RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Desecration of US WWII graves in France(13 posts)

Desecration of US WWII graves in FranceCaptain Morgan
Apr 2, 2003 7:10 AM
Makes me sick:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-631671,00.html
British or Commonwealth gravesmohair_chair
Apr 2, 2003 7:21 AM
Not US graves, but it makes me sick, too. What the hell are these idiots thinking?
Yeah, but it was probably just a couple kidsKristin
Apr 2, 2003 7:21 AM
While we are not buddy-buddy with France right now, I'm sure many French citizens are as outraged at the vandelism as we are. I doubt very much it reflects the attitudes of the entire nation of France. Also, many of the family members of the slain US and Brittish soldiers requested that they be buried in France. I think it would be sad to move the bodies.
free speech, right?DougSloan
Apr 2, 2003 7:21 AM
Well, that's an extreme example.

At least France is officially disapproving.

People are a little nutty on both sides of this.

Doug
agreed.sacheson
Apr 2, 2003 8:43 AM
I'm not so surprised, though. I think the 47 year span since the Normandy invasion, coupled with the second or third generation offspring from those who faught probably removes some of the shame in desecrating it.

Of course, their message was received ... no matter how controversial their method was.
Correction!sacheson
Apr 2, 2003 8:45 AM
58 years since Normandy! Wow is my face red!
totally wrong issue to bring upStarliner
Apr 2, 2003 9:05 AM
Don't obscure a criminal act (vandalism) by bringing in the protective veil of Freedom when freedom is not the issue - vandalism is the issue.
a bit facetious nmDougSloan
Apr 2, 2003 9:25 AM
stupid inflammatory media coverage at its worstgtx
Apr 2, 2003 9:22 AM
this shouldn't have even been covered, because it is divisive, very hurtful to many people and is obviously the action of a few idiots (probably drunk kids). It should've just been painted over quickly and quietly, but this way the kids got what they wanted (might be more than they wanted) and a bunch of people are pissed off. So who's worse, the dumb kids who painted this stuff, or the media who spread this worthless story?
stupid inflammatory media coverage at its worstCaptain Morgan
Apr 2, 2003 10:35 AM
With 1/3 of the country actually hoping Saddam wins, I don't think it would be accurate to just chalk this up to a childish prank. Having said that, the story does pander to the anti-French faction.
Captain, don't skew the facts -sacheson
Apr 2, 2003 12:04 PM
1/3 of the people polled in Le Monde, not 1/3 in the whole country. We've debated the validity of polls here several times, and all seem to reach one consensus: polls can be manipulated. And as I understand it, Le Monde is a somewhat conservative periodical/newspaper in France. If it is a conservative paper, then I'd think a more conservative audience reads it. If you were to sample the same subset of individuals here in the States (those who answer a poll being carried out by a conservative institution), they are saying just as inflamatory statements about France right now.

I'm not going to argue the validity of the 1/3 quote, I just don't think you should draw your assessment of the French population as a whole from one poll quoted in one article on a somewhat controversial newspaper.
Huh?Captain Morgan
Apr 2, 2003 12:38 PM
I thought that I specifically mentioned that the "article panders to the anti-French faction"?!?! Of course my comments were in response to this article assuming its validity.
but ...sacheson
Apr 2, 2003 1:14 PM
... still made a blanket statement extending the results of the poll to the whole country:

"With 1/3 of the country actually hoping Saddam wins, I don't think it would be accurate to just chalk this up to a childish prank"

Yes, you did follow with "Having said that, the story does pander to the anti-French faction".

A common method used in sensationalistic reporting is to make an inflamatory remark, then when the audience is preoccupied by the statement, you follow up with the facts that could take away from your validity.

Had you typed "1/3 of the people polled in a pro-French publication said ..." and it would have meant the same thing sans the general anti-French statement. That's my only point.