CharlieHebdo

1121315171845

Comments

  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,244
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Religions are like speed limits- most useful for the masses whom otherwise would not know their limitations through introspective common sense and observation.
    And if you don't abide the rules those who do will try to get in your way 'to teach you a lesson'.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Religion. Uh!, what is it good for ? Absolutely nothing ! Say it again! # =D>
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 2,015
    DrGorner wrote: »
    If Religion didn't play a part in the killing, it's odd that the killers
    Would shout, that the Prophet had been avenged after their
    Disgusting deed ?

    But it's too "easy" to understand then. And since the world is complex, "it can't be true" :) Maybe when left wing extremits shot some CEOs 30 years ago here in France in order to avenge the proletariat, the motivation was actually religious ?

    I'm only half making this up : for the first sentences, you can read some people here. And for the last ones, left wing theoricians wanting to explain the extremists had nothing to do with left wing talked about a kind of religious experience for the terrorists !

    All this is the kind of the intellectual version of being a conspiracy nuts, IMO : the average man in the street can't be right - there has to be something he doesn't understand.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Sure, religion can capture the minds of some simpletons more readily than questioning sceptics. However, I've noticed that fear (particularly of the unknown) can capture the mind of smart agnostics and aethiests more than religious people.

    The simplest explanation is not always the correct one. It can be, but not always.

    The only thing that matters is the facts. All the facts. Not just the ones that are convenient or that are disseminated by the corporate media. Rather the facts after all investigation and hard questioning is done.

    Who benefits? Who suffers? What policy changes are effected as a result? Who is capitalizing on the tragedy and how? Which politicians in particular?

    These are the questions.
  • Posts: 4,603
    Check out a book called "Why We Believe in Gods" by J Anderson Thompson. There are many very clever people in all walks of life that, when it comes to religion, manage to turn off their common sense and the values that they carry with them in other roles and genuinely believe in God. This book helps to explain why humans are almost set by default to believe in an "outer force". Its a great read .
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    patb wrote: »
    Check out a book called "Why We Believe in Gods" by J Anderson Thompson. There are many very clever people in all walks of life that, when it comes to religion, manage to turn off their common sense and the values that they carry with them in other roles and genuinely believe in God. This book helps to explain why humans are almost set by default to believe in an "outer force". Its a great read .

    I will, thanks. This aspect has always fascinated me.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Even when the killers quote Muhammad and the Quran to justify their deeds, people will not believe it and claim that Islam has nothing to do with it. The guy who beheaded Drummer Lee Rigby went bananas when the judge told him he had betrayed Islam, and shouted "YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ISLAM!" He was right.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited January 2015 Posts: 24,159
    I am privileged enough to teach kids of various lifestances: Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, atheist, agnostic and a couple of things I can't quite put my finger on. ;-) The ones who have most issues with me - not the other way around - are the Protestants. Not all, mind, just a few. One day, some of them actually started yelling at me when I explained the simple physics behind solar eclipses and how we can accurately predict them, which we can by the way. To them, a solar eclipse is an act of God and thus cannot be predicted. I blame the parents, not the kids.

    Religion, like science, has a purpose. It's a different purpose and certainly not one we all desire. But when I have a bad day, I consume a lot of caffeine and blame "the system"; when my grandmother has a bad day, she talks to God and all is well. I fear death, for I realise that my body is a collection of cells that will decompose after death; I consider my mind to be a complex structure of electric and magnetic fields, equally dead in the absence of its biological vessel. But fear of death makes me restless, at times very unhappy. Yet I know people who don't fear death, because they believe in an afterlife. Because in matters of life after death I tend to be more secular, I also think I'm a bit less happy in life.

    When practised in solitude, religion isn't necessarily a bad thing. The problem is that far too many people forget to separate their deeper, inner feelings from the literal contents of certain books and preaches. They claim moral superiority over others, refuse to accept scientific evidence (often because they lack the proper education), and they have others tell them what to say, what to think and what to do.

