IMF Leader Arrested After Alleged Sex Attack

Somethings not right about this.
He's a very very very powerful man, and potentially has insider knowledge to something quite important.

I get the feeling he's being gagged.

Originally posted by hawkiye
I really don't care if this scum bag is being set up or not, he sure left the hotel in a hurry though.

People keep saying that, based on the police quote being spread around about how he left his cell phone behind.

leaving one's cell phone behind is not evidence of 'leaving in a hurry' any more than it's evidence of Alzheimers. He was scheduled at a meeting the next day in Europe. He was already leaving.

The readiness in which people are swallowing the MSM's line on this is astounding. IF you believe this story no questions asked, you are being played like a fiddle.

reply to post by BobbyTarass


If he used drugs, he would have been set up with something in relation to drugs.

Look at how insidious it is, because he's flirty we should not be surprised he is a rapist. We are trapped in a news environment full of shortcuts like this one. The news are conditioning us towards one truth.
I don't know if he is guilty, I don't know if he is innocent. The investigators are looking for hard facts... hopefully. It still very much looks like fabricated claims according to my own bias.

Originally posted by themaster1
A chinese may soon be at the head of the IMF (4 euros previously)

Not only the 4 previous directors, the IMF has always had a european director. It's a tacit agreement, the World Bank has an american director, the IMF has a european director.

That would be a very interesting development if true.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

People keep saying that, based on the police quote being spread around about how he left his cell phone behind.

leaving one's cell phone behind is not evidence of 'leaving in a hurry' any more than it's evidence of Alzheimers. He was scheduled at a meeting the next day in Europe. He was already leaving.

The readiness in which people are swallowing the MSM's line on this is astounding. IF you believe this story no questions asked, you are being played like a fiddle.

Soon afterward, Strauss-Kahn got dressed and headed off to JFK for a flight to Paris.

When he was approached on the plane by Port Authority cops, he said, "What is this about?" sources said. He was taken off the aircraft without handcuffs.

Two law-enforcement sources said Strauss-Kahn was trying to flee authorities. Police said he left his cellphone and other personal items in the room.

"It looked like he got out of there in a hurry," Browne said.

Read more: www.nypost.com...

Ok. Please present us the evidence you have that is NOT being spread by the MSM. Im willing to accept that the MSM may have motives to present a damning case against him, after all, they did it to Gaddafi n Libya. In Libya, however, we could present the human development report about the quality of life in Libya. We could look at videos and count people. Note the lack of airplanes in their air strike propaganda, note people firing into the air at nothing. And the evidence the MSM was presenting was perfectly acceptable to you in that case, even with counter evidence.

Here, we have a man who is more than "flirty." We have a man who has been accused of physically assaulting someone before, who is known and has admitted to sexual indiscretion, we have a alleged timeline, we have the alleged fact that he left his phone and other belongings. What do you have to counter that?

Im more than willing to look at evidence for both sides. Show us some, or lay out at the very least your case based on reason and history.

Originally posted by Manouche
reply to post by BobbyTarass

 

Look at how insidious it is, because he's flirty we should not be surprised he is a rapist.

I wouldn't translate "attacking someone physically" to "being flirty", which is well accounted for that he did before. Tristane Banon, the French female journalist (and also the goddaughter of Strauss-Kahns second wife), said that she was the victim of a sexual attack från Strauss-Kahn back in 2002. She spoke about this in a tv interview already 2007, which makes her more believable, but Strauss-Kahns name was not mentioned then (it was bleeped out)

But like I said before, even her mother was glossing over what happend, which she regrets today.
www.guardian.co.uk...

I think it is tragic that so many people wants it to be like "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and suddenly thinks this man is a "good guy". Sometimes it is just like this: If it walks like a rapist, and talks like a rapist...

Listening to CNN's version of "what is the International Monetary Fund".

Never laughed so hard at an "official explanation" in my life.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Somethings not right about this.
He's a very very very powerful man, and potentially has insider knowledge to something quite important.

I get the feeling he's being gagged.

They're saying in MSM that the conspiracy theories started up about an hour after his arrest.

I think he knows something that he shouldn't, or was going to spill the beans about something big the IMF is working on. They're now saying he was "instrumental" in organizing bailouts of Greece and Ireland, and Greece are currently asking for more money ..... hmm....

