothing more than a precious peace liable to rescission, and when, tomorrow, we should have to fight after losing the respect of our allies and the other nations, we should no longer be anything more than a wretched people doomed to defeat and bondage.
I feel confident that not a single Frenchman harbors such thoughts today. But I well know, too, Gentlemen, that it is hard for those who have devoted their whole lives to the cause of peace and who are still prompted by a peaceful ideal to reply, by force if needed, to deeds of violence. As head of the Government, I am not the man to make an apology for war in these tragic hours. I fought before like most of you. I can remember. I shall not utter a single one of those words that the genuine fighters look upon as blasphemous. But I desire to do my plain duty, and shall do it, as an honorable man.
Gentlemen, while we are in session, Frenchmen are rejoining their regiments. Not one of them feels any hatred in his heart against the German people. Not one of them is giving way to the intoxicating call of violence and brutality; but they are ready, unanimously, to discharge their duty with the quiet courage which derives its inspiration from a clear conscience.
Gentlemen, you who know what those Frenchmen are thinking, you who even yesterday were among them in our provincial towns and in our countryside, you who have seen them go off - you will not contradict me if I evoke their feelings here. They are peace-loving men, but they have decided to make every sacrifice needed to defend the dignity and freedom of their country. If they have answered our call, as they have done, without a moment's hesitation, without a murmur, without flinching, that is because they feel, all of them, in the depths of their hearts that it is, in truth, whatever may be said, the very existence of France that is at stake.
You know better than anyone else that no government, no man, would be able to mobilize France merely to launch her into an adventure. Never would the French rise to invade the territory of a foreign country. Theirs is the heroism for defense and not for conquest. When you see France spring to arms it is because she feels herself threatened.
It is not France only that has arisen; it is the whole, far-flung empire under the sheltering folds of our tricolour. From every corner of the globe moving protestations of loyalty from all the protected or friendly races are reaching the mother country today. The union of all Frenchmen is thus echoed beyond the seas by the union of all people under our protection who in the hour of danger are proffering both their arms and their hearts. And I wish also to salute all the foreigners settled on our soil, who on this very day in their thousands and thousands, as though they were the volunteers of imperiled freedom, are placing their courage and their lives at the service of France.
Our duty is to make an end of aggressive and violent undertakings; by means of peaceful settlement, if we can still do so, and this we shall strive our utmost to achieve, by the wielding of our strength, if all sense of morality as well as all glimmering of reason has died within the aggressors.
If we were not to keep our pledges, if we were to allow Germany to crush Poland, within a few months, perhaps within a few weeks, what could we say to France, if we had to face aggressors once more? Then would those most determined soldiers ask us what we had done with our friends. They would feel themselves alone, under the most dreadful threat, and might lose, perhaps for all time, the confidence which now spurs them on.
Gentlemen, in these hours when the fate of Europe is in the balance, France is speaking to us through the voice of her sons, through the voice of all those who have already accepted, if need be, the greatest sacrifice of all. Let us recapture, as they have done, that spirit which fired all the heroes of our history. France rises with such impetuous impulses only when she feels in her heart that she is fighting for her life and for her independence.
Gentlemen, today France is in command.

[lazs2]

I like deselys and nielsen well enough as people but...

As you can see... they are completely out of tune with what we think as Americans...  

To call respect for relatives of the dead censorship (even tho the number of dead is given)... to call not showing a simple wooden coffin that belongs to the realative censorship on a par with not reporting a riot.....

To call seagoon a jihadist of the same caliber as the terrorists running in the street burning and looting and screaming god is great....

no... most of us Americans don't understand what you are even talking about... And... we don't want any part of your politics for here.

Can you imagine the uproar if such a story came out about U.S. news services?

Would nielsen and deselys jump up to defend the U.S. news services who censored one of our riots and admitted it?   or.... is what they are saying just hypocracy based on a dislike of the U.S.?

lazs

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
The coffins cannot be photographed for a specific reason.  Once that person dies they no longer belong to the US govt. they belong the next of kin.  It should be their choice not the govt's or the press to decide if they want their dead relative's body used for somones politics.
 

Huh?

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Sandman
Huh?

Where's the confusion sandy?  If you had a brother or son die in Iraq would you want the photo of his coffin being used as propaganda?

[Sandman]

Ah... you see that wasn't your original point.

I seem to recall seeing pictures of coffins on television during the Vietnam War so I wonder about the "rules" that you stated in the earlier post.