    The most radical types are the ones who commit atrocities. To demonstrate exactly how crazy religious fundamentalists are: they are too blinded to see that their leaders have a different agenda than to spread the word of the deity they worship. I respect and love a few people but if they asked me to blow myself up on a bus, I'd only need one word: no.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I would never ask you to do that, @DarthDimi. Not yet.
    I know there is an afterlife, but it has nothing to do with religion.
  • Posts: 2,341
    I don't know if this is the place to voice this but I wonder how the hell did we get to this point? I mean we got little terror cells all around the world. These guys are totally independent of any larger SPECTER like organization (if you like) and they go around the world setting off bombs, shooting people etc.

    How do you fight this? Countries spend valuable resources tracking, trying to prevent, and trying to fight it the best they can but one will never totally wipe out these guys. they are like insects, mosquitos or gnats. We can never eradicate them all. They kill some of us, we kill them and the cycle continues. All average Jane Does and Joe Average can do is just hope and pray that we are not at a movie theater or a market place when a bomb or some gunman decides to launch an attack. Israelis live under this cloud every day of their lives.

    How did this crap start? I daresay it was in 1990 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and our sitting President made the decision to land troops in Saudi Arabia. this drove fanatics crazy and led to terror attacks all around the world. Finally culminating in the events of 9/11. OurIn 2001/03 our new president decides to invade a pair of Moslem countries and occupy them and the cycle has been going on ever since.

    Its a mad house, a dance of fools so to speak.
  • Posts: 15,106
    bondjames wrote: »
    Sure, religion can capture the minds of some simpletons more readily than questioning sceptics. However, I've noticed that fear (particularly of the unknown) can capture the mind of smart agnostics and aethiests more than religious people.

    The simplest explanation is not always the correct one. It can be, but not always.

    The only thing that matters is the facts. All the facts. Not just the ones that are convenient or that are disseminated by the corporate media. Rather the facts after all investigation and hard questioning is done.

    Who benefits? Who suffers? What policy changes are effected as a result? Who is capitalizing on the tragedy and how? Which politicians in particular?

    These are the questions.

    An concrete examples of these atheists afraid of "the unknown"?

    You need to go where the evidence is, not lead the evidence. In the current case, the motivation is well known, it has been shouted by the terrorists and these questions are pretty much non sequitur: the heinous terrorist attack against Charlie Hebdo was an act of nihilistic religious devotion. The terrorists did not care of who benefited from them, or rather they thought a man dead a few centuries ago, a man they revered as a prophet, was vindicated against some insult. He was the intended beneficiary, I guess. I am sure some of their fellow Islamists wish they could capitalize on the tragedy and muzzle up free press... I didn't work so well.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    In most islamic countries, the Charlie Hebdo staff would have gotten the death penalty. In most islamic countries, people go apeshit crazy over the cartoons, not over the murders.
  • Posts: 4,603
    The only long term solution is education and the removal of atheism as a taboo. Only last week a Conservative MP "came out" as an atheist after years of pretending to be a believer. It's easy to point at Islam but even the most "advanced" western democracys are unsure how to deal with atheism. We have a leader of the opposition and a deputy PM who are both atheist yet they suck up to the religious institutions rather then encourage debate and discussion. I am convinced that knowledge is power on this issue and it is very hard for a reasoned, well read, well educated, open mined, evidence based, thoughtful person to read any religious text and not think it is a work of pure fiction. Just imagine how many issues we could get out of the way if religion became a thing of the past.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 15,106
    patb wrote: »
    The only long term solution is education and the removal of atheism as a taboo. Only last week a Conservative MP "came out" as an atheist after years of pretending to be a believer. It's easy to point at Islam but even the most "advanced" western democracys are unsure how to deal with atheism. We have a leader of the opposition and a deputy PM who are both atheist yet they suck up to the religious institutions rather then encourage debate and discussion. I am convinced that knowledge is power on this issue and it is very hard for a reasoned, well read, well educated, open mined, evidence based, thoughtful person to read any religious text and not think it is a work of pure fiction. Just imagine how many issues we could get out of the way if religion became a thing of the past.

