French outraged by U.S. treatment of Strauss-Kahn

reply to post by Rigel Kent


well then it seems Briton can afford to pay the 600 million dollars worth of tomahawk missiles we launched in Libya so their new crafty euro fighters didn't get blown out of the sky by a third world country and they can purchase their own spy plane or rent the one we are protecting their sorry arse fleet with. What happened to the royal navy anyhow? France has an aircraft carrier, Heck China has on... but the royal navy? Zip since you guys mouth balled the ark royal


It seems that England is the one that owes. How typical of you leeches. Get your facts straight. Notice its a UK site

uk.answers.yahoo.com...

So How Much Debt DO we Owe the Americans?
A `Mastermind` contestant cites figures and casualties of US aid to Britain during WWII as enormous, with over one million men fighting on that D-Day beach in Normandy.

OK. OK. But Britain accrued a bankrupting war debt on account of accepting US intervention- a debt which it is still paying off not only monetarily but by way of manpower support for US foreign policies.

Alot of things wrong with the British economy, such as foreign domination of shops and restaurants, not to mention redevelopment might arise from Britain`s moral debt to the Americans which it takes as seriously as its financial one..

It seems at least your country pay's. I actually always had a lot of respect for the English until I got on ATS and met some blokes. I met many of your troops while fighting in Afghanistan and other than getting a little overwhelmed when taking heavy fire. Your country has good soldiers.

Originally posted by coquine

Originally posted by Aeons


If a boy from Oklahoma has to do it, so do you you wine and cheese eating pretentious twits.

They wouldn't do that to a boy from Oklahoma (or Alès), that is why it is surprising to them.
They still believe in innocent until proven guilty, no matter WHO a person is.

I, on the other hand, gave up on that ideal- I'll go ahead and second that you are an idiote, because I think you have given ample evidence of that. (J'ajoute crétin prétentieuse aussi.)

What can I say - a life time of listening to angry whiny pretentious entitled French Socialists has jaded me to their charms.

Take your Fleur D'Lis and stick it.

Oh, and I like how there is all this "we" would never treat someone this way BS coming from people.

www.20minutes.fr...

This guy being escorted to by police to the court was clearly given a chance to see the barber and the tailor and freshen up before going in.

tempsreel.nouvelobs.com...

Originally posted by JerryB08
reply to post by Rigel Kent

 

well then it seems Briton can afford to pay the 600 million dollars worth of tomahawk missiles we launched in Libya so their new crafty euro fighters didn't get blown out of the sky by a third world country and they can purchase their own spy plane or rent the one we are protecting their sorry arse fleet with. What happened to the royal navy anyhow? France has an aircraft carrier, Heck China has on... but the royal navy? Zip since you guys mouth balled the ark royal


It seems that England is the one that owes. How typical of you leeches. Get your facts straight. Notice its a UK site

uk.answers.yahoo.com...

So How Much Debt DO we Owe the Americans?
A `Mastermind` contestant cites figures and casualties of US aid to Britain during WWII as enormous, with over one million men fighting on that D-Day beach in Normandy.

OK. OK. But Britain accrued a bankrupting war debt on account of accepting US intervention- a debt which it is still paying off not only monetarily but by way of manpower support for US foreign policies.

Alot of things wrong with the British economy, such as foreign domination of shops and restaurants, not to mention redevelopment might arise from Britain`s moral debt to the Americans which it takes as seriously as its financial one..

It seems at least your country pay's. I actually always had a lot of respect for the English until I got on ATS and met some blokes. I met many of your troops while fighting in Afghanistan and other than getting a little overwhelmed when taking heavy fire. Your country has good soldiers.

edit on 5/18/2011 by JerryB08 because: (no reason given)

The whole post is totally off-topic and should be removed by the MODS
It does not warrant an answer.


PEACE,
RK

Originally posted by JerryB08
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

 

I read today. That the IMF guy lived in an AIDS/HIV only complex. Not saying it as fact. How awful would that be. If he on purpose exposed this woman to the disease. Then that as far as I'm concerned is Murder.

