Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
long time lurking

Am i allowed to say Paris AK 47`s

43 posts in this topic

9 minutes ago, lulu said:

And first round of French presidential elections this weekend? 

This is going to get interesting

Nahhh.  It's Paris. Full of predominantly pro-EU voters. The French equivalent of our own trendy Pro-Remain metropolitan elite filled London.  And just like the non-urban types here many more rural French don't think so highly of the snobby Parisians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 24 year mortgage 8itch said:

You're allowed to say most things.

You just can't say, <<<insert group>>> are all <<<profanity>>> I would round up all the <<<insert group>>> and shoot them. 

Well Hollande has just come out and very quickly linked it to Islamic terrorism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another loony running amok. :ph34r:

Edit to say:  I should think that if it is terrorism, the French ha e brought it on themselves by the way they treated the people in their colonies back in the day. 

Edited by Bossybabe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bossybabe said:

Yet another loony running amok. :ph34r:

Edit to say:  I should think that if it is terrorism, the French ha e brought it on themselves by the way they treated the people in their colonies back in the day. 

really?  LOL.  Can I have some of that when you have finishing smoking it please>?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bossybabe said:

Yet another loony running amok. :ph34r:

Edit to say:  I should think that if it is terrorism, the French ha e brought it on themselves by the way they treated the people in their colonies back in the day. 

Not just in the day, even today 14 former African French colonies are still forced to pay extortionate taxes to France:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/frances-colonial-tax-still-enforced-for-africa-bleeding-africa-and-feeding-france/5547512

Quote

The article called attention to an ongoing practice by which former African countries are forced to pay a colonial tax to France – even today. In fact, France continues to thrive on the practice, which extracts approximately 500 billion dollars from African countries each year.

 

I would call that reverse charity. :o

Edited by The Eagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Eagle said:

Not just in the day, even today 14 former African French colonies are still forced to pay extortionate taxes to France:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/frances-colonial-tax-still-enforced-for-africa-bleeding-africa-and-feeding-france/5547512

 

I would call that reverse charity. :o

That article is nonsense.  For a start, $500 bln is more than the combined GDP of the countries involved.

Funnily enough, the source of the nonsense is given in the quote at the end of the article.  The 12 trillion in deposits isn't in Euro (as is implied by the article), but FrancCFA -- so about 20 billion euro.  This then gives a 'tax' not of 360 billion euro (ie, about $500 billion in 2012 when the quote was made), but of 500 million euro, or about $500m (as the $:euro exchange rate has cratered over the last few years).  And it isn't even a real tax, just a made up guess based on '3% interest' that has been plucked out of nowhere, as though the French have just shoved it into a high interest account down the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Eagle said:

Not just in the day, even today 14 former African French colonies are still forced to pay extortionate taxes to France:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/frances-colonial-tax-still-enforced-for-africa-bleeding-africa-and-feeding-france/5547512

 

I would call that reverse charity. :o

 

Quote

When Guinea demanded independence from French colonial rule in 1958, the French unleashed their fury with more than 3,000 leaving the country taking their enteire property. In addition, they destroyed anything that couldn’t be taken – destroying schools, nurseries, public administration buildings, cars, books, medicine, research institute instruments, tractors were crushed and sabotaged, animals killed and food in warehouses were burned or poisoned. In effect they were sending a message to all other colonies that the consqueences for jrejecting France would be high.

Brexit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I have to say is CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED and then we should CENSORED CENSORED.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also partly explains why Rwanda jumped ship in order to come under the British Commonwealth. It is one thing bullying African nations, it is another thing doing that to Britain - especially when a genocide has been perpetrated by the Francophile lot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide

 

Quote

 

During President Habyarimana's years in power, France maintained very close relations with him, as part of its Françafrique policy,[201] and assisted Rwanda militarily against the RPF during the Civil War;[202] France considered the RPF, along with Uganda, as part of a "plot" to increase Anglophone influence at the expense of French influence.[203] During the first few days of the genocide, France launched Amaryllis, a military operation assisted by the Belgian army and UNAMIR, to evacuate expatriates from Rwanda.[204] The French and Belgians refused to allow any Tutsi to accompany them, and those who boarded the evacuation trucks were forced off at Rwandan government checkpoints, where they were killed.[205] The French also separated several expatriates and children from their Tutsi spouses, rescuing the foreigners but leaving the Rwandans to likely death.[205] The French did, however, rescue several high-profile members of Habyarimana's government, as well as his wife, Agathe.[205]

In late June 1994, France launched Opération Turquoise, a UN-mandated mission to create safe humanitarian areas for displaced persons, refugees, and civilians in danger; from bases in the Zairian cities of Goma and Bukavu, the French entered southwestern Rwanda and established the zone Turquoise, within the CyanguguKibuyeGikongoro triangle, an area occupying approximately a fifth of Rwanda.[206] Radio France International estimates that Turquoise saved around 15,000 lives,[207] but with the genocide coming to an end and the RPF's ascendancy, many Rwandans interpreted Turquoise as a mission to protect Hutu from the RPF, including some who had participated in the genocide.[208] The French remained hostile to the RPF, and their presence temporarily stalled the RPF's advance.[209]

A number of inquiries have been held into French involvement in Rwanda, including the 1998 French Parliamentary Commission on Rwanda,[210] which accused France of errors of judgement, including "military cooperation against a background of ethnic tensions, massacres and violence,"[211] but did not accuse France of direct responsibility for the genocide itself.[211] A 2008 report by the Rwandan government sponsored Mucyo Commission accused the French government of knowing of preparations for the genocide and helping to train Hutu militia members.[212][213][214]

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dgul said:

That article is nonsense.  For a start, $500 bln is more than the combined GDP of the countries involved.

Funnily enough, the source of the nonsense is given in the quote at the end of the article.  The 12 trillion in deposits isn't in Euro (as is implied by the article), but FrancCFA -- so about 20 billion euro.  This then gives a 'tax' not of 360 billion euro (ie, about $500 billion in 2012 when the quote was made), but of 500 million euro, or about $500m (as the $:euro exchange rate has cratered over the last few years).  And it isn't even a real tax, just a made up guess based on '3% interest' that has been plucked out of nowhere, as though the French have just shoved it into a high interest account down the road.

I think the 'tax' refers to the amount of reserves that have to be kept on deposit in France rather than the interest.

It is a novel way of looking at the effect of insisting on 85% of reserves being held in France for growing economies.

That was my guess anyway. Otherwise the numbers do look very silly. They probably are anyway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hotairmail said:

I think the 'tax' refers to the amount of reserves that have to be kept on deposit in France rather than the interest.

It is a novel way of looking at the effect of insisting on 85% of reserves being held in France for growing economies.

That was my guess anyway. Otherwise the numbers do look very silly. They probably are anyway.

But even then, total foreign reserves for the cfa countries isn't going to be $500 bln.  Even $50bln would be too large.  

[for comparison, the UK has reserves of about $500bln]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.