Je suis Charlie
Harpalycus, nowhere in my text did I use the word 'psychopath'. I did say angry and violent. That was my whole point, that everyone has the obligation to do inner work and grow, to cultivate compassion, patience and dare I say, love. This is not work for the faint-hearted, and anyone blustering otherwise is too soft to do it.
It takes serious courage to be open-minded and open-hearted. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
Meantime, when I say it is easy to be angry, what I mean is inner work. The ego takes over, indignation takes over, the importance of IDENTITY takes over, because if there is no 'us' and no 'them' but only 'we' as humans, then oh boy, you better get your inner house in order. Or, you know, just run up whatever flag allows you to grasp tight to whatever beliefs feel comfortable, and twist any new information until it fits, or ignore it. I say 'you', but it is a general address, not Harp or anyone in particular.
It takes a spiritual warrior to release those psychological and emotional security blankets. It is easy to pick up a spear, knife, gun and say, those are the bad guys, get them!
The demons are inside each of us, because we are all capable of inflicting pain on others. People forget, we each must conquer ourselves, not others. Instead, battles keep manifesting themselves into the physical plane and so the cycle continues.
Yeah, it's easy to hate. It grants permission to bypass personal growth.
It takes serious courage to be open-minded and open-hearted. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
Meantime, when I say it is easy to be angry, what I mean is inner work. The ego takes over, indignation takes over, the importance of IDENTITY takes over, because if there is no 'us' and no 'them' but only 'we' as humans, then oh boy, you better get your inner house in order. Or, you know, just run up whatever flag allows you to grasp tight to whatever beliefs feel comfortable, and twist any new information until it fits, or ignore it. I say 'you', but it is a general address, not Harp or anyone in particular.
It takes a spiritual warrior to release those psychological and emotional security blankets. It is easy to pick up a spear, knife, gun and say, those are the bad guys, get them!
The demons are inside each of us, because we are all capable of inflicting pain on others. People forget, we each must conquer ourselves, not others. Instead, battles keep manifesting themselves into the physical plane and so the cycle continues.
Yeah, it's easy to hate. It grants permission to bypass personal growth.
I agree, considering there are around 1.6 billion peaceful Muslims worldwide it would be silly to suggest that Islam is inherently bad. there is an element, a fraction of a minority that are radicalised, angry and would have no problem pumping us all full of lead or shrapnel.
if we then consider how it is possible to radicalise apparently normal people into a vessel that will kill we must look at the environment that facilitates recruitment.
is it any wonder there are radicals screaming for holy war on westerners, especially in countries allied to the current and past ...missions in Arab heartlands. we cannot simply dismiss that at least some of the blame lies with us through our governments actions.
Milgrim was carried out on people who had no axe to grind. I think one of the important factors in that experiment was that when the subjects showed reluctance they were reassured by the authority figures that it was the right thing to do. which, in fairness goes on in Gitmo to this day.
though I should say that I’m not trying to say that the missions are the only cause of terrorism at play, just one piece in the puzzle
if we then consider how it is possible to radicalise apparently normal people into a vessel that will kill we must look at the environment that facilitates recruitment.
is it any wonder there are radicals screaming for holy war on westerners, especially in countries allied to the current and past ...missions in Arab heartlands. we cannot simply dismiss that at least some of the blame lies with us through our governments actions.
Milgrim was carried out on people who had no axe to grind. I think one of the important factors in that experiment was that when the subjects showed reluctance they were reassured by the authority figures that it was the right thing to do. which, in fairness goes on in Gitmo to this day.
though I should say that I’m not trying to say that the missions are the only cause of terrorism at play, just one piece in the puzzle
I thought I would post this, because...why not.
Though many have been proposed, there is no consensus definition of the term "terrorism."This in part derives from the fact that the term is politically and emotionally charged, “a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents.” Listed below are some of the historically important understandings of terror and terrorism, and enacted but non-universal definitions of the term:
1795. "Government intimidation during the Reign of Terror in France." The general sense of "systematic use of terror as a policy" was first recorded in English in 1798.