What bother's me mostly about all this. Is that because of this guy's job, none of us may never know the truth. her life is ruined too. Although she can at least sue and get paid. If she already didn't.. Heck who knows.

Sad thing is, you really believe that diatribe dont you?
you are so wrong it is destroying any cred you had beyond belief but I cannot be bothered to begin to try and explain why...either somebody else will point it out to you or you will continue to embarrass yourself

Dominic Khan (Thats the IMF guy to you) lived in a HIV/AIDS Complex.......??

RAOFPML

PEACE,
RK

Originally posted by Aeons
Oh, and I like how there is all this "we" would never treat someone this way BS coming from people.

www.20minutes.fr...

This guy being escorted to by police to the court was clearly given a chance to see the barber and the tailor and freshen up before going in.

tempsreel.nouvelobs.com...

If you read the article, the man in that picture was judged and condemned guilty already when it was taken.
That is not against the law. Only publishing such photos before they have been judged and found guilty.
(clothing, hair and hygeine are not mentioned in their laws on this)


By the way, I never said "we"- I am not french, I am american, I just live in France and as have stated, do not share the surprise nor repulsion to this practice of ours.

Just because I do not share the french opinion does not mean I cannot acknowledge it's validity as a position.

I also dislike the socialist party in France, but that is not an excuse for me to disingenuously reject all sense of logic and reason

reply to post by Rigel Kent


I saw that story too. Only when I read it, the women lived in the Aids housing project.

The young woman, who is raising a 15-year-old alone since her husband died, came to the US in 2004 in what newser.com is saying were "very difficult circumstances."

She was granted political asylum and is living in a residential building kept for adults with HIV/AIDS, says the New York Post. No statement has been made as to whether the young lady has HIV or AIDS due to confidentiality laws but only people with AIDS or HIV are allowed to stay in the complex.

Continue reading on Examiner.com: IMF head under suicide watch, maid lived in AIDS complex - San Francisco Top News | Examiner.com www.examiner.com...

The Post has not been able to ascertain whether the maid, 32, has HIV/AIDS because of medical confidentiality laws.

But the agency rents apartments only for adults with the disease. A Harlem United worker said at least one adult in the household has to be HIV-positive or have AIDS to qualify for one of their units. A healthy adult with a child with HIV or AIDS is not eligible.

Read more: www.nypost.com...

I think our friend got the allegations twisted around completely in his head.

Originally posted by coquine

Just because I do not share the french opinion does not mean I cannot acknowledge it's validity as a position.

Well if you wont, I will. Like I have said before. We have only been doing this AT LEAST since the communist witch hunts in the 50's. And thats just the earliest examples I can think of. But thats near the beginning of TV being in most households, so its fair to say we have been doing this almost as long as we have been able to do this.

Its not a valid position to be surprised and outraged when someone does what they always do. Its stupid and/or self serving. You only have the right to be legitimately surprised and outraged if someone does what they normally DO NOT do. And that doesnt apply here.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker

Oh come on. I don't care what the law is in France, he was arrested in the United States. This man is a rapist and if he was tarred and feathered before being led into court I wouldn't shed a tear.

I assume you feel exactly the same way about Julian Assange:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/70193fec83ca.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by coquine

Just because I do not share the french opinion does not mean I cannot acknowledge it's validity as a position.

Well if you wont, I will. Like I have said before. We have only been doing this AT LEAST since the communist witch hunts in the 50's. And thats just the earliest examples I can think of. But thats near the beginning of TV being in most households, so its fair to say we have been doing this almost as long as we have been able to do this.

Its not a valid position to be surprised and outraged when someone does what they always do. Its stupid and/or self serving. You only have the right to be legitimately surprised and outraged if someone does what they normally DO NOT do. And that doesnt apply here.

If I find out one day that a certain country makes it a regular habit to participate in cannibalism, and I am shocked and repulsed at that revelation, could they insist I have no right to feel the way I do because they have been doing it for centuries?? If a peoples is not aware of something, and they suddenly learn it, it is new to them and could provoke surprise and all kinds of other emotions. Who are we to tell them they have no right to feel as they do?

