|
|
On January 10 2015 03:54 SiroKO wrote:
The most revulsing thing to me is the hypocrisy of the French politicians and PC media.
Everytime there's an Islamic terrorist attack, they refer to the perpetrators as "monsters" or "terrorists" to deprive them from their ISLAMIC ideology.
The truth is, these people motivations are based on a particular, but extremly well-spread and well-documented, understanding of Islam.
So absolute respect for the FN (nationalist, economically at the left, societally at the right) politicians who dare to call these bastards by their names : Islamic terrorists.
Not giving a fuck about being boycotted by the PC media, or losing the muslim votes.
Truth against professional political liers.
they are based on extreme views of some parts.
also politicians that arent stupid are focusing on seperating terrorists from islam cause people are fucking idiot sheep and else will start lynching innocent people and destroying mosques etc (which already started from what ive heared)
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On January 10 2015 03:57 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:55 Tien wrote:On January 10 2015 03:52 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 03:49 Warlock40 wrote:
You have a point - perhaps, if Charlie Hebdo had not offended the religion of the suspects, then they would not have been a target for violence.
But here's the thing - if this cartoon provoked the suspects, it is entirely the fault of the suspects for allowing an expression of free speech to cause them to commit crimes. If you are saying that it's the fault of Charlie Hebdo for provoking them, you are essentially blaming the victim. Because the bottom line is that no one in their right mind should let an expression of free speech motivate them to commit murder. I am not saying it's Charlie Hebdo's fault -- obviously. I am saying i don't understand why do people have to provoke people who think differently about things. Is it "just because you can"? It is a different thing to respond to something than it is to obviously provoke someone -- which this falls into imo. Just research the history of satire and all of its forms. Are you against satire? I know very well what satire is. I am not against it. Sad thing here is not all the people know what satire is and some people ARE against it.
SNL is satire based on offending people. The Simpsons is satire. Drawings cartoons is satire.
Satire is an expression of free speech. Drawing Muhammad is a right we ought to protect. Just because a book 1500 years ago said you are not allowed to draw doesn't mean we have to surrender our right to draw Muhammad so extremists aren't offended.
|
On January 10 2015 03:55 OtherWorld wrote:
François Hollande talking. He confirms 4 dead hostages during the Vincennes operation.
Still a successful operation?
I get it how hard it is, but saying it was all perfect is just wrong.
|
On January 10 2015 03:54 SiroKO wrote:
The most revulsing thing to me is the hypocrisy of the French politicians and PC media.
Everytime there's an Islamic terrorist attack, they refer to the perpetrators as "monsters" or "terrorists" to deprive them from their ISLAMIC ideology.
The truth is, these people motivations are based on a particular, but extremly well-spread and well-documented, understanding of Islam.
So absolute respect for the FN (nationalist, economically at the left, societally at the right) politicians who dare to call these bastards by their names : Islamic terrorists.
Not giving a fuck about being boycotted by the PC media, or losing the muslim votes.
Truth against professional political liers.
That's the most revolting thing? Not the, I don't know, 12 people that were murdered in cold blood? You have weird priorities here.
While it is important to realise what motivated these monsters, the last thing we need is to alienate the (European) Muslim community as a whole. Not because of fear of reprecussion or some misguided sense of political correctness, but because at the end of the day the only way to get through this current wave of terrorism is us working together. We need to realise that over 99% of Muslims are not the enemy and that they hate what happened as much, and probably more so (because it makes them have to defend themselves) than we do.
|
Why do the terrorists have to be referred as "islamic terrorists"?
Why not "[insert their home country here] terrorists"?
They are terrorists, nothing else really matters, if anything it can only make things worse.
|
On January 10 2015 04:01 1oo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:55 OtherWorld wrote:
François Hollande talking. He confirms 4 dead hostages during the Vincennes operation.
Still a successful operation? I get it how hard it is, but saying it was all perfect is just wrong.
They were killed when the guy entered the shop.
|
France7248 Posts
On January 10 2015 04:01 1oo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:55 OtherWorld wrote:
François Hollande talking. He confirms 4 dead hostages during the Vincennes operation.
Still a successful operation? I get it how hard it is, but saying it was all perfect is just wrong.
said many times before, they were dead BEFORE the assault.
|
Anybody attempting to argue that these attacks were provoked in any way at all isn't worth engaging at any level.
|
It says "during", either he word it wrong or you guys cant read.
|
On January 10 2015 04:01 1oo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:55 OtherWorld wrote:
François Hollande talking. He confirms 4 dead hostages during the Vincennes operation.
Still a successful operation? I get it how hard it is, but saying it was all perfect is just wrong.
From what i read there were no kill during the operation, those poor guys were killed when the terrorist entered the store
|
I am very dissapointed that mainstream media did not reprint offending cartoons. The only way to stop selective attack is to publish it by every one. Media suck.
|
On January 10 2015 04:01 1oo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:55 OtherWorld wrote:
François Hollande talking. He confirms 4 dead hostages during the Vincennes operation.
