Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
keithisco

Outrage as French President Francois Hollande

4 posts in this topic

So here you have it - the Old Enemy blaming UK for IS(IS). It's all about taking the decision NOT to bomb Assad into submission (France was always free to pursue it's own Foreign Policy of course)

In a series of provocative remarks he suggested that Parliament’s decision to block airstrikes on Syria had allowed the terror organisation to flourish, because it had ended any hope of replacing President Bashar al-Assad with members of the moderate opposition fighting him.

MPs ruled out military action against Assad last August after the brutal dictator used chemical weapons to slaughter tens of thousands of his own people.

But the French President, who supported military action, said yesterday: “If, two years ago, we had acted to ensure a transition, we wouldn’t have had Islamic State.

“If, one year ago, the major powers had reacted to the use of chemical weapons, we wouldn’t have had this terrible choice between a dictator and a terrorist group.”

Former British military chief Lord Dannatt rejected President Hollande’s claim – arguing that Parliament had been right to reject military action against Syria

Source (Express.co.uk): http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/502305/Francois-Hollande-UK-to-blame-for-jihadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hollande is a horse's **** if he seriously thinks that replacing, Assad, would have led to a moderate, Syrian government. One only has to see where "moderation" has taken Libya and Iraq to know that the Islamists, without a strongman like Assad or Saddam, would eventually come to power.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know who is the moderate? As long as they are on the losing end they seem to be moderates. Then when they end up in power they often are just as bad or worse than their predecessor.

I don't see how they can blame the UK for anything. Like was said they are free to act. Don't stand back and point fingers when you did nothing yourself.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone needs to get on the Phone to Hollande and tell him a few home truths. when it comes to supporting the wrong side. - The West's foreign policy, the worst foreign policy for the last decade i might add, has seen the West depose of Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi. Where we armed the rebels in a proxy war fought by various factions of terrorist groups on our behalf.

Hollandes France actively armed and funded the "rebel fighters" - though the operation for military air strikes over Libya was done under United Nations resolution, the arming of the Rebels was NOT. - It's was the arming of these "rebels" Not "terrorists" note the difference, when they fight on our behalf they are "Rebels", when they fight against us they are "Terrorists". cutting a long story short the French armed the Rebels in the stronghold of Benghazi. (which was protected from Gaddafi forces - by the UN approved no-fly zone/air cover over the strategic important port of Benghazi. - Thanks impart to Hollande Libya was and still is awash with cash and arms which as seen the rebel fighters spreading out of Libya and across North Africa. As a direct consequence the French are fighting in North Africa, Mali and the CAR, against groups they helped arm and finance in Libya.

With the chaos of the Arab spring and the instability in the countries involved there was no need to force the issue to remove Assad. it was sheer madness the West wanted yet again to bomb another country - Assad said the west was backing terrorists in Syria and he was telling the truth, and we knew it at the time. our Parliament debated bombing Syria and it was clear by the speeches made in the house of commons the West had indeed scored a own goal in arming and financing terrorist groups, the evidence pointed to the fact we'd armed the same terrorist groups we've spent the last decade fighting elsewhere in the middle east - in our bid to remove Assad we gave (IS)Islamic State the room and means to flourish. now they have spread out of Syria and causing trouble in Iraq. in exactly the same way the terrorist groups we backed in Libya have spread out of Libya and causing us trouble in Africa.

So if Hollande wants to bomb Syria fire up his aircraft carrier the Charles De Gaulle and bomb Syria. bombing from the air isn't going to fix the problem. (IS) Islamic state will still flourish in Syria because there is no effective force to fight them on the ground. - IF we want to beat ISIS, we have to back Assad. what a complete and utter shambles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.