Of course, if they had made demands of us, that we do otherwise, or change our ways, yes, we could say "you have no right to make such demands. "
But they didn't.

Trying to dictate what people feel is senseless and vain. We can only have a say in what they do, if it effects ourself.

But anyway, that is beside the question.
The position is not the feelings of shock and outrage.
The position is that this practice of publishing photos of a person in handcuffs before judgement infringes individual rights by creating bias that risks damaging the lives of individuals who might be found innocent.

That is logical and stands up.

It is useful in a debate to separate "feelings" from "position".

Justice should be transparent unless there is a pressing reason otherwise.

Transparent applies to everyone.

In France, people may be shielded when accused.

In France, elitists often get away with things which are absolutely shocking and no one knows about it because...they are shielded from anyone knowing.

A Transparent society applies to everyone. If you prefer to live in ignorance of corruption of justice because it is more pleasing to your fragile sensibilities, then you picked the right place to be molly-coddled.

Originally posted by Aeons
Justice should be transparent unless there is a pressing reason otherwise.

Transparent applies to everyone.

In France, people may be shielded when accused.

In France, elitists often get away with things which are absolutely shocking and no one knows about it because...they are shielded from anyone knowing.

A Transparent society applies to everyone. If you prefer to live in ignorance of corruption of justice because it is more pleasing to your fragile sensibilities, then you picked the right place to be molly-coddled.

You are mistaken. In this issue, the law of photographing and publishing people in handcuffs before judgement doesn't allow "some" people to be shielded with this law. It applies to ALL people and is enforced that way.

I think, if you are not in ignorance of your corruption of justice in your system,
Then why not just acknowledge it and not waste time calling people names and making ridiculous insults?
It doesn't help anyone take you seriously.


I acknowledge it- yes, in this issue, we DO infringe upon individual rights, we DO sometimes unjustly destroy innocent peoples lives. We have weighed the queston and decided that it is a necessary part of protecting the society. It is our choice. No justice system is perfect and in all of them some choices had to be made that are less then ideal or perfect. This is one of ours.

I am not sure how much the claim can be used that they are sheilded, because everyone KNOWS that handcuffs are used.... it is just that french believe images have an effect upon the emotions and the mind that intellectual knowledge does not. Like they also have laws against certain images like a swastika, and yet everyone knows what it means, it's history, etc. They are not left ignorant.

You could perhaps make the argument that they have choices to limit knowledge to the public with their other laws which restrict freedom of the press- like pharmaceutical companies, lawyers, doctors, cigarette and alcohol companies are not allowed to publish commercials or ads, which might limit the publics knowledge? There are some good arguments you could use- if you know enough about the country, and don't waste time with childish name calling.

Originally posted by Aeons
...In France, elitists often get away with things which are absolutely shocking and no one knows about it because...they are shielded from anyone knowing...

So how is it that you know it? Oh right, you dont. You're just making stuff up.

Originally posted by coquine


If I find out one day that a certain country makes it a regular habit to participate in cannibalism, and I am shocked and repulsed at that revelation, could they insist I have no right to feel the way I do because they have been doing it for centuries?? If a peoples is not aware of something, and they suddenly learn it, it is new to them and could provoke surprise and all kinds of other emotions. Who are we to tell them they have no right to feel as they do?

Willful ignorance is the responsibility of the person engaging in it. Its no secret. Its not like we do it in the dark, under the blankets. Its our media, the most public of all things American, that does it. Your point that we cannot dictate peoples "feelings" is accepted. But I can legitimately point out that their feelings are stupid considering the facts.

Someone can "feel" whatever they want. I dont see why I or anyone should have to refrain from pointing out you would need to have your head pretty far up your nether regions to legitimately act surprised that this is how we treat public figures accuses of some crime or even titilating misadventure in America. We do it to everyone. And we have for decades. Was France asleep when the press dragged Clinton through the mud? Or when Dubyas drug and alcohol problems and his "military service" were in the press? We try everyone in the court of public opinion.