[Simaril]

Thanks for posting that, Eden -- I cant say that I read the whole thing, but I've been thinking all day about how eerily similar the wishful thinking of 1938 and 2005 sound....

Just hope the consequences arent as culturally devastating this time around.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Sandman
Ah... you see that wasn't your original point.

I seem to recall seeing pictures of coffins on television during the Vietnam War so I wonder about the "rules" that you stated in the earlier post.

I'm not sure what if any the rules were in nam but I know what you are talking about.

[Eden]

Originally posted by Simaril
Thanks for posting that, Eden -- I cant say that I read the whole thing, but I've been thinking all day about how eerily similar the wishful thinking of 1938 and 2005 sound....

Just hope the consequences arent as culturally devastating this time around.

That is actually a French Response ( Edouard Daladier is quite an interesting character) to the invasion of Poland.

[lada]

Originally posted by weaselsan
There is always some censorship of films or photos, otherwise you would be watching beheadings of innocent people on the news ad-nausium.  

Why should i mind to watch beheading ?

We got used to action films, beheading is not that much diferent. If we can eat popcorn and watch Brave super Boy who kill 200 people in 2 hours, get laid with 5 girls and manage to kill his main enmy by orrible dead.... lol .. we can easily watch beheading.

[lada]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Except of course when they film it and use it themselves...
------------
Rome, 10 Nov. (AKI) - Websites regularly used by the al-Qaeda terror group have urged Muslims around Europe to follow the example of the rioters in France, whose actions have prompted the government to announce a state of emergency and impose curfews. "Children of the Muslims in Europe copy your brothers, children of the Muslims in France," says one message in an Islamic Internet forum, which incites them to rise up against the authorities in their country.

In 'Tajdeed', one of the Jihadist forums particularly followed by European Muslims, propaganda videos showing some of the main scenes of violence in Paris have also been released alongside the messages inciting people to rise up.

"The children of the French Islamic community refuse to surrender and they continue the fight against the provocations of the police," the message says. "Allah is great, he blesses you oh children of Islam in France, and the force is with Allah and his prophet." The appeal continues by encouraging Muslims to teach "a lesson" to all those who are defined "dogs".

"Learn that we are one nation and if one of its members is attacked then the others revolt and the rage explodes like a volcano," reads another message on the website, which is the one where the first claim of responsibility for the London bombings on 7 July was made.
----------------------------------------

This is a river that only flows one way, we can't show the 9/11 footage on TV anymore, we can't show footage of Bali Bombings 1 & 2, we can't show footage of the Spanish bombings, the London Bombings, and now we musn't show footage of the French Riots.

But Abu Ghraib, that we can show again, and again, and again, and again...

If our plan was to pave the way for apathy, self-disgust, defeat, and surrender, I don't know what we'd do differently.



- SEAGOON

lol and i trough that i will be boring this evening, thanks for suggestion.

The only one thing, that i realy do not understand is, why we always see so many translated stuff from so called "Alq site" and never see the link on that site.

[USHilDvl]

deSelys...

What planet are you from?  Do you actually understand the meaning of the words you're using?  

How could you possibly derive your poorly-informed opinions of Seagoon based on what he posted?  It's like you're responding to something else entirely.

While not always in complete agreement, and sharing Hangtime's healthy distrust of Judeo-Christian rhetoric, I find Seagoon to at least be informed, well-spoken and reasonable.  Most of the time, he seems very much on-point.  Even when I disagree, I rarely feel the need to respond, as most of what I see here is cogent and well-meaning.  After that, we have to allow each other our differing opinions.  Besides, what makes you think you know everything you need to know to form valid opinions on these matters?  Because you watch TV news?  At least Seagoon usually backs up his thoughts with something more than pseudo-intellectual vapor.

Your kind of ill-advised, accusatory drivel is part and parcel of all these other problems...just another person who thinks that a ten-second sound bite makes them "informed".  'Headline' thinking, without any true attempt at understanding or investigating the nature of an issue, is a terribly dangerous thing...and results in truly stupid accustations like "Christian jihadist" and "integrist" (what, we make up words as we see fit, now?).  

You know...berating everything that gave you a decent life, security, a living, as well as comforts unknown to huge parts of the world, does NOT actually make you some kind of intellectual sophisticate.

Absolutely beyond the pale.  One might suggest that you owe an apology...not for your opinions of America (which mean precisely nothing), but for your unfounded and hostile accustations directed at Seagoon.