    I could barely believe it when I read it, then I googled it. Cool! It almost makes me forgive the Conservative Party for Nadine Dorries, the UK's dumbest Christian (after maybe Ann Widdecombe).
  • Posts: 11,425
    It is a relief that in the UK you don't have to parade your Christian faith around to get elected. Quite the opposite in fact. I don't have a problem with religion in the way that some others do though. I don't personally believe in God but I don't have a problem with people who do, as long as that doesn't lead them to self-imposed excile or seperation from everyone else. Two of my best friends are pretty majorly into bible bashing, but it doesn't bother me. I actually find religion and theology fascinating. If I step back and think about it, of course Christianity is a ridiculous doctrine, but I actually take comfort from knowing the church is there, up to its ancient rituals. It's really part of European history and culture and it would be a shame if the church disappeared entirely and all our incredible religious buildings just became museums or were left to rot.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    The only thing that matters is the facts. All the facts.

    Then ask yourself why all your theories seems coherent to you when you discuss them a macro-level, but fail to explain anything when considering each fact one by one :) When you explain that terrorists come from the lowest part of societies, but you're faced with mid-class or high-class terrorists sponsored by very rich people, while no terrorists come from the really low classes (like Romany people in France), you then explain "well, they identify themselves with the lowest part of societies in other countries". This way, one is never wrong, but it's quite lazy... Have you ever look at history of psychoanalysis, first they made the theories, and then they adapted the facts, it's IMO really a lot like wanting to explain everything with economics since the 80s.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Who benefits? Who suffers? What policy changes are effected as a result? Who is capitalizing on the tragedy and how? Which politicians in particular?

    "Whom benefits from the crime" is, well, about crime. Terrorism is a totally different matter. You can correlate crime and wealth, I think. With terrorism, if the correlation exists, it's the other way around, I guess. You seem to think there's a kind of continuum between crime and terrorism. IMO there's not at all. One thing is sure : the terrorists who are dead now did not benefit from their murders... Does it mean they didn't do it, really ?


  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    @Suivez_ce_parachute, what are you talking about? CH? Or other crimes in the name of Islam.

    If you're talking about muslim crimes in the name of Islam broadly speaking, then you seem to have a point of view that murders in the name of Islam are not economic, except that they are committed by the wealthy and not the poor. That's your view. My view is it's religious, economic, cultural and societal. I have explained at length in this thread and I can assure I'm not going to get into it with you again. You can keep focusing on economic and saying it's not committed due to economic all you want if it makes you feel better. We're past that. I have said it's economic and other factors.

    If on the other hand you are talking about CH in particular, then I have made no judgements or opinions on this specific case (and if it seemed like I did, I did not mean to). I don't have all the facts. The specific CH murders are still a work in progress. A few nuts have done it in the name of Islam. Was there a wider plan? Was there a bigger objective? Was this an opening salvo? Were the Jewish murders preplanned or an add-on to capitalize on CH? We don't know that. We may never know that.

    Regarding who benefits? My point is that it is important not to take everything at face value. Question more and be skeptical. People took the initial 'fact' that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction at face value. Those people look like complete idiots now. Other people took the initial 'fact' that the Benghazi murders were committed by people angry about a Jewish made anti-Islam video. Those people also look like idiots now.

    If 911 and its aftermath have taught us one thing - don't trust the government to give you all the facts. Half the time they are protecting their rear ends. Reporters have to do a better job of digging and getting to the answers. Why were these terrorists in the CH case on a US terror watchlist? Why was this information not properly synched with the French authorities? Or was it? Where were the gaps in counter-terrorism intelligence and how can these be patched? Is it necessary to enact a Patriot Act for France now, or is that overreach? These are the type of questions reporters should be asking.

    Even today, if a terrorist wanted to, he can infiltrate the United States through any one of the shipping ports and commit a weapon of mass destruction attack. No one focuses on this. It has not happened yet, but that's not because it can't be done.

