France Shoot-Out

[Greyblades]

It is 1,200~ ish of Muslims, Nuns, and other faith groups. They did it in front of the building (not around it, as they didn't have permission).
As for the Leader being a notorious anti-semite, he said at the rally he has made mistakes in the past with such views.

Considering the link given was the Telegraph, they are actually central-right journalists, not left.

you have to remember that Fragony has the occasional habit of working off the american scale of politics. By thier measure David Cameron is a screaming pinko commie homosexual hippie.

[Fragony]

It is 1,200~ ish of Muslims, Nuns, and other faith groups. They did it in front of the building (not around it, as they didn't have permission).
As for the Leader being a notorious anti-semite, he said at the rally he has made mistakes in the past with such views.

Considering the link given was the Telegraph, they are actually central-right journalists, not left.

Those bystanders are locals, Telegraph Just took over Danish newspapers.

Hoax. A shame really.
@Greyblades HI Robin, Batman can handle it

[Husar]

Those bystanders are locals

Isn't everybody involved a local or were you expecting Saudi Arabian tourists to do it?

[Fragony]

Isn't everybody involved a local

Depends on how you look at it, I don't see immigrants as locals but as guests, guests who are welcome to settle. But the crowd you see there are obviously native Norwegian, and 20 who are obviously not, and who have my highest respect.

[Husar]

Depends on how you look at it, I don't see immigrants as locals but as guests, guests who are welcome to settle. But the crowd you see there are obviously native Norwegian, and 20 who are obviously not, and who have my highest respect.

How can you expect them to feel at home if you treat them like guests?

[Viking]

Hoax.

This wasn't a hoax. Some people/media conflated the number of people present with the number of muslims present.

It should teach you a lesson about not getting excited over headlines too quickly. Provided you actually read the news correctly, that is; you didn't actually present your source. The Telegraph article does not talk about 1000 muslims, but 1000 people.

[Fragony]

This wasn't a hoax. Some people/media conflated the number of people present with the number of muslims present.

It should teach you a lesson about not getting excited over headlines too quickly. Provided you actually read the news correctly, that is; you didn't actually present your source. The Telegraph article does not talk about 1000 muslims, but 1000 people.

Just one of the many newspapers of who reported on this, many absolutily stated it were a thousand muslims; I didn't post the Telegraphe article. I really wanted this to be true but it turns it isn't true. That doesn't mean anything on the muslim part but it says a lor about the leftist church. I can totally empathise with the difficulties muslims have here and why they don't speak out, but I have zero respect for islamists and charlie's latest best friend who leave normal muslims who only care about what's for dinner in the cold. Respect and all that. l'll gladly have a cup of tea with these twenty, that takes guts.

[Gilrandir]

However, in this debate you try to derail by attack against my person (again: It is a bit draining. Each time you are running out of intellectual arguments, you resort to this. You should do something about it), the facts are stubborn.

Some time ago I was really exasperated about your stubborn desire to see only your side of the story, believing only in your own omniscience, distorting others' words and inventing answers for them. Now I'm tired of trying to make one see what one can't. So it's beyond redemption. My latest post had none of the things you want to see in it. Unless you consider the word "meticulous" as an offense. If you do, read the dictionary for the meaning of it.

You explained that the killers have grounds to be offended because the Quran said so, but the Quran doesn’t. If fact, you, as you admit, didn’t read the Quran, but were well happy to support the extremists claims pretending to be offended on inexistent writing, whereas you evacuated the killing of Jews when this is written in the Quran. You didn’t bother to check.