It just strikes me that their "feelings" could well be a political ploy and media posturing as well. Its like arguing with someone who cries everytime they lose a point, or are proven wrong to derail the argument. You may have a right to your "feelings" but they have no legitimate place in arguments about facts.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Willful ignorance is the responsibility of the person engaging in it.

Really? Really? Can we be more consumed with our own navel that we assume all countries know everything about us???
Do you know everything about France?

Was France asleep when the press dragged Clinton through the mud? Or when Dubyas drug and alcohol problems and his "military service" were in the press?

Yes, they were aware of those events, yet even I never saw a photo of either of them in handcuffs during those events. (?)

It just strikes me that their "feelings" could well be a political ploy and media posturing as well. Its like arguing with someone who cries everytime they lose a point, or are proven wrong to derail the argument. You may have a right to your "feelings" but they have no legitimate place in arguments about facts.

I agre that feelings have no legitimate place in arguments about facts. So lets get back to them, shall we? The "head up butt", "fleur de lys up butt", etc. are exactly that type of emotional stuff made to derail off the topic and facts.

So the american press found out how the french felt and decided to make headlines out of it- I think your complaint is with the american press then.

The problem is that most americans are ignorant idiots, and most of them react emotionally, rather than rationally. Its all about their short attention spans and need for constant stimulation. Add to that their racist ethnocentrism, and need to feel superior to all other nations. Whenever I read about a wealthy and powerful person being demonized and charged with something in the US media, I instantly imagine that most likely it is a set up or scape goat factor, as the truly rich and powerful in the US get carte blanche. Enron was a temporary scape goat for all of wall streets shenanigans, Julian assange was set up to try to shut him up, and Madoff was a scapegoat to take pressure off of wall street more recently. So, whenever I see this, I look more deeply into it. Wish more americans did. Now, most have no idea who strauss-kahn is, because again, most americans have no clue about foreign politics or rulers....that ethno-centrism again. Sadly I can tell you most americans cannot name the prime minister of china, canada, and will often look blank when asked who the head of state is in Brittain.
What I have learned about Strauss Kahn is that his leadership was a broad departure from standard IMF policies. He was largely leading the IMF away from destroying and privatizing the economies of failing countries, and towards actually helping them with reasonable loans, and without all the draconian austerity requirements, that were traditionally used to provide massive profit to corporate vultures waiting to privatize these countries natural resources and financial institutions when they defaulted. This was angering the american and trans national financial base greatly. Also, the fact that he is the head of the socialist party in france, and was front runner for their national elections by an unprecedented amount, and likely to completely negate all of Sarkozy's pro corporatist actions of the past few years, gave these groups another reason to want him out. For these reasons and more, it seems pretty shady with all the conflicting stories, especially upon the fact that he did indeed mention a month ago that he figured his opposition would try a rape charge to discredit him, and also the fact that the information of his allegations were released in france by a member in the sarkozy government, before he was even arrested in the US.

I can only imagine how americans would be acting if Mccain, Clinton, or Obama had been visiting france, and were arrested and thrown in PRISON, with no evidence other than some girls word and a bit of hair or nails.

As to all the people I see on here salivating over the idea of him getting HIV....dont get your hopes up. The actual risk of transmission of the AIDS virus through sexual contact with no protection for a male is 1 in 1000. Sorry to burst your dreams of horror and torment heaped upon an as yet not convicted fellow human.