    Yet hundreds of thousands have died in the middle east since 911 in the so called war on terror. All that's happening because of this is more of these so called Islamic terrorists are being created, both there and at home. Expect more of these attacks while this misguided bombing policy continues. One is in the name of religion. The other is not. The results are the same. Deaths of innocents.
  • Posts: 4,603
    But the terrorists see it as fact that they did benefit from the murders as they are now in a better place shagging virgins. It is their perception of reality that creates a world where they are rewarded for killing people, so to say that you are sure they have not benefited is beside the point
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    The killers definitely benefited from their crime. They want chaos and they want overreach from the west. As long as they instill fear they are winning as far as they're concerned. Their plan, imo, is to draw the west into the religious war and expend resources battling them. I don't know about you, but since 911, that's all I've been seeing, at massive economic cost. No end in sight to this darn thing. Just more deaths.

    While we're futzing around, China's making deals in Africa, Latin America & Asia and slowing getting stronger.
  • Maybe in China, some write long books about Tibetan terrorists funded by the USA, who caused China to spend 25 years attacking Tibet instead of focusing growing in the rest of the world :)
  • Posts: 15,106
    bondjames wrote: »
    Regarding who benefits? My point is that it is important not to take everything at face value. Question more and be skeptical. People took the initial 'fact' that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction at face value. Those people look like complete idiots now. Other people took the initial 'fact' that the Benghazi murders were committed by people angry about a Jewish made anti-Islam video. Those people also look like idiots now.

    Actually, no. "People" did not take this at face value, you are making a very broad generalization. And it was not a fact, it was a claim. The Bush administration made this claim and many, many people, in the US and elsewhere, questioned these claims and many Western countries refused to go to war because they considered the claims had not met their burden of proof.

    When it comes to the terrorist attack on CH, all the evidence leads to a religious motivation. Not economy, CH was not exactly the incarnation of capitalist exploitation. Not colonialism, which CH had nothing to do with it. If you think the evidence leads somewhere else, please present your argument.

    As for the attack on the Jewish kosher market, it was a by product of the initial attack on CH as well as a manifestation of antisemitism... not unheard of with religious devouts of the other two Abrahamic faiths.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Regarding who benefits? My point is that it is important not to take everything at face value. Question more and be skeptical. People took the initial 'fact' that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction at face value. Those people look like complete idiots now. Other people took the initial 'fact' that the Benghazi murders were committed by people angry about a Jewish made anti-Islam video. Those people also look like idiots now.

    Actually, no. "People" did not take this at face value, you are making a very broad generalization. And it was not a fact, it was a claim. The Bush administration made this claim and many, many people, in the US and elsewhere, questioned these claims and many Western countries refused to go to war because they considered the claims had not met their burden of proof.

    When it comes to the terrorist attack on CH, all the evidence leads to a religious motivation. Not economy, CH was not exactly the incarnation of capitalist exploitation. Not colonialism, which CH had nothing to do with it. If you think the evidence leads somewhere else, please present your argument.

    As for the attack on the Jewish kosher market, it was a by product of the initial attack on CH as well as a manifestation of antisemitism... not unheard of with religious devouts of the other two Abrahamic faiths.

    Perhaps we're having a communication problem so let me clear this up.

    You're wrong regarding the fact that people did not take the Bush statements at face value. Many members of the US congress and senate did, as well as members of the US media and many of the public. I assume you do not live in the US, so you have a different point of view. I realize that the French and the Germans in particular were skeptical (and good for them - I respect that) and what happened in the US was 'Freedom fries' and 'Freedom toast' as a thank you to the French for their valid skepticism. The US public had been attacked. They were fearful. They elected strong leader Bush again in 2004 despite already being aware of the Iraq b/s already by that time, and a Bin Laden video appeared just before the election, interestingly, which further boosted their fear.

    Regarding CH, as I said in my above post, I am not making any statements regarding the facts on this matter. I'm reserving judgement until the dust clears and more information comes out. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I'm not talking about an ecomonic motivation for the CH attack in particular. I've been clear. All the currently available evidence leads where you say it does. So did the evidence presented by Colin Powell at the UN at the time when it was presented. The French public has been attacked. They are fearful and angry. Just like the US public was in 2001. They are now very easy to manipulate as they are emotionally raw and angry. I'm watching to see how public opinion reacts over the next few years and what politicians are able to get away with now that the public has been mobilized. I'm curious to see if we get a similar approach in France to what happened in the US from the period of 2001 to 2008 (when fear finally was abolished and Obama was elected).