This is the sample of your usual train of reasoning. You put into my mouth the words I never said and vehemently try to combat the arguments you invented.
This thread isn't long, so I believe you wouldn't overtax yourself to find the proof for your claim:
WHERE DID I SAY THE KILLERS WERE OFFENDED BECAUSE THE QURAN SAID SO?
I didn't read Quran, I don't know what it says!!! My agrument was (now get focused): All people have sacred (in the broad sense of the word, not neccessarily religious) things the criticizing of which may be considered by them as offense (perhaps that is why, as the legend goes, Americans don't discuss politics, religion and sex with people they barely know - to avoid possible rows). Some religious, ethnic, racial and other groups are especially vulnerable to such offenses and may be violent in response. So there is a choice: one (e.g.) stops saying things about black people's mothers and/or their skin color or one keeps doing it fingering a gun in one's pocket. CH did neither (although they were aware of the quick temper of some of their "target audience") and now whole French society has to pay.

But I am sure you find a way to rebound in your claim that the killers, even if the book they refer to said nothing about the cause of offence, still had reason to kill. Com’on…

I don't know what the killers said/thought about the reasons of their behavior or if they referred to any book. I was trying to make you see the other side of the story (not the killers' one, but the people who may have their feelings hurt). But you rattle on: there was nothing to be offended at. Like I said - beyond redemption.

But the crowd you see there are obviously native Norwegian, and 20 who are obviously not, and who have my highest respect.

Wow! You know by sight how native Norwegians look and can distingush them from, say, native Swedes (who might have been present there) or Norwegians, who have emigrants for some of their ancestors. You have my highest respect.

[Fragony]

Yeah I can, I have family in Norway and have been there many times. I can also see it when someone is not from Scandinavia.

Feel free to give me examples from that pictures of why I shouldn't be confident of the fact that they aren't Scandinavians, except for those 20, of course.

Good luck.

Hint, the average Scandinavian is easy to recognise, blond, small eyes, healthy looking.

[Gilrandir]

Yeah I can, I have family in Norway and have been there many times. I can also see it when someone is not from Scandinavia.

Feel free to give me examples from that pictures of why I shouldn't be confident of the fact that they aren't Scandinavians, except for those 20, of course.

Good luck.

Hint, the average Scandinavian is easy to recognise, blond, small eyes, healthy looking.

I think that "average" doesn't mean "every".
Hint: Ibrahimovic, Henrik Larsson, Doctor Alban, Arash.

[Fragony]

I think that "average" doesn't mean "every".

Quite correct, that is what's keeps going wrong, the reflex that assumes that some means all. Pokemons you have got to collect all, do that instead for me please. I got more respect for the dogshit I whipe of my shoes than I have for the islam. If you actually talked more with them instead than about them so would you, hopefully. You don't understand the preassure they have to endure, and you sorry political-correct aren't exactly helpfull.

[Gilrandir]

Quite correct, that is what's keeps going wrong, the reflex that assumes that some means all. Pokemons you have got to collect all, do that instead for me please. I got more respect for the dogshit I whipe of my shoes than I have for the islam. If you actually talked more with them instead than about them so would you, hopefully. You don't understand the preassure they have to endure, and you sorry political-correct aren't exactly helpfull.

Understood nothing from your post except the underlined. But evidently, I needn't to since the underlined is the crux. I have neutral attitude to islam through having no close contacts with those who worship it. But being more aware of Russian orthodox church, I can understand that coming into contact with some confession may cause aversion you refer to.

[Fragony]

Understood nothing from your post except the underlined. But evidently, I needn't to since the underlined is the crux. I have neutral attitude to islam through having no close contacts with those who worship it. But being more aware of Russian orthodox church, I can understand that coming into contact with some confession may cause aversion you refer to.

You don't know how it is, I do because unlike some here I actually know what I am talking about because I know what muslims are going through. They are scared of these guys. And they should be scared, as nobody is going to help them. Respect comes first.