Or TPTB just don't want him running against Nikolas Sarkozy for some reason.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


There may have actually been an intentional security reason for leaving his cell phone behind... or perhaps the maid stole it to obtain personal information... as I'm sure that it wouldn't be the first time that a maid turned out to be a spy for some alphabet intelligence agency. And as for this guy having a history... TPTB obviously prefer these types who are easy to manipulate/blackmail... or frame for a crime. I'm not convinced that he's guilty as charged. The more I learn... the more I begin to have doubts.

The cellphone is much ado about nothing, when he realized he left it behind he called the hotel to report he had left it in his room etc. I'm not saying he is guilty or innocent but this whole story reeks, and lets give someone the presumption of innocence before we pillory them. If he his found guilty then he certainly deserves punishment but I'd think the ATS crowd should be more skeptical than most until more facts are known.

Keep in mind NYPD has been sued at least several times in recent memory for falsely arresting people over ultimately unfounded rape charges, including the following, note the interesting parallels:

"An Australian businessman was arrested at The Standard Hotel Saturday after allegedly trying to rape a chambermaid. The unidentified 28-year-old woman claims the assault occurred after she began cleaning Matthew Moorhouse's $400-a-night room at 4:25 p.m. "He just asked me, 'Where are you from? How long have you been here?'" Then Moorhouse, 42, allegedly asked her if she had a boyfriend. When she said no, "He asked me, 'Do you think I'm handsome?' He went to hug me. And then he pushed me onto the bed."
"I said, 'No!' And then he continued to kiss my face," the maid tells the Post. Fortunately, her screams were heard by another hotel worker, who banged on the door. "I screamed, 'OK, come in please!'" says the woman, who ran to hotel security. Police later arrested Moorhouse in his room; he's charged with attempted rape, sexual abuse and unlawful imprisonment, and remains locked up in lieu of $20,000 bail."

reply to post by pimpinette


I am not reasoning in terms of good guys/bad guys, I look at events as they unfold and I am wondering if he is being set up or not. I am not on a crusade. He can be falsely accused and still be the biggest crook ever.

The constant ambient of manicheism is tiring. Black and white, good and evil, these are simple interpretations.

Because Banon talked about it 4 years ago doesn't make it more or less credible to me. Especially in 2007 an election year. She is filing a complaint now, let's see what will emerge from it. She has a more credible story and I intend to follow it but she made allegations 4 years ago that are still unverified allegations today.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by MikeboydUS

 

I actually think you have it right. My only objection is that the wording makes it sound like these internal "complexes" (gangs of economic criminals) are the "US." And they arent. The US is being used to fund their economic adventures, our people are used to fight and pay for wars that benefit them, but nothing they do is for our sake. Its for their own sake.

I think you do great research, and I think you have it very well analyzed. And you may not even mean to imply that these *snips* who have infiltrated our government etc. actually are acting FOR the US, I just have a strong desire for people to realize that what they are doing isnt for America. They are using us up for their own sake.

We the people are being made responsible for the debt to fund wars that make THEM rich not us as a nation.

Its depends on how you look at things, whether or not they are the "US". We have to look back at US history to see where they came from. The first real complex of this sort emerged in the American Revoution, by wealthy American aristocrats, especially from Virginia. We call them today the "Founding Fathers". Not all of them were Elitists, but they were all Elite. They used their combined wealth and influence to form a revolutionary consortium or syndicate. Its objective was to liberate the American colonies from British imperial rule. In a whole, the American Revolution was fought by a minority of people serving the interests of an even smaller minority of wealthy land and business owners.

It is true that some of them were "enlightened" patricians, like Thomas Jefferson, who gave us the Declaration of Independence and fought for democratic ideals during the creation of the United States. As enlightened as he was though, he owned hundreds of slaves, lived in a lavish Neo Palladian mansion at Monticello, and had one of the largest libraries in the US, which became the foundation for the US Library of Congress. He set the way for the ethnic cleansing of the native tribes in a letter to his Secretary of War:

if we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down until that tribe is exterminated, or driven beyond the Mississipi.