    You may choose to believe your elected leaders. I'm reserving judgement as I've heard too much b/s over the years (but again, to be clear, am not suggesting this particular CH attack was economic).
  • bondjames wrote: »
    what happened in the US was 'Freedom fries' and 'Freedom toast' as a thank you to the French for their valid skepticism. The US public had been attacked.

    But fortunately for France, it means France won't be attacked by terrorists then. Oh wait.
    bondjames wrote: »
    The French public has been attacked. They are fearful and angry. Just like the US public was in 2001. They are now very easy to manipulate. I'm watching to see how they react. How public opinion reacts over the next few years.

    In the last months, the right wing leader was more popular than the president. After the attacks, the president is more popular than the right wing leader. The right wing leader refused to take part in the massive street rallies, and the former right wing leader (her father) called the French "stupid". He also explained these attacks were done to manipulate France (the real culprit is Israel for him).

    If you were in the street rallies, I think you'd not have said French were "fearful and angry". But well, it seems you know more than me about France, you'll explain I can't judge because I'm too close I guess : I actually live in one of the "no-go zones" of Paris where you have to be a muslim to survive, according to Fox :)

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Precisely. Hollande is benefiting personally from the attacks just as Bush did after 911. Should he? Is he now a better leader in your eyes? Stronger? Are you more likely to forgive his leadership failings? Are the French?

    Yes, Le Pen overplayed her hand.
    But fortunately for France, it means France won't be attacked by terrorists then. Oh wait.

    Not for Iraq.....but wait. Libya. Oops. Wanting to have a go in Syria....but wait.....Mali.....

    I'll be watching the French public over the next few years to see if they react like the US did, or whether they react like the British did. For my knowledge. Not in judgement. I have respect for the French, so it is of interest to me.

    Of course you know more about France. Just don't go passing a Patriot Act now and I'll be happy. ;)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    A successful terrorist bio-attack on wheat production would destroy the delicate threads of our food chain worldwide, I *REALLY* hope this is being anticipated & prepared for...
  • Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Suivez_ce_parachute, what are you talking about? CH? Or other crimes in the name of Islam.

    If you're talking about muslim crimes in the name of Islam broadly speaking, then you seem to have a point of view that murders in the name of Islam are not economic, except that they are committed by the wealthy and not the poor. That's your view. My view is it's religious, economic, cultural and societal. I have explained at length in this thread and I can assure I'm not going to get into it with you again. You can keep focusing on economic and saying it's not committed due to economic all you want if it makes you feel better. We're past that. I have said it's economic and other factors.

    If on the other hand you are talking about CH in particular, then I have made no judgements or opinions on this specific case (and if it seemed like I did, I did not mean to). I don't have all the facts. The specific CH murders are still a work in progress. A few nuts have done it in the name of Islam. Was there a wider plan? Was there a bigger objective? Was this an opening salvo? Were the Jewish murders preplanned or an add-on to capitalize on CH? We don't know that. We may never know that.

    Regarding who benefits? My point is that it is important not to take everything at face value. Question more and be skeptical. People took the initial 'fact' that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction at face value. Those people look like complete idiots now. Other people took the initial 'fact' that the Benghazi murders were committed by people angry about a Jewish made anti-Islam video. Those people also look like idiots now.

    If 911 and its aftermath have taught us one thing - don't trust the government to give you all the facts. Half the time they are protecting their rear ends. Reporters have to do a better job of digging and getting to the answers. Why were these terrorists in the CH case on a US terror watchlist? Why was this information not properly synched with the French authorities? Or was it? Where were the gaps in counter-terrorism intelligence and how can these be patched? Is it necessary to enact a Patriot Act for France now, or is that overreach? These are the type of questions reporters should be asking.

    Even today, if a terrorist wanted to, he can infiltrate the United States through any one of the shipping ports and commit a weapon of mass destruction attack. No one focuses on this. It has not happened yet, but that's not because it can't be done.

    Yet hundreds of thousands have died in the middle east since 911 in the so called war on terror. All that's happening because of this is more of these so called Islamic terrorists are being created, both there and at home. Expect more of these attacks while this misguided bombing policy continues. One is in the name of religion. The other is not. The results are the same. Deaths of innocents.