1916. Gustave LeBon: “Terrorization has always been employed by revolutionaries no less than by kings, as a means of impressing their enemies, and as an example to those who were doubtful about submitting to them...."
1937. League of Nations convention language: "All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public."
1987. A definition proposed by Iran at an international Islamic conference on terrorism: “Terrorism is an act carried out to achieve an inhuman and corrupt (mufsid) objective, and involving threat to security of any kind, and violation of rights acknowledged by religion and mankind.”
1988. A proposed academic consensus definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators."
1989. United States: premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents.
1992. A definition proposed by Alex P. Schmid to the United Nations Crime Branch: "Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime."
2002. European Union: ". . . given their nature or context, [acts which] may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of seriously intimidating a population."
2003. India: Referencing Schmid's 1992 proposal, the Supreme Court of India described terrorist acts as the "peacetime equivalents of war crimes."
2005. United Nations General Assembly's statement with relation to terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."
2008. Carsten Bockstette, a German military officer serving at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, proposed the following definition: “political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols)."
2014. Contained in a Saudi Arabia terrorism law taking effect 1 February 2014, the following definition has been criticized by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for being overly broad: "Any act carried out by an offender in furtherance of an individual or collective project, directly or indirectly, intended to disturb the public order of the state, or to shake the security of society, or the stability of the state, or to expose its national unity to danger, or to suspend the basic law of governance or some of its articles, or to insult the reputation of the state or its position, or to inflict damage upon one of its public utilities or its natural resources, or to attempt to force a governmental authority to carry out or prevent it from carrying out an action, or to threaten to carry out acts that lead to the named purposes or incite [these acts]
From here >>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_terrorism
Though many have been proposed, there is no consensus definition of the term "terrorism."This in part derives from the fact that the term is politically and emotionally charged, “a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents.” Listed below are some of the historically important understandings of terror and terrorism, and enacted but non-universal definitions of the term:
1795. "Government intimidation during the Reign of Terror in France." The general sense of "systematic use of terror as a policy" was first recorded in English in 1798.
1916. Gustave LeBon: “Terrorization has always been employed by revolutionaries no less than by kings, as a means of impressing their enemies, and as an example to those who were doubtful about submitting to them...."
1937. League of Nations convention language: "All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public."
1987. A definition proposed by Iran at an international Islamic conference on terrorism: “Terrorism is an act carried out to achieve an inhuman and corrupt (mufsid) objective, and involving threat to security of any kind, and violation of rights acknowledged by religion and mankind.”
1988. A proposed academic consensus definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators."
1989. United States: premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents.
1992. A definition proposed by Alex P. Schmid to the United Nations Crime Branch: "Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime."
2002. European Union: ". . . given their nature or context, [acts which] may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of seriously intimidating a population."
2003. India: Referencing Schmid's 1992 proposal, the Supreme Court of India described terrorist acts as the "peacetime equivalents of war crimes."
2005. United Nations General Assembly's statement with relation to terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."
2008. Carsten Bockstette, a German military officer serving at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, proposed the following definition: “political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols)."
2014. Contained in a Saudi Arabia terrorism law taking effect 1 February 2014, the following definition has been criticized by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for being overly broad: "Any act carried out by an offender in furtherance of an individual or collective project, directly or indirectly, intended to disturb the public order of the state, or to shake the security of society, or the stability of the state, or to expose its national unity to danger, or to suspend the basic law of governance or some of its articles, or to insult the reputation of the state or its position, or to inflict damage upon one of its public utilities or its natural resources, or to attempt to force a governmental authority to carry out or prevent it from carrying out an action, or to threaten to carry out acts that lead to the named purposes or incite [these acts]
From here >>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_terrorism
Anonymous
"And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it." Zechariah 12: 2,3
No, I agree, nowhere in your text did you use the word psychopath, Atakti, but Ceejay did, and you said that he was right and spoke about those with violence in their minds. But it doesn’t matter about the precise terms. Your position seems to be that extreme world views become a magnet to those who have violent and aggressive tendencies, rather than the cause of such behaviours. For the reasons I have outlined I believe this to be a mistaken view, and one fraught with danger, as it would mean us ignoring the real cause for a spurious one.
