France Shoot-Out

[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.