Quote source: books.google.com...=onepage&q=Thomas%20Jefferson%20dearborn% 20hatchet&f=false

Both he and Franklin somehow knew the US would become an empire, one modeled on the Roman Republic. Much of the US government born in 1789, would use the Roman Republic as a road map in its creation, which is why the US has a Capitol Hill, oddly built on what was Rome, Maryland. Roman fasces, symbol of Roman law and authority, adorn and decorate US government buildings to US coins. There is also a tradition going back to Franklin, of a Roman goddess, which has become synonmous with the United States. The Romans knew her as Minerva, the Greeks as Pallas Athena, we know her as Alma Mater and Liberty. I could digress further,especially about the Palladium, sacred owls, the medal of honor, etc. but I have to stop myself.

Ultimately my point is to ask who or what exactly is the US? Was it really infiltrated by anyone or have they always been there? What exactly is America's Manifest Destiny? Franklin and Jefferson said it was empire. Inside the US Capitol, is huge Roman fresco, titled: The Apotheosis of Washington, painted at the end of the US Civil War. It shows the Roman pantheon guiding the US on its Manifest Destiny. With the collapse of every major empire on earth, between the Great War and World War Two, that destiny became reality with the Pax Americana, enduring to this day.

The modern complexes, were built on legacies that brought America from beneath British rule, gave us the transcontinental railroads, the oil industry, wealth and power undreamed of. In the process thousands of natives were killed, more ethnically cleansed, a civil war that established industrial dominance over agrarian society, two world wars killing millions, etc. Right or wrong, we would not be where we are or who we are without them. It doesn't justify what has been done, but to ignore the history and the reality would be to hide the truth. I'm a "Deny Ignorance" kind of guy, so I look at all of it, good and bad.

Originally posted by babybunnies

They're saying in MSM that the conspiracy theories started up about an hour after his arrest.

I think there is a recurring line in the MSM about "conspiracy theorists" that we need to really pay attention to. Its beginning to be a theme that runs through many stories, and I suspect there is a motive for that we are not yet fully aware of.

I think it bears MUCH more careful watching than any particular story being used to promote that line, in order that we figure out where they are going with it.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


JP Morgan was a rival of the Rothschilds.

I see people going on about how Rhodes and the Rothschilds started De Beers the diamond company, but they leave out the most important part.

The part where the JP Morgan financed Anglo American Mining company headed by Ernest Oppenheimer bought out De Beers in the 1920s and Ernest Oppenheimer became its head and made the company into what it is known for today.

The Rothschild owned Federal Reserve hoax, is an old one, created by Gary Kah and Eustace Mullins.
Here is one of the best articles I have seen explaining the myth:
Who owns and controls the Federal Reserve
www.usagold.com...

u sound just like all those people who believe the Potus is a nice guy and will pay for their gasoline and mortgate with mysterious money from the govt. I am not going to resort to name-calling here, but not very many here defend the IMF the way you do.

If you think I sound like those people, you are sadly mistaken. I'm not defending anyone. I'm being objective about research. I step back follow the money and see where that leads. I'm not justifying anyone's actions. I'm just being blunt about the reality of the situation. I am not a soft person who cushions the truth.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS

It is true that some of them were "enlightened" patricians, like Thomas Jefferson, who gave us the Declaration of Independence and fought for democratic ideals during the creation of the United States. As enlightened as he was though, he owned hundreds of slaves, lived in a lavish Neo Palladian mansion at Monticello, and had one of the largest libraries in the US, which became the foundation for the US Library of Congress. He set the way for the ethnic cleansing of the native tribes in a letter to his Secretary of War:

People are complex, and all of us have flaws. One thing I will point out about Jefferson is his consistency. While what you are saying is true, about slaves and native Americans, when it came to "we the people" he remained loyal. I dont agree with him that "we the people" excluded women, slaves, and Natives, but look at him in terms of group loyalty. To the group, as HE defined "we the people" he was loyal, and his actions consistent with what he felt was in the best interests of that group. Even when it caused him to behave in ways that were not good for members of the out group.

And thats what group competition is. Loyalty to "us" in competition against "them." We can argue that who deserves to be called "us" may not be broad enough, too broad, but the definition of "traitor" depends on having a defined "us" and "them" and showing that the traitor is betraying whomever "us" is.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
Ultimately my point is to ask who or what exactly is the US?