To recognise a danger is not to necessarily cease being open minded, or even open hearted. I am not sure where the ‘obligation’ to cultivate compassion et al comes from. It would be my preference, I admit, up to certain limits, but ultimately remains subjective.
Your rhetoric is very persuasive, but everyone, no matter what their world view might be, holds tight to congenial beliefs and twists information until it fits. Some do it more than others, I agree, but it seems no-one is immune. I certainly am not and, without meaning offence, I would assume that you are not, either. Moreover, human beings being what they are, there are bad guys that really do need getting.
Hate, like love, is an emotion, beyond our control. We can learn to control their expression to some degree, but I doubt that we can change the fundamental state. Nor is hate necessarily a bad thing; like love it can be misapplied, but it plays an important role in social cohesion. Both emotional ends of the spectrum are necessary for true balance.
I must make it clear, having said that, that I am not advocating hate as such, merely pointing out that it exists as part of our very humanity.
I, personally, do not understand self directed personal ‘growth’, it seems a nebulous and incoherent concept to me, but that is a philosophical argument for another day.
I agree with you, Lepperochan, that history and world politics have a very important role to play in the present situation. As always. All factors that are in play should be considered.
A minor point, but interesting. In the Milgram experiment (in which many subjects gave apparently increasingly painful and dangerous shocks to another at the behest of a ‘scientist’ in a white coat), this ‘authority figure’ did NOT reassure them that they were doing the right thing. They were limited to a precise script with four successive responses.
Please continue.
The experiment requires that you continue.
It is absolutely essential that you continue.
You have no other choice, you must go on.
All were predicted on authority rather than ethics.
To recognise a danger is not to necessarily cease being open minded, or even open hearted. I am not sure where the ‘obligation’ to cultivate compassion et al comes from. It would be my preference, I admit, up to certain limits, but ultimately remains subjective.
Your rhetoric is very persuasive, but everyone, no matter what their world view might be, holds tight to congenial beliefs and twists information until it fits. Some do it more than others, I agree, but it seems no-one is immune. I certainly am not and, without meaning offence, I would assume that you are not, either. Moreover, human beings being what they are, there are bad guys that really do need getting.
Hate, like love, is an emotion, beyond our control. We can learn to control their expression to some degree, but I doubt that we can change the fundamental state. Nor is hate necessarily a bad thing; like love it can be misapplied, but it plays an important role in social cohesion. Both emotional ends of the spectrum are necessary for true balance.
I must make it clear, having said that, that I am not advocating hate as such, merely pointing out that it exists as part of our very humanity.
I, personally, do not understand self directed personal ‘growth’, it seems a nebulous and incoherent concept to me, but that is a philosophical argument for another day.
I agree with you, Lepperochan, that history and world politics have a very important role to play in the present situation. As always. All factors that are in play should be considered.
A minor point, but interesting. In the Milgram experiment (in which many subjects gave apparently increasingly painful and dangerous shocks to another at the behest of a ‘scientist’ in a white coat), this ‘authority figure’ did NOT reassure them that they were doing the right thing. They were limited to a precise script with four successive responses.
Please continue.
The experiment requires that you continue.
It is absolutely essential that you continue.
You have no other choice, you must go on.
All were predicted on authority rather than ethics.
Harpalycus said:Your position seems to be that extreme world views become a magnet to those who have violent and aggressive tendencies, rather than the cause of such behaviours. For the reasons I have outlined I believe this to be a mistaken view, and one fraught with danger, as it would mean us ignoring the real cause for a spurious one.