[Brenus]

You forgot a large part of your sentence: “[I]you have scooped out of there everything that seems to give reasonable grounds for your hatred[/I] of it and people who honor it” Problem of short memory or bad use of dictionary? So who put words in others’ mouth? Well, in this case feelings of hatred, thanks you very much…

“WHERE DID I SAY THE KILLERS WERE OFFENDED BECAUSE THE QURAN SAID SO?”
Just there: 131 “I can't help but wonder at indiscretion (to put it mildly) on the part of the magazine. Faith is a vey touchy business to discuss to say nothing of criticizing or even mocking. Moreover, they should have known that mocking religious feelings of a particularly sensitive (and partly aggressive) congregation which abounds in France may result in retaliation. Thus, if they didn't consider changing the policy they adopted they at least should have taken security measures against possible consequences.”
And there 235: “In effect we see that Charlie Ebdo by doggedly continuing to insult religious sentiment of muslims incites violence against christians and the French all over the muslim world.”

This pointed out, I never said it was your argument but what the terrorists said, and you said they have grounds to be offended. I never (as I knew you will jump on this) said you did. Re-read my sentence: “ You explained that the killers have grounds”. Not said. Dictionary again.
Killers said they are offended because blaspheme (avenge the prophet, as they shouted after the killing), you said killers are right to be offended (oops, have grounds).

“I don't know what the killers said/thought about the reasons of their behaviour” Err, You wrote: “Charlie Ebdo by doggedly continuing to insult religious sentiment of muslims” I think it was more than a guess, but a good explanation of the reason of their crime. Not a good reason, not a real reason, a twisted reason, but a reason.

“Some religious, ethnic, racial and other groups are especially vulnerable to such offenses and may be violent in response” That is racism.

[Fragony]

How about we make everything 'don't hurt anyone'. It's just stupid to use violence as an argument. It isn't on the schoolground but you have to grow up up at some point. Just stop being idiots. Give your lady a kiss and accept that the world is never going to be perfect.

[CrossLOPER]

I don't see immigrants as locals but as guests, guests who are welcome to settle.

So in Fragonyland, how long before they become locals?

[Fragony]

So in Fragonyland, how long before they become locals?

Never. They are guests and they are welcome to come here. It's different for the people we share a history with, like people from the colonies for example. But someone who just came here is just that, someone who came here.

[Husar]

I think that "average" doesn't mean "every".
Hint: Ibrahimovic, Henrik Larsson, Doctor Alban, Arash.

Ibrahimovic and the last two sound more like "guests" according to Fragony's metrics.

[CrossLOPER]

Never. They are guests and they are welcome to come here. It's different for the people we share a history with, like people from the colonies for example. But someone who just came here is just that, someone who came here.

No no no I mean how long do the people, as a group, have to live there before they are all part of glorious pot-smoking piss-receptacle cloggerland?

[Fragony]

No no no I mean how long do the people, as a group, have to live there before they are all part of glorious pot-smoking piss-receptacle cloggerland?

In your case untill harvesting time

[Gilrandir]

You forgot a large part of your sentence: “[I]you have scooped out of there everything that seems to give reasonable grounds for your hatred[/I] of it and people who honor it” Problem of short memory or bad use of dictionary? So who put words in others’ mouth? Well, in this case feelings of hatred, thanks you very much…

More than once you expressed your vehement dissatisfaction and disdain of holy books in general and of Quran in particular and pity and scorn of the people who use this opium (according to Marx) to poison their minds. If this (dissatisfaction+disdain+pity+scorn) doesn't amount to hatred than it was a wrong choice of word, but using DDPS every time would have caused even more problems with the sematically-minded you.

“WHERE DID I SAY THE KILLERS WERE OFFENDED BECAUSE THE QURAN SAID SO?”
Just there: 131 “I can't help but wonder at indiscretion (to put it mildly) on the part of the magazine. Faith is a vey touchy business to discuss to say nothing of criticizing or even mocking. Moreover, they should have known that mocking religious feelings of a particularly sensitive (and partly aggressive) congregation which abounds in France may result in retaliation. Thus, if they didn't consider changing the policy they adopted they at least should have taken security measures against possible consequences.”
And there 235: “In effect we see that Charlie Ebdo by doggedly continuing to insult religious sentiment of muslims incites violence against christians and the French all over the muslim world.”