furthermore, lets reply to those criticizing the French for not knowing how we treat our prisoners in the good old US of A. Look on the other hand.....how many americans knew that the French never allowed people to be filmed in handcuffs looking desheveled prior to a guilty conviction? I didnt. And yet the French are all supposed to be familiar with how the US handles "innocent until proven guilty" suspects? Sadly, I doubt the man will get any kind of non biased jury or judge after all of this. Which was likely the intent....as all people seem ready to condemn him without even knowing anything about him. Americans are like wheat, they blow whatever direction the wind says, and are often filled with genetically modified crap, and bleached and processed out of any true value. (ok, so it was a stretching analogy....i still like it). We were convinced that Iraq took part in 9/11, that saddam had WMD, that the war would be a cake walk, that hugo chavez is the devil, and that qaddafi was a horrible dictator....yet when i ask fellow americans what chavez and qaddafi do that is so horrible, they say things like "he tries to be president for life", or "they politically suppress their people"....when in fact our own presidents are responsible for the death of 1.4 million iraqi's recently, many afghani's and paks, not to mention millions in south america, vietnam, laos, cambodia. We are responsible for assassinating foreign rulers and overthrowing fledgling democracies all over the world, and for overt attacks politically, financially, and socially with any nation trying a competing political paradigm (read socialism). And after all this, we see no problem with supporting the invasions or acts of war against nations that havent invaded anyone in 200 years (iran), are not doing any ethnic cleansing or massive massacres (venezuela), or have provided their people with the highest standard of living on their continent, giving free healthcare and education to all their populace (libya)??
What more can I say? Americans get their views spoonfed from fox news.

The way I feel they are treating him with kid gloves compared to what he actually deserves. This is not his first offense, just the first one he was prosecuted for. Granted innocent until proven guilty but please, he was and is in solitary (protected) custody, he eats his meals alone, he exercises for one hour alone, he sleeps alone. That is better then how most rapists are treated at Rikers Island. I say put him into the population and let him enjoy the fine treatments normal criminals like his sort are treated there.

Originally posted by Golithion
The way I feel they are treating him with kid gloves compared to what he actually deserves. This is not his first offense, just the first one he was prosecuted for. Granted innocent until proven guilty but please, he was and is in solitary (protected) custody, he eats his meals alone, he exercises for one hour alone, he sleeps alone. That is better then how most rapists are treated at Rikers Island. I say put him into the population and let him enjoy the fine treatments normal criminals like his sort are treated there.

One or two of them will be smart enough to know that the recession the US is experiencing right now was orchestrated by the IMF as part of the the overall strategy of bringing the second world developing nations onto a more level playing field with the first world nations. Mind they didn't account for the ridiculous home mortgage stupidity that burst at the same time.

I'm sure that a few people not moved by his alleged crime, may be rather more moved by the impact of the recession on them personally.

Originally posted by coquine
Really? Really? Can we be more consumed with our own navel that we assume all countries know everything about us???

I know for a FACT that France was aware of us smearing Saddam and case building via public opinion in the media. They were one of the most vocal critics of that war.

news.bbc.co.uk...

French President Jacques Chirac has become the latest Western leader to speak out against an American attack on Iraq.

He condemned US threats to attack Iraq unilaterally, saying that a United Nations mandate should be sought for military action.

Originally posted by coquine
Do you know everything about France?

Irrelevant. Knowing "everything" about a nation is not the point. There is no equivalence whatsoever between "knowing everything" and "knowing one thing."

Originally posted by coquine
Yes, they were aware of those events, yet even I never saw a photo of either of them in handcuffs during those events. (?)

Its still trial in the court of public opinion. Much like showing mug shots of people like Micheal Jackson, or OJ SImpson, or various other celebrities whose legal troubles hit the international media cycle.

Originally posted by coquine So lets get back to them, shall we? The "head up butt", "fleur de lys up butt", etc. are exactly that type of emotional stuff made to derail off the topic and facts.

I certainly am not the one who is bringing the "feelings" of a people into this argument. And the statement that someone must have their heads somewhere dark and isolating is not a "feeling." Its a statement of truth phrased in a way I found personally satisfying. Its impossible that France could be aware of how we operate in the media. We have done it too many times, in too many instances that have hit the international news scene.

Originally posted by coquine
So the american press found out how the french felt and decided to make headlines out of it- I think your complaint is with the american press then.

"The American Press" is not here defending their title and the feelings of the French. You are.