No, not quite a magnet as the sole reason. But certainly, if a person surrounds themselves with others who hold the same perspective, how can we expect any change in outlook? They will feed off each other, round and round.
Harpalycus said:Your rhetoric is very persuasive, but everyone, no matter what their world view might be, holds tight to congenial beliefs and twists information until it fits. Some do it more than others, I agree, but it seems no-one is immune. I certainly am not and, without meaning offence, I would assume that you are not, either. Moreover, human beings being what they are, there are bad guys that really do need getting.
Oh, not for a second will I pretend that I am immune. Like you said, some more than others.
I am not so naive as to think that violence on this scale can be dealt with without violence. My hopes are rather to overturn the thinking long before it reaches that point. But as I was trying to explain, each person has to do that themselves, not as subjects of some kind of brainwashing or control.
Harpalycus said:
I, personally, do not understand self directed personal ‘growth’, it seems a nebulous and incoherent concept to me, but that is a philosophical argument for another day.
To define it would be to reinvent the wheel, there are countless studies, philosophies, books, groups and workshops on this matter. It is not something I thought up, although I do feel strongly about it! We can save it for another thread...
No, not quite a magnet as the sole reason. But certainly, if a person surrounds themselves with others who hold the same perspective, how can we expect any change in outlook? They will feed off each other, round and round.
Harpalycus said:Your rhetoric is very persuasive, but everyone, no matter what their world view might be, holds tight to congenial beliefs and twists information until it fits. Some do it more than others, I agree, but it seems no-one is immune. I certainly am not and, without meaning offence, I would assume that you are not, either. Moreover, human beings being what they are, there are bad guys that really do need getting.
Oh, not for a second will I pretend that I am immune. Like you said, some more than others.
I am not so naive as to think that violence on this scale can be dealt with without violence. My hopes are rather to overturn the thinking long before it reaches that point. But as I was trying to explain, each person has to do that themselves, not as subjects of some kind of brainwashing or control.
Harpalycus said:
I, personally, do not understand self directed personal ‘growth’, it seems a nebulous and incoherent concept to me, but that is a philosophical argument for another day.
To define it would be to reinvent the wheel, there are countless studies, philosophies, books, groups and workshops on this matter. It is not something I thought up, although I do feel strongly about it! We can save it for another thread...
Well, perhaps we are not as far apart as I thought, Atakti. Your point about similar, circumscribed views feeding off each other is one I would agree with.
What I don’t really understand is, aside from being a pious hope, how do you set about changing the thinking of those who are certain that they are right? Especially as you seem to want them to make this change by their own efforts.
Just to clarify something, I have no problem with ‘personal growth’, except that I would be careful about necessarily likening change to growth, which suggests a teleology, but I do with the concept of ‘inner work’ directing that change. That is where the incoherence lies. It is not so much reinventing the wheel, as inventing the ghost in the machine.
What I don’t really understand is, aside from being a pious hope, how do you set about changing the thinking of those who are certain that they are right? Especially as you seem to want them to make this change by their own efforts.
Just to clarify something, I have no problem with ‘personal growth’, except that I would be careful about necessarily likening change to growth, which suggests a teleology, but I do with the concept of ‘inner work’ directing that change. That is where the incoherence lies. It is not so much reinventing the wheel, as inventing the ghost in the machine.
Astyanax said:I think these terrible events have more to do with disturbed young men seeking an outlet for their psychopathic impulses than they have to do with religion. Religion was just a hook on which to hang their violent fantasies.
yepp'r, no doubt
Drawn
No, this ain’t the half; just another draft
Ballad of two brothers wanting hell real fast
The latest in portraying Frank & Jesse James
More like Far-Outlaws, both these lames
Cherif & Sa’id; yeah let ‘em bleed
Not at all cool like Thelma & Louise
Jihadist...Please??