And? I repeat (stressing what you evidently have missed): “WHERE DID I SAY THE KILLERS WERE OFFENDED BECAUSE THE QURAN SAID SO?” No mentioning of Quran (and what it demands from its adherents) in the posts you quoted. And I didn't read Quran so I can't know what it says, remember?

This pointed out, I never said it was your argument but what the terrorists said, and you said they have grounds to be offended. I never (as I knew you will jump on this) said you did. Re-read my sentence: “ You explained that the killers have grounds”. Not said. Dictionary again.
Killers said they are offended because blaspheme (avenge the prophet, as they shouted after the killing), you said killers are right to be offended (oops, have grounds).“I don't know what the killers said/thought about the reasons of their behaviour” Err, You wrote: “Charlie Ebdo by doggedly continuing to insult religious sentiment of muslims” I think it was more than a guess, but a good explanation of the reason of their crime. Not a good reason, not a real reason, a twisted reason, but a reason.

I repeat once again: I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TERRORISTS SAID. I didn't and don't follow the investigation, I have other cares and sorrows to ruminate on. And I never said about THE KILLERS having grounds/reasons. I have to repeat again: I spoke of MUSLIMS having grounds to be offended (see the underlined above). You deny it. You are not a Muslim, you make your conclusions after talking to some of them (and we don't know how conservative/liberal/religious-minded they are and how representative was your poll) and you generalize that there was no reason for ALL OF THEM to feel offended. Just like you rattled about rioting populaces in the east of Ukraine and their fear of ethnic cleansings and language-based oppression. You failed to present any evidence that anyone was killed/tortured/oppressed because he was ethnic Russian or spoke Russian. Yet you were sure that they have grounds to feel threatened. It seems that you understand what has happened in France as much as you understand what is happenning in Ukraine. Carry on.

“Some religious, ethnic, racial and other groups are especially vulnerable to such offenses and may be violent in response” That is racism.

This is the difference between social, religious, ethnic, racial groups. Is it racism to claim that blacks have black skin? This is their racial peculiarity. The representatives of the said groups have behavioral peculiarities as well. One must consider this while dealing with them. This is political correctness. If one chooses to disregard it, happens exactly what has happened with Charlie Hebdo.

How about we make everything 'don't hurt anyone'. It's just stupid to use violence as an argument. It isn't on the schoolground but you have to grow up up at some point. Just stop being idiots. Give your lady a kiss and accept that the world is never going to be perfect.

I hope that "hurt" in your view includes not only the physical harm, but psychological violence (bullying, intimidation, harassment, derision) as well. If it does I totally agree with you.

[CrossLOPER]

In your case untill harvesting time

That does not answer the question. I'll ask it again: how long do people have to reside in the land of Fragony before they are considered Fraggonites?

[Gilrandir]

That does not answer the question. I'll ask it again: how long do people have to reside in the land of Fragony before they are considered Fraggonites?

For Fraggoinfinite time.

[Fragony]

That does not answer the question. I'll ask it again: how long do people have to reside in the land of Fragony before they are considered Fraggonites?

I thought I was clear. You can't. You can come here and live here. I prefer it if you don't but that's just me, and you mostly. Polish people drink a lot and cause a lot of accidents. And don't even bother calling emergencie-lines and let someone rot on the street because their numberplates are false and their cars stolen, and they probably gobbed up a biottle of wodka pp

[Brenus]

“WHERE DID I SAY THE KILLERS WERE OFFENDED BECAUSE THE QURAN SAID SO?”” And where did I say that? I wrote: “You explained that the killers have grounds”. You did, didn’t you?