And this IS key. Who is the US? Its who it always was. We the people. Only now, we the people include blacks, Native Americans, Asians, women, etc. So we have a group. We have a standard. And to determine who is traitor, you only need to look at "are their actions good for "us" "

In the case of the people pushing for Globalization, the answer is clearly "no." Their actions are not good for "we the people" as a collective. Their actions are good for them against us, and even for foreign interests against We the people at times. (in the case of multinationals, or even foreign wealthy individuals.)

A big part of this fight hinges on, "are corporations us." And these complexes have been fighting in court to establish that they are for over 100 years. But they are not. I know this argument is very inadequate in terms of how much detail I am going into, but in short, they arent people, they cannot be loyal to the group, and thus we cannot and should not consider corporations "us." In fact, by their very nature, they are designed to compete with "us." Their interests are not our interests, and shared interests are crucial to group definition.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
Was it really infiltrated by anyone or have they always been there? What exactly is America's Manifest Destiny?

I would argue that how long these forces have been here is irrelevant. What defines America is "we the people" or the collective itself. The fact that from the start there have been people who have wanted to exploit that collective, that group, for their own ends does not mean they ARE the group. It means that from day one, we have had traitors to the group in our midst.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
The modern complexes, were built on legacies that brought America from beneath British rule, gave us the transcontinental railroads, the oil industry, wealth and power undreamed of. In the process thousands of natives were killed, more ethnically cleansed, a civil war that established industrial dominance over agrarian society, two world wars killing millions, etc. Right or wrong, we would not be where we are or who we are without them. It doesn't justify what has been done, but to ignore the history and the reality would be to hide the truth. I'm a "Deny Ignorance" kind of guy, so I look at all of it, good and bad.

And I will agree with you. And as long as that was working for the collective, for We the People, it may have been distasteful, but it is entirely consistent with group competition. The laws of nature. But twice the move towards globalization has caused the collective known as the US to stagger to her knees. And there is a reason for this. Globalization is an attack on the nation state. On the group itself. Our group may have changed in scope, and it may now include more "types" of humans, but it is still a group competing with other groups. Globalization is by nature designed to remove our ability to compete with one another, and to make all nations an even playing field for the globalists to exploit at will.

Note that while it SOUNDS superficially that this could be good (well just like the group expanded to include other types of people, now the idea of "us" is expanding to include ALL the worlds people.) But to fall into this honeypot you have to ignore that all it is doing is separating the world into two groups. The people, and the globalists. They are not part of "us." They are in direct and hostile competition with us, and our interests are not their interests.

The whole story smells fishy,

There are so many questions open;

- Dominique Strauss Kahn (DSK ) owns an appartment in Manhattan, so why is he at the sofitel ?
- New York Times reported the maid went to the suite at 2pm, left the door open as is standard porcedure, whre DSK allegedly came out of the bathroom naked and jump on her. She fled to the bathroom (!!).
So here we have a maid who worked there for 2 years, so she knows the suite, an open door (flight-path) and attacker who comes from the bathroom, which means this way is blocked. Why on earth would she choose this way ?
- There are rumours spreading he has an alibi and was having lunch with his daughter at the given time

- DSK is 62 years old, and the story happenend in the afternoon ? An action like this you would probably understand at nighttime/early morning after a very very consuming party. But not in the afternoon in your own hotel suite.

- The maid; she's allegedly 32 years old, african living in the bronx, having a kid. I have not seen Pictures of her
(please post if you find some -woul be interesting.) How to put it politically correct ? My guess is she is not the hottest target, especially for a guy who has enough money to order whatever he likes.

Who profits from the arrest ?
- Sarkozy (french presi) his future opponent in the race for president is gone
- the americans: 1st time it's an american as boss of IMF
- the americans: the Euro dropped after this story, so dollar gets a little boost.

There is not enough info ye to draw conclusions, but when it smells fishy, there probably is something rotten.

Originally posted by svetlana84

- DSK is 62 years old, and the story happenend in the afternoon ? An action like this you would probably understand at nighttime/early morning after a very very consuming party. But not in the afternoon in your own hotel suite.