Got their own "Charlie Man’s-Son” cult
Acting like devils since becoming adult
Destined to go straight into a Blaze-of-Fire
Seems crazed ideology had fueled their desire
Twins of muck & mire, an unhappy end
These cartoon killers possessed by Bad Jinn
yepp'r, no doubt
Drawn
No, this ain’t the half; just another draft
Ballad of two brothers wanting hell real fast
The latest in portraying Frank & Jesse James
More like Far-Outlaws, both these lames
Cherif & Sa’id; yeah let ‘em bleed
Not at all cool like Thelma & Louise
Jihadist...Please??
Got their own "Charlie Man’s-Son” cult
Acting like devils since becoming adult
Destined to go straight into a Blaze-of-Fire
Seems crazed ideology had fueled their desire
Twins of muck & mire, an unhappy end
These cartoon killers possessed by Bad Jinn
I think the majority of these people caught up in these terrorist and radical Islamic groups, do genuinely believe that they're doing their duty to fulfill their God's prophesy. For some time now there's been a lot of political unrest and instability in countries like Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan and Islam is being used as a tool to build an army, to recruit mercenaries and brainwash vulnerable people to fight some bullshit holy war, in order for these warlords and tribe leaders to win back power and control in these countries.
This recent wave of Islamic extremism is happening worldwide, where young and mentally vulnerable people are being specifically targeted by radical Islamic leaders and preachers to fight in foreign wars. [Jewish radicals are also brainwashing young Jews worldwide to do national service back in their motherland of Israel]. These people are being blinded by their faith, they're being used as pawns by some seriously fucked up people who have their own agenda.
In most cases the pawns caught up in these radical religious groups are national citizens, they've either immigrated or they were born in the countries that they're turning against. Yet they're labelled as ethnics, a word that is often closely followed by the term assimilated.
A multicultural society is not an easy place to live when you're the minority and at some point in these people's lives, they feel like their families have failed them, that society has failed them, that the government has failed them. These people feel alienated, like they don't have a purpose in life... that's why people turn to religion, because God gives them reason to live. But when a God's prophecy gets morphed into the end of the world or a holy war, these social outcasts become vulnerable to peer pressure and suddenly cling to these idealisms of honour and respect and promise of a better life if they die for the cause... "let me get this straight, one hundred virgins if I become a martyr?"
Unfortunately, religion is a very old tool that has been used throughout history for power and control.
This recent wave of Islamic extremism is happening worldwide, where young and mentally vulnerable people are being specifically targeted by radical Islamic leaders and preachers to fight in foreign wars. [Jewish radicals are also brainwashing young Jews worldwide to do national service back in their motherland of Israel]. These people are being blinded by their faith, they're being used as pawns by some seriously fucked up people who have their own agenda.
In most cases the pawns caught up in these radical religious groups are national citizens, they've either immigrated or they were born in the countries that they're turning against. Yet they're labelled as ethnics, a word that is often closely followed by the term assimilated.
A multicultural society is not an easy place to live when you're the minority and at some point in these people's lives, they feel like their families have failed them, that society has failed them, that the government has failed them. These people feel alienated, like they don't have a purpose in life... that's why people turn to religion, because God gives them reason to live. But when a God's prophecy gets morphed into the end of the world or a holy war, these social outcasts become vulnerable to peer pressure and suddenly cling to these idealisms of honour and respect and promise of a better life if they die for the cause... "let me get this straight, one hundred virgins if I become a martyr?"
Unfortunately, religion is a very old tool that has been used throughout history for power and control.
Good analyse, Alexander, I agree with! In France, we find some pure french guys who are recruited to go in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan and come back after a brainwashing! Lucky they don't become all terrorists like the two brothers and their friend. CIA and french security department has numbered them to 50 on all the country. Hope after these crimes, the other will be watched and controlled!
Remember in all the story in France, especially, in Spain too, how religion has induced wars since the middle-age, with persecution of Jews, of Protestants (St-Barthelemy night in 1572), persecution of Armenian people...
