France Shoot-Out

[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.