Still a successful operation?
yes it is, a numerous hostage were still saved and the terrorist was shot down
what's your point about discredited it ?
edit : a perfect would have been the terrorist alive, no one used this word
|
Here's my question to you raynpelikoneet , there are some muslim extremists out there who are offended by women wearing bikinis. Should all women acquiesce to their demands simply because it may incite them to kill?
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On January 10 2015 04:03 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Why do the terrorists have to be referred as "islamic terrorists"?
Why not "[insert their home country here] terrorists"?
They are terrorists, nothing else really matters, if anything it can only make things worse.
Because they shot up Charlie Hebdo over drawings of Muhammad.
|
On January 10 2015 04:00 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:57 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 03:55 Tien wrote:On January 10 2015 03:52 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 03:49 Warlock40 wrote:
You have a point - perhaps, if Charlie Hebdo had not offended the religion of the suspects, then they would not have been a target for violence.
But here's the thing - if this cartoon provoked the suspects, it is entirely the fault of the suspects for allowing an expression of free speech to cause them to commit crimes. If you are saying that it's the fault of Charlie Hebdo for provoking them, you are essentially blaming the victim. Because the bottom line is that no one in their right mind should let an expression of free speech motivate them to commit murder. I am not saying it's Charlie Hebdo's fault -- obviously. I am saying i don't understand why do people have to provoke people who think differently about things. Is it "just because you can"? It is a different thing to respond to something than it is to obviously provoke someone -- which this falls into imo. Just research the history of satire and all of its forms. Are you against satire? I know very well what satire is. I am not against it. Sad thing here is not all the people know what satire is and some people ARE against it. SNL is satire based on offending people. The Simpsons is satire. Drawings cartoons is satire. Satire is an expression of free speech. Drawing Muhammad is a right we ought to protect. Just because a book 1500 years ago said you are not allowed to draw doesn't mean we have to surrender our right to draw Muhammad so extremists aren't offended.
My entire point is you don't need to protect the right to drawing Muhammad by drawing Muhammad if you know it's gonna sooner or later result in numerous people dying because of it. There are other ways to express freedom of speech.
|
On January 10 2015 04:01 1oo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:55 OtherWorld wrote:
François Hollande talking. He confirms 4 dead hostages during the Vincennes operation.
Still a successful operation? I get it how hard it is, but saying it was all perfect is just wrong.
Yes considering they died before the police was even there.
|
On January 10 2015 04:06 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 04:00 Tien wrote:On January 10 2015 03:57 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 03:55 Tien wrote:On January 10 2015 03:52 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 03:49 Warlock40 wrote:
You have a point - perhaps, if Charlie Hebdo had not offended the religion of the suspects, then they would not have been a target for violence.
But here's the thing - if this cartoon provoked the suspects, it is entirely the fault of the suspects for allowing an expression of free speech to cause them to commit crimes. If you are saying that it's the fault of Charlie Hebdo for provoking them, you are essentially blaming the victim. Because the bottom line is that no one in their right mind should let an expression of free speech motivate them to commit murder. I am not saying it's Charlie Hebdo's fault -- obviously. I am saying i don't understand why do people have to provoke people who think differently about things. Is it "just because you can"? It is a different thing to respond to something than it is to obviously provoke someone -- which this falls into imo. Just research the history of satire and all of its forms. Are you against satire? I know very well what satire is. I am not against it. Sad thing here is not all the people know what satire is and some people ARE against it. SNL is satire based on offending people. The Simpsons is satire. Drawings cartoons is satire. Satire is an expression of free speech. Drawing Muhammad is a right we ought to protect. Just because a book 1500 years ago said you are not allowed to draw doesn't mean we have to surrender our right to draw Muhammad so extremists aren't offended. My entire point is you don't need to protect the right to drawing Muhammad by drawing Muhammad if you know it's gonna sooner or later result in numerous people dying because of it. There are other ways to express freedom of speech.
Except at that point they have won.
|
yahoo is reporting the terrorists are dead? is that all of the involved terrorists or are there ongoing operations?
|
On January 10 2015 04:05 ZeaL. wrote:
Here's my question to you raynpelikoneet , there are some muslim extremists out there who are offended by women wearing bikinis. Should all women acquiesce to their demands simply because it may incite them to kill?
Obviously not.
Maybe i am bad at expressing myself or a lot of people here have a way different view of what's rational in certain situations and what's not. So let's just drop this.
|
On January 10 2015 04:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
yahoo is reporting the terrorists are dead? is that all of the involved terrorists or are there ongoing operations?
It's over.
There's an hostage situation in a jewelry in Montpellier but it is not related and is afaik a robbery gone wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