    I read in the Daily Mail last week that Algerian intelligence warned France about an attack on Charlies Hebdoe the day before. Probably garbage, as it was in the Mail.
  • Posts: 15,106
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Regarding who benefits? My point is that it is important not to take everything at face value. Question more and be skeptical. People took the initial 'fact' that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction at face value. Those people look like complete idiots now. Other people took the initial 'fact' that the Benghazi murders were committed by people angry about a Jewish made anti-Islam video. Those people also look like idiots now.

    Actually, no. "People" did not take this at face value, you are making a very broad generalization. And it was not a fact, it was a claim. The Bush administration made this claim and many, many people, in the US and elsewhere, questioned these claims and many Western countries refused to go to war because they considered the claims had not met their burden of proof.

    When it comes to the terrorist attack on CH, all the evidence leads to a religious motivation. Not economy, CH was not exactly the incarnation of capitalist exploitation. Not colonialism, which CH had nothing to do with it. If you think the evidence leads somewhere else, please present your argument.

    As for the attack on the Jewish kosher market, it was a by product of the initial attack on CH as well as a manifestation of antisemitism... not unheard of with religious devouts of the other two Abrahamic faiths.

    Perhaps we're having a communication problem so let me clear this up.

    You're wrong regarding the fact that people did not take the Bush statements at face value. Many members of the US congress and senate did, as well as members of the US media and many of the public. I assume you do not live in the US, so you have a different point of view. I realize that the French and the Germans in particular were skeptical (and good for them - I respect that) and what happened in the US was 'Freedom fries' and 'Freedom toast' as a thank you to the French for their valid skepticism. The US public had been attacked. They were fearful. They elected strong leader Bush again in 2004 despite already being aware of the Iraq b/s already by that time, and a Bin Laden video appeared just before the election, interestingly, which further boosted their fear.

    Regarding CH, as I said in my above post, I am not making any statements regarding the facts on this matter. I'm reserving judgement until the dust clears and more information comes out. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I'm not talking about an ecomonic motivation for the CH attack in particular. I've been clear. All the currently available evidence leads where you say it does. So did the evidence presented by Colin Powell at the UN at the time when it was presented. The French public has been attacked. They are fearful and angry. Just like the US public was in 2001. They are now very easy to manipulate as they are emotionally raw and angry. I'm watching to see how public opinion reacts over the next few years and what politicians are able to get away with now that the public has been mobilized. I'm curious to see if we get a similar approach in France to what happened in the US from the period of 2001 to 2008 (when fear finally was abolished and Obama was elected).

    You may choose to believe your elected leaders. I'm reserving judgement as I've heard too much b/s over the years (but again, to be clear, am not suggesting this particular CH attack was economic).

    You are making a strange comparison between the Iraq war and the Charlie Hebdo attack. And a false equivalence: the evidence brought forward by Powell were deemed unconvincing by many. Maybe by Powell himself. The evidence about the motivations of the terrorists is overwhelming. And, if we don't know everything yet... Nothing can make us believe that pusillanimous, socialist Francois Hollande had anything to do with the origins of the attack and anything else is paranoid speculation.
  • Ludovico wrote: »
    You are making a strange comparison between the Iraq war and the Charlie Hebdo attack.

    When one has nothing to say about the new facts because they don't fit the old theory, there's always comparisons and predictions to continue to speak : this is really all the rhetorics of psychoanalysis in action here... He will never say he's wrong, he will say : "only time will tell if I'm wrong" - the time need to construct a new "hidden truth" version of the world where the theory will still work.

    Btw, about the French allegedly living "in fear" right now :



    Well, who is the person who seems to be not as free as the other one here ? :)

    [and then, we might read an explanation about the fact that it's the French one, because she is so "emotional" and other "I know you better than you do" comments]
  • Posts: 11,425
    loving the way our Arab 'ally' saudi Arabia have sentenced a man to ten years in jail and 1000 lashes for criticising some Muslim clerics. and we continue to treat the saudis as the good guys. hilarious.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Yep !, it is funny. The even went to the march in Paris ! :))
Sign In or Register to comment.