French Terror Attacks, scores dead

[Wyrd of Gawd]

You'll be doing some hard time.

Uh, no....I wont, because killing the enemy in a war is precisely what the guns and money are for...and is not, in the very least bit, illegal.  What's next, you gonna bring in every military supply sergeant as a terrorist?  Give it a rest.  If you're going to use the words or make the accusations at least have a fucking clue what you're talking about...even if you couldn't possibly make it stick.

Pie, in the sky, bullshit.

You've stepped onto a very steep greased slide.  

We claim that we are in a war so therefore by your own words it's not the least bit illegal for assorted terrorists to kill their enemies.  Therefore using your logic it was completely legal for the ISIS gang to attack the French.  We are their enemies so it's not illegal for them to kill us.  After all, it's war.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Conspiracy nuts have derailed. *sigh*

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Uh, no....I wont, because killing the enemy in a war is precisely what the guns and money are for...and is not, in the very least bit, illegal.  What's next, you gonna bring in every military supply sergeant as a terrorist?  Give it a rest.  If you're going to use the words or make the accusations at least have a fucking clue what you're talking about...even if you couldn't possibly make it stick.

Pie, in the sky, bullshit.

You've stepped onto a very steep greased slide.  

We claim that we are in a war so therefore by your own words it's not the least bit illegal for assorted terrorists to kill their enemies.  Therefore using your logic it was completely legal for the ISIS gang to attack the French.  We are their enemies so it's not illegal for them to kill us.  After all, it's war.

That's grossly parsimonious and brackets out legal conventions on war and engagement and discourse surrounding civilian casualties (Geneva, UN and so on). And yes, nobody is going to sit here and claim that the mass slaughter of civilians hasn't happened before (eg WW2) or that targeted strikes are perfect (everyone knows they're not).

Nothing that Rhythm has said lends any legitimacy to the attacks in Pairs, Beruit etc.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm just going to erect my tin hat shield for the reply. Please bear with me before responding. ^_^

[Homeless Nutter]

[SofaKingHigh]

One point here, what do you think of the attacks themselves?  Do you think they were justified?  On Charlie Hebdo or the latest attack?

For me to question the incident's and point to some fishy aspects, makes you concluded this ? that I'm a supporter ? 
Or is this stereotyping ?
I don't. And I'm insulted beyond level.

Questioning stuff doesn't make you a supporter of criminal/terrorist acts, SofaKingHigh

I asked you a simple question which you have yet to answer Atlas.  You don't have to be a supporter of terrorism to sympathise with the reasons behind the attack.  A survey in the UK of the Muslim population found that 30% sympathised with the reasons behind the Charlie Hebdo attack, I wouldn't say that 30% of the are supporters of terrorism, per se.  Not at all.

Now, dry your eyes and answer the question.

[WinterHold]

For me to question the incident's and point to some fishy aspects, makes you concluded this ? that I'm a supporter ? 
Or is this stereotyping ?
I don't. And I'm insulted beyond level.

Questioning stuff doesn't make you a supporter of criminal/terrorist acts, SofaKingHigh

I asked you a simple question which you have yet to answer Atlas.  You don't have to be a supporter of terrorism to sympathise with the reasons behind the attack.  A survey in the UK of the Muslim population found that 30% sympathised with the reasons behind the Charlie Hebdo attack, I wouldn't say that 30% of the are supporters of terrorism, per se.  Not at all.

Now, dry your eyes and answer the question.

Dry my eyes ? what is wrong with you ?

Young folks, in a concert getting shot for what ?? 
a cartoon can be ignored or countered with another cartoon, I even judge the protests as a foolish act !

I was saddened by the attack and felt a burn inside me for these victims. I thought that my comment were obvious, but obviously you didn't read them enough.

And never count me wit the "Umma". I turned my back on them a long while ago. The studies of the UK don't include me.

[Cyberman]

Sure they do. Going by your response, you're in the 70% that don't believe that way.

[WinterHold]

Evie

Are you craving Sushi or something ?

Very much so. But only the A-69-worthy euphemistic kind, I've never had the food kind. But I have eaten the former

[Cyberman]

Positively delicious.

[SofaKingHigh]

I asked you a simple question which you have yet to answer Atlas.  You don't have to be a supporter of terrorism to sympathise with the reasons behind the attack.  A survey in the UK of the Muslim population found that 30% sympathised with the reasons behind the Charlie Hebdo attack, I wouldn't say that 30% of the are supporters of terrorism, per se.  Not at all.

Now, dry your eyes and answer the question.

Dry my eyes ? what is wrong with you ?

Young folks, in a concert getting shot for what ?? 
a cartoon can be ignored or countered with another cartoon, I even judge the protests as a foolish act !

I was saddened by the attack and felt a burn inside me for these victims. I thought that my comment were obvious, but obviously you didn't read them enough.

And never count me wit the "Umma". I turned my back on them a long while ago. The studies of the UK don't include me.

I said dry your eyes because of your offence at my question, I asked it because I didn't know and for no other reason.  If you hadn't noticed, if I want to offend, I'll go straight out and do it, hence my "cretin" comment, if I ask a question, it's because i don't know the answer.

Subtlety has never been a strong point of mine.