Churchill ,The Prophetic Voice

billyboy · 12-30-2006, 05:57 AM

I don't know if this has been posted here before of not, but here it is.

CHURCHILL SAW IT COMING

Unbelievable, but the speech below was written over 107 years ago! Winston Churchill delivered the speech in 1899 when he was a young soldier and journalist. It probably sets out the current views of many but expressed in the wonderful Churchillian turn of phrase and use of the English language, of which he was a past master. Sir Winston Churchill was, without doubt, one of the greatest men of the late 19th and 20th centuries. He was a brave young soldier, a brilliant journalist, an extraordinary politician and statesman, a great war leader and Prime Minister, to whom the Western world must be forever in his debt. He was a prophet in his own time; He died on 24 January 1965, at the grand old age of 90 and, after a lifetime of service to his country, was accorded a State funeral.

HERE IS THE SPEECH:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its Votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its race and refinement the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

fastpat · 12-30-2006, 07:01 AM

Churchill saw it coming because he fomented or assisted in fomenting much of the problems in the mideast; and approved of it all.

Accursed merchantilism, one of the parents of fascism.

m21sniper · 12-30-2006, 08:08 AM

Great post Billyboy, i saved that speech for future dissection. Thanx!

(i am a huge Churchill fan)

fastpat · 12-30-2006, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by m21sniper
Great post Billyboy, i saved that speech for future dissection. Thanx!

(i am a huge Churchill fan)

Curious as to why you'd save the speeches of that fat, socialist blowhard?

billyboy · 12-30-2006, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Churchill saw it coming because he fomented or assisted in fomenting much of the problems in the mideast; and approved of it all.

This is not really about the middle east. It is about the Muslim Religion and culture.

m21sniper · 12-30-2006, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fastpat
Curious as to why you'd save the speeches of that fat, socialist blowhard?

Winston Churchill is the greatest wartime leader in modern history, that's why.

island911 · 12-30-2006, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fastpat
Churchill saw it coming because he fomented or assisted in fomenting much of the problems in the mideast; and approved of it all.

Churchill approved? I think the point he was going for was that he DID NOT approve.

Lemme guess

Churchill was just setting us up with lying opinion.

m21sniper · 12-30-2006, 08:51 AM

Well Pat is correct that the UK really screwed up the ME after WWII in the way it partitioned the region(along with the other colonial powers), but it still doesn't change the fact that Churchill was a great war leader.

fastpat · 12-30-2006, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by m21sniper
Winston Churchill is the greatest wartime leader in modern history, that's why.

That's what they say about Stalin as well, and the monstrous Napoleon, Ghengis Khan, and Alexander the Great.

The truth is somewhat different than their mythological reputations.

m21sniper · 12-30-2006, 09:09 AM

They are all admirable men in some ways.

But i've never heard anyone call Stalin a great war leader before. Hell, it's cause of his purges that the Russians came as close to the abyss as they did.

fastpat · 12-30-2006, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by m21sniper
They are all admirable men in some ways.

But i've never heard anyone call Stalin a great war leader before. Hell, it's cause of his purges that the Russians came as close to the abyss as they did.

Yeah, well Churchill wasn't a great war leader either. No one that authorizes carpet bombing of civilian homes during the hours of darkness is a great leader.

They're bloodthirsty butchers of the first order, all of them.

m21sniper · 12-30-2006, 09:14 AM

Sorry, i disagree.

All churchill had to do was surrender, sue for peace, and this would be an ENTIRELY different world today- and one that odds are- would be much worse off.

I thank god for Churchill and men like him.

billyboy · 12-30-2006, 09:16 AM

Quote:

All churchill had to do was surrender, sue for peace, and this would be an ENTIRELY different world today- and one that odds are- would be much worse off

. We would all be driving VW's and Mitsubishi's

Dennis Kalma · Dennis Kalma's Garage

So then Pat....who in your mind is or has been a great leader? Put it out there so we can all take cheap shots in the style that obviously you are very experienced in using.

If you have ever been in a leadership position, which your whole approach suggests you have not, you would have seen that it is much harder to actually DO than provide critical commentary from the viewers gallery.

Leadership, now as in Churchill's time, is one of selection between options and directions, yea even people, which are flawed and have drawbacks and risks. Choosing the lesser evils so to speak. In my mind, the difference between the great leaders of the world and the scum such as Saddam is intent.

I too am a follower of Churchill, and it is easy to defend his actions and decisions as having the intent of supporting freedom, democracy and rights for as many as possible, while I do not think the same case can be made for Hitler, Saddam or Stalin.

When one reads about Sir Winston's "black dog" and his laments about the death of the millions to rid the world of a tyrannical regime, perhaps we get a glimpse of the true difficulties that he faced and many of his peers and colleagues faced.

Convince us that you, Pat, have even a fraction of a percent of the insight and intent that the great leaders of the world have had and you will gain a bit of respect, from me if no one else.

Until then, you are just noise.

Dennis

Oh yeah, if you want my credentials to speak about these topics, PM me....

Moneyguy1 · 12-30-2006, 09:45 AM

Well, pat, you might even have some admirable qualities if only we look deep enough!!

m21sniper · 12-30-2006, 09:48 AM

Pat speaks his mind no matter how unpopular the view. That is a highly admirable quality. He also drives a Porsche.

Beyond that though...

Dantilla · 12-30-2006, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by m21sniper
He also drives a Porsche.

Yeah, but it's a Targa. Two demerits.

Steve PH · 12-30-2006, 10:18 AM

It's nigh on impossible to justify the bombing of civilian areas, by modern standards I would view it as nothing short of terrorism but the 1940's were a different era. We did not have laser guided bombs and missiles, daylight raids were suicidal and you can bet your bottom dollar that bomber crews would much rather bomb munitions factories etc if only they could see them clearly to hit.

War was much much messier and I have no doubt there was an element of revenge. Hitlers Luftwaffe had virtualy flatened Coventry and had devasted large areas of major British citys. Did you honestly think Churchill could let them get away with that unpunished?

I'm sure Churchill had flaws but on balance he is worthy of hero status and was a truly great leader.

m21sniper · 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steve PH
[B]It's nigh on impossible to justify the bombing of civilian areas, by modern standards I would view it as nothing short of terrorism but the 1940's were a different era.

Exactly. One can simply not judge those acts by modern standards any more than one can judge the Crusades or even many of the acts of the Old Testament by modern standards. CLEARLY today many of these acts are considered wrong, but back then they were often common practice. You don't see male US troops making out and braiding each other's hair before a battle, but the Spartan's used to do it.

And if one goes by the notion that a viable military target is any structure or six digit grid that actively supports the industrial complex of an enemy nation, and said nation is engaged in wholesale cottage industrial support of it's war machine, then by default said enemy has by his own actions opened virtually his entire population to legitimate attack.

That is HIS fault, not the attackers.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dantilla
Yeah, but it's a Targa. Two demerits.

I never knew that was considered to be a negative? I love riding in a Targa car, it's the next best thing to a convertible without the negatives(like crappy plastic windows, windnoise, etc, etc). I'd take virtually any 911 in decent shape without complaint, Targa or no.

fastpat · 12-30-2006, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by m21sniper
Sorry, i disagree.

All churchill had to do was surrender, sue for peace, and this would be an ENTIRELY different world today- and one that odds are- would be much worse off.

I thank god for Churchill and men like him.

Britain declared war on Germany when they invaded Poland, or didn't you know that?