“More than once you expressed your vehement dissatisfaction and disdain of holy books in general and of Quran in particular and pity and scorn of the people who use this opium (according to Marx) to poison their minds. If this (dissatisfaction+disdain+pity+scorn) doesn't amount to hatred than it was a wrong choice of word, but using DDPS every time would have caused even more problems with the sematically-minded you.” You really have to purchase a dictionary. And read Marx.
I can’t be dissatisfied by a book that has no value at all for me. I am quite aware of what it is written on it, and I carry on "studying" it as an historical fact. I have for sure not a respect in the teaching of “holly” books but the books themselves are just books. And the Quran has no privilege or special attention from me. My records with TR about the Bible are there to prove it, if you want to read them. Again a failed attempt to input some sub-racism in my writings…
Now, about Marx and Religions, well, Marx explained quite openly that Religions are pain-killers (not poison), opium in the XIX century being mainly used for. You can check on a research engine, when you have time. All right, I am doing it for you: Quote is: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”
So, that is for dissatisfaction and Marx.
I never really express pity for the followers of any faith, but if to have pity for someone is a bad thing in your world, it is not in mine.
As scorn is concerned, again you are inventing a feeling I haven’t. As mentioned before in another thread, if I had this kind of feelings, I would have to scorn my grand-daughter and my grand-sons and their parents. I strongly disagree with their beliefs; they know it, and nothing more.
So your well-prepare diatribe is just falling flat. Sorry. Nice try, mind you. Where did you find the concept of DDPS?

“And I didn't read Quran so I can't know what it says, remember?” Hey, not my fault if you wrote “Charlie Ebdo by doggedly continuing to insult religious sentiment of muslims”. So I thought, wrongly apparently, you had a clue of what you were speaking about. I do apology for my mistake.
So your point is the killers had grounds but you don’t know which one. Fair enough.

“You generalize that there was no reason for ALL OF THEM to feel offended”: Nope, I went in their texts, in the Quran (well to be fair, I read in French Muslim Scholars analyses and quotes). Now, that for political reasons and for political gains some Islamic Fanatics, after having put millions in the spreading of their version of Islam (and not the Quran), used a non-existent texts in order to justify criminal attacks is not new in politics and history, from the Russian Tsar and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to the weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, or the Horse Shoes operation in Kosovo. Pakistanis never heard of CH before, or the Afghans… So it was hard for them to be offended if no one told them to be offended.

“Is it racism to claim that blacks have black skin?”: It is not was you said. You said that blacks have the same reaction as a group. You might be surprise, but black Americans do not have the same reaction than black French, German or African. To attribute reaction to groups based on race is racism. Religions not being a race, it is not racism, but again, all Religions are multiple as multiple than their lecture and their understanding of what is supposed to be the same book (I speak here of the common book with the same larger common denominator i.e. Christianity or Islam).

“This is political correctness” Nope, sociology or/and ethnology.

[Kadagar_AV]

I'm on Frags side here... Getting a nationality doesnt necessarily mean ethnic people from that nation will consider you as one of them.

How long it takes depends... I guess they are seen as of that nationality when they start to act like it?


IE, Henke Larsson I can say is Swedish(ish, he is still black)... Zlatan Ibrahimovitc or whatever isn't. Henke acts like a Swede in manner, Zlatan doesnt.

We respect Zlatan as a football player just like the french respect the FFL...

[CrossLOPER]

I thought I was clear. You can't. You can come here and live here. I prefer it if you don't but that's just me, and you mostly. Polish people drink a lot and cause a lot of accidents. And don't even bother calling emergencie-lines and let someone rot on the street because their numberplates are false and their cars stolen, and they probably gobbed up a biottle of wodka pp

So Istanbul is still Konstantinopolis?

[Gilrandir]

“WHERE DID I SAY THE KILLERS WERE OFFENDED BECAUSE THE QURAN SAID SO?”” And where did I say that? I wrote: “You explained that the killers have grounds”. You did, didn’t you?