I realize that America-bashing is the new flavor of intelligentsia these days, and one needs only insult or sneer at us to be an instant soapbox philosopher, but you should really understand more about us than you do before you start flapping your lips together.

[Dowding]

...but you should really understand more about us than you do before you start flapping your lips together.

Advice many of your compatriots on this board should perhaps consider in relation to many current (and past) affairs.

[USHilDvl]

No doubt about it, Dowd.  I agree with you completely.  The statement must assuredly cut both ways to have any validity.

I'm not certain, but your choice of words ("...your compatriots...") suggests you might not be American.  I certainly hope I did not give the impression that I was beating up on non-Americans in general.  Far from it...  Please excuse me if the impression were otherwise.  I am, however, beating up on stupidity.

Not my intent to paint everyone with the same brush...just to tar and feather this particular indivudual for his foolish accusations.  I just get bent out of shape with people who confuse empty-headed bashing with healthy self-criticism.  To my mind, calling someone a "jihadist" isn't an opinion, it's a criminal accusation, and entirely out of line without proof.

Any person, culture or community which refuses to critique itself in a constructive manner is doomed, IMO.  Uninformed rants (of which many on this board may be guilty) are simply not healthy, useful or constructive...only emotional and reactionary.  Oh, yeah...and sometimes really funny!

Sir!

[Seagoon]

deSelys,

Originally posted by deSelys
See Rule #4

I'll admit that I don't quite know where to begin in responding. If you believe that I am calling for Christians to kidnap, kill, and maim Muslims simply because they are Muslims or to riot or begin a campaign of terror attacks you couldn't be more wrong. If you think that I believe that Christianity is supposed to be spread via invasion and subjugation, until all of the earth is forcibly made into a Dar-El-Christos via the sword, or that I advocate any kind of Christian parallel to the violent Holy War of the Quran and the Hadiths, then you are also sadly mistaken. My faith, life, and practice in that regard is an open book, and I'll stand on my record. I recognize that someday I will be called to account before my maker, and the last thing I want to do is stand before Him having taught his sheep to commit murder (or any other sin) in his name.

I believe strongly that sword has been given into the hands of the civil magistrate, not the church, and that they have been given the sword "for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evildoers." to quote directly from the Westminster Confession of Faith to which I subscribe.

I do believe that the revival and spread of militant Islam  is the greatest threat the world has faced since the fall of facism, and that governments that do not understand, acknowledge, and resist that threat are failing in their duty to their citizens. I am in contact with many missionaries and Christians who live and work in Islamic states in the 10/40 window, and I understand just how miserable it is to live as a Christian (or a woman for that matter) under Sharia and in a state of Dhimmitude, and I would rather that was not the inheritance of my children or my grandchildren.

But deSelys, even if we are eventually overrun by Islam, I will never teach my children or the flock entrusted to me to adopt their methods. The Christian faith is spread not as ball bearings packed into semtex belts rip hearts to shreds, but as the message of the gospel, lived and proclaimed in conformity with the teaching of Christ, changes hearts one by one. It may be that once again we will have to do that under an oppressive government that seeks to extinguish that message via imprisonment, torture, and execution, and I pray that even as that is happening, we would have the strength to pray for our enemies as the first Christian Martyr Stephen did saying "Lord, do not charge them with this sin."

But deSelys, what I will not do, is call evil good and good evil. As Stephen denounced false religion, violence, and hypocrisy before his execution, so I hope will I. Many things I will do for the sake of peace, but calling a movement that has lain for centuries as a black pall over an entire region of the world, that began its spread via aggressive war and conquest and bloody murder, and continues to be promoted via killing and terrorism, "peace" is not one of them. By the grace of God, I still have the right to legally do that in this country, but were I to live in Saudia Arabia or Indonesia, I would not. In fact, simply making the above statement could easily lead to my murder just as easily as simply speaking out lead to the murder of Theo Van Gogh. I regret that you do not see or acknowledge that.

I must admit to not understanding what you mean by "Integrist" so I can't respond to it. The only use of that word I am aware of is as a descriptor for a Roman Catholic who opposed the changes brought in by Vatican 2 and clung to the Latin Rite. If you can define the term for me, I will try to give you a coherent response.

Also, I might note this is the first time in my life I have ever been accused of using PC talk. Apparently there is a first time for everything.

- SEAGOON