Remember in all the story in France, especially, in Spain too, how religion has induced wars since the middle-age, with persecution of Jews, of Protestants (St-Barthelemy night in 1572), persecution of Armenian people...
where i stay at there is a mosque nearby that plays call to prayer all day long,
there's also a church that rocks them bells for whateva i'm not sure,
bottom of the boot deep south
people are serious about their jesus too
but nobody fights about that shit here
muslim brothas from the middle east run every convenient store in the hood
people kill each other every night in the streets over drugs and money
not sayin thas any better
but business is business
and for some reason that just makes more sense
there's also a church that rocks them bells for whateva i'm not sure,
bottom of the boot deep south
people are serious about their jesus too
but nobody fights about that shit here
muslim brothas from the middle east run every convenient store in the hood
people kill each other every night in the streets over drugs and money
not sayin thas any better
but business is business
and for some reason that just makes more sense
I'm sorry, but this freedom of expression is bullshit. world leaders walking arm in arm with each other over the death of some folk in Paris. have any of them stood in solidarity with the 2,000 victims Boko Haram left dead in one attack a couple of days ago. no
even the perceived freedom of expression that France supposedly afforded Charlie is bullshit, did you know one of their cartoonists is in court this week on charges of being anti-Semite cos he took the piss out of the president's son and his jew girlfriend ...he was dismissed from the clearly much loved Charlie when he refused to apologize
it's all bullshit, fuck off
that is all. ..have a nice day, don't forget to graze the grass
even the perceived freedom of expression that France supposedly afforded Charlie is bullshit, did you know one of their cartoonists is in court this week on charges of being anti-Semite cos he took the piss out of the president's son and his jew girlfriend ...he was dismissed from the clearly much loved Charlie when he refused to apologize
it's all bullshit, fuck off
that is all. ..have a nice day, don't forget to graze the grass
The fact that Freedom of Speech is imperfect and must be curtailed to some extent (The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic - Oliver Wendell Holmes) does not require us to abandon it. Thomas Aikenhead, in 1697, was executed for holding the opinion that 'theology was a rhapsody of ill-invented nonsense.' I can give vent to that thought in this public arena without fearing arrest and public execution. If there are still areas where freedom of speech needs to be defended, or even extended, and there surely are, then let us try to do exactly that and not to dismiss it as bullshit. That way does indeed lie the thought police of 1984. If we choose not to defend freedoms then we shall surely lose them.
lepperochan, where have you seen the president of Nigeria with other presidents! Confuse with the president of Niger (country beside), a very democrat president! (today, an interview showed how he contribute to democracy in his country and in West Africa). Just some predisent like Hungery one are really not respectuous of freedom of expression. And I don't know what do you are talking about this cartoonist in court, because of anti-semitism (I live in France and I know what happened in my country).
You could say it is all bullshit, but it is a fact in our story! Demonstration last sunday is probably the most important demonstration in the world for freedom and especially for freedom of expression, since last world war. Sorry, but for me, a little citizen, it is really a very important date.
You could say it is all bullshit, but it is a fact in our story! Demonstration last sunday is probably the most important demonstration in the world for freedom and especially for freedom of expression, since last world war. Sorry, but for me, a little citizen, it is really a very important date.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html
clearly you don't know what happens in your country, Malin. I mean no offence man. I just don't like the hypocrisy of it all. stand against terror by all accounts, but for fuck sake stand together against all atrocities not just the ones that will give political gain.
I'm not sure what your point is about presidents. there were fifty world leaders showing solidarity for the 16 ? dead in Paris. which was bad craic, I agree. I just think the 2,000 that died a couple of days ago was worse craic
clearly you don't know what happens in your country, Malin. I mean no offence man. I just don't like the hypocrisy of it all. stand against terror by all accounts, but for fuck sake stand together against all atrocities not just the ones that will give political gain.
I'm not sure what your point is about presidents. there were fifty world leaders showing solidarity for the 16 ? dead in Paris. which was bad craic, I agree. I just think the 2,000 that died a couple of days ago was worse craic