I think you could look at it this way; The incident happened after he emerged naked from the bathroom. The maid did not come in and find him drinking tea and reading the WSJ upon which he attacked her. He was doing something naked in the bathroom.

IF he were in their masturbating, and fantasizing, and he hears someone come in before he pops off, it is not unreasonable to think that someone in a very high state of arousal engaged in fantasy might not be willing to them take advantage of the very nice lady who walked into the scenario and offered him an alternative to his own hand.

Originally posted by svetlana84
- The maid; she's allegedly 32 years old, african living in the bronx, having a kid. I have not seen Pictures of her
(please post if you find some -woul be interesting.) How to put it politically correct ? My guess is she is not the hottest target, especially for a guy who has enough money to order whatever he likes.

Men have been known to get their penises stuck in park benches, and intakes on hot tubs. And have sex with sheep, rubber dolls, and other odd assorted items. What exactly are you arguing here? That someone known to have a very high sex drive, who could have been at the peak of arousal would not stick it in the nearest woman available" I dont see the logic, frankly.

Wow, just got into researching about the Vice-Chief of IMF:

John Lipsky, guess where he comes from ? He was vice chairman of JPMorgan.
and, drumroll,........ he resigned on March 12th just two days before the DSK-scandal. Coincidence ??

Article on his resignment:
www.reuters.com... I920110512

reply to post by svetlana84


He already held the number two position, while working at JPMorgan;

www.ft.com...



And there was already speculation that DSKs presidential run would leave the number one position open;

(Please see the same article, I have removed the excerpts because I am not sure if posting them is a violation of their policy or not. Safer to all to just send you to the article.

The timing is interesting, but I really dont see how the scandal did anything substantial to open the role of number one at the IMF. It did something substantial in skewing the Presidential race in France, WHILE opening the role of number one at the IMF, but if DSK were planning to make the Presidential run, the number one spot at the IMF was going to be available anyway.

And because there was already speculation Mr. Lipsky was a candidate for that potential opening, days before the alleged attack, he could have been acting on the assumption DSK was going to run for President, and the spot was going to open up that way, not in anticipation of a sexual assault which would knock him out of both positions.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I wasn't demonizing Jefferson, I admit we as humans all have flaws or deviations, some more than others. I wanted to show that even our most enlightened of the founding elite, was not the average person or the most benign.

He was consistent is firm belief in America and what it could be one day. He never gave up on America and did everything in his lifetime to make America great. He was loyal to the Republic.

In my view there are those in the modern complexes like Jefferson, but for every Jefferson there is a Hamilton, the founder who wanted make Washington into a king and drag us back to London. There are also Benedict Arnolds, who you think are loyal patriots until they get their ego hurt and betray their cause out of selfish ambition.

I would argue that how long these forces have been here is irrelevant. What defines America is "we the people" or the collective itself. The fact that from the start there have been people who have wanted to exploit that collective, that group, for their own ends does not mean they ARE the group. It means that from day one, we have had traitors to the group in our midst.

I agree with that, Benedict Arnold a good example. Anyone who does anything that is detrimental to the future of the Republic in my eyes is a traitor to his own nation, especially putting self before country, like Arnold. Patriotism is a selfless and honorable act. I have served this nation for almost 12 years, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I do not for one second regret that service.

People that exploit the citizens of this great Republic or worse betray her out of selfish personal ambition are not patriots, but traitors.

Note that while it SOUNDS superficially that this could be good (well just like the group expanded to include other types of people, now the idea of "us" is expanding to include ALL the worlds people.) But to fall into this honeypot you have to ignore that all it is doing is separating the world into two groups. The people, and the globalists. They are not part of "us." They are in direct and hostile competition with us, and our interests are not their interests.

I agree with this. We can't compromise on our values. Franklin's and Jefferson's vision of empire, wasn't one of tyranny but liberty. If we compromise on our values and instead are misguided by greed and selfish ambition, we lose sight of the vision that Franklin and Jefferson had for the future.

Even worse, if we failt to keep that vision of liberty, we will descend into tyranny like Rome before. That is my worst fear that one day we will not be guided by Liberty but lead by Tyranny into oblivion.