>Don't forget that behind the anonymous Internet user there is a real citizen living in a real society and a real culture and a nation to which he or she belongs
I can't say that I am at all surprised at his choice of words, but I can only scream NO PERSON BELONGS TO ANY STATE.
Until he realize that, he has no more legitimacy than the tyrant of North Korea.
This assumes that "X belongs to Y" means "X is a possession of Y", but that simply isn't the only meaning "belongs" has: it also means "is a part of", for instance. You can belong to a club without thinking that it owns you. FWIW, the oldest meaning of the word is more like "accompany" or "go appropriately with".
I don't know whether appartenir has a similar range of meanings, but my guess is that it does.
It does - indeed in French the second meaning, "is a part of" is used much more frequently than its English equivalent, and is clearly the sense of the word that Sarko was using.
Wait, this is a mistranslation. He said "appartenir", which in this particular instance means "being a part of". It is a warning flag, but nothing actually controversial yet.
I can't say that I am at all surprised at his choice of words, but I can only scream NO PERSON BELONGS TO ANY STATE.
Until he realize that, he has no more legitimacy than the tyrant of North Korea.