Finally. You have made my life easier. I don't have to do much to answer you - just copypaste what I once said. So quote:
And I never said about THE KILLERS having grounds/reasons. I have to repeat again: I spoke of MUSLIMS having grounds to be offended unquote.
If for you KILLERS=(all) MUSLIMS, well, you have to sort things out for yourself.

“More than once you expressed your vehement dissatisfaction and disdain of holy books in general and of Quran in particular and pity and scorn of the people who use this opium (according to Marx) to poison their minds. If this (dissatisfaction+disdain+pity+scorn) doesn't amount to hatred than it was a wrong choice of word, but using DDPS every time would have caused even more problems with the sematically-minded you.” You really have to purchase a dictionary. And read Marx.

My reference to Marx was to justify the usage of "opium". You agreed to it. Poisoning of the whole system is the result of constant abuse of drugs and opium is one. Logically, those who resort to opium poison themselves. To make it clear for you: Marx said nothing about the poison, I metaphorically developed the statement he metaphorically worded.

I never really express pity for the followers of any faith, but if to have pity for someone is a bad thing in your world, it is not in mine.

Pity as a feeling is never a pure one. Being not a psychologist, but having some experience of analyzing fiction texts expressing emotions, I can identify at least two types of it: pity with admixture of compassion and pity with admixture of disgust. It is for you to decide which one you feel, but the latter is definitely a negative emotion.

So your well-prepare diatribe is just falling flat. Sorry. Nice try, mind you.

I'm glad you liked it. And one more positive emotion I got from your post is your picturing myself sorrounded by dictionaries, encyclopedias, selected (or even complete) Marx with a pencil behind my ear making notes, ticking passages in books and sucking hard at another pencil between my teeth trying to invent some excruciating comment to crash you.
I must dissappoint you (which you admit I always did, but I'm afraid I'll do it again), answering you doesn't take such a prominent place on the list of my mustdos. Yet it feels pleasant to know someone is thinking of you so much. Boy, I think I'm beginning to like this elusive communication of ours. Pinch me, someone.

Where did you find the concept of DDPS?

I invented it myself. Do you like it?

So your point is the killers had grounds but you don’t know which one. Fair enough.

See above on KILLERS=/=MUSLIMS

“You generalize that there was no reason for ALL OF THEM to feel offended”: Nope, I went in their texts, in the Quran (well to be fair, I read in French Muslim Scholars analyses and quotes). Now, that for political reasons and for political gains some Islamic Fanatics, after having put millions in the spreading of their version of Islam (and not the Quran), used a non-existent texts in order to justify criminal attacks is not new in politics and history, from the Russian Tsar and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to the weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, or the Horse Shoes operation in Kosovo. Pakistanis never heard of CH before, or the Afghans… So it was hard for them to be offended if no one told them to be offended.

Forget about books. It is humans who kill Frenchmen, not books that do. It is important what PEOPLE feel, think and do, not what the BOOKS say. When you realize that, you might have another take on the things. I really don't think you will, but, who knows, you might.

“Is it racism to claim that blacks have black skin?”: It is not was you said. You said that blacks have the same reaction as a group. You might be surprise, but black Americans do not have the same reaction than black French, German or African. To attribute reaction to groups based on race is racism. Religions not being a race, it is not racism, but again, all Religions are multiple as multiple than their lecture and their understanding of what is supposed to be the same book (I speak here of the common book with the same larger common denominator i.e. Christianity or Islam).

While it is not true to claim that ALL representatives of racial, soical, ethnic, religious groups have the same reaction, one can't deny the existence of behavioral patterns typical for the said groups (and expected by the memebers of these groups from other members) in response to similar stimuli.

[Gilrandir]

Not sure it belongs here but it seems like Charlie Hebdo makes fun of tragedies:

http://www.france24.com/en/20151106-...6&dlvrit=66745

I wonder if they put in their spoke about MH17 crash?

[Fragony]

MH17 crash mostly affects the Netherlands, I wouldn't take any offence myself but some might

Satire must be able to be offensive imho, even nasty and cruel