I wasn't surprised or shocked about the attacks in Paris, I expected it and I expect it will continue.
I don't care about the people who died, as far as I am concerned they where just more people who wouldn't wake up to the fact that this is exactly what Islam does, it's what Muslims have been doing since the time of their so-called prophet.
Nobody knows about the Battle of Broken Hill here in Australia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Broken_Hill
Instead of standing up and pointing the truth at Islam, people are defending Islam.
Terrorism is not separate from the problem of Muslim gangs, rapists and violence that occurs in Muslim areas in every country in the world.
It's 2 minutes to midnight, Europa's generosity to the Muslim will soon be the death of her, and the only people who should be blamed for it are the liberal-left progressive pieces of trash that refuse to allow us to discriminate from between the civilized and uncivilized people on this planet.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
It is true that naive-ness gets you killed, but one must remember that there are innocent people involved here that might not have had a say in the matter.
Sometimes the only way to get people attention is to let them suffer for their ignorance and stupidity.
just like a baby bird that always want to go off the table and every time you put him back in his nest, the only way to let him learn, is to let him fall, feel the pain and then he won't keep going off the table anymore.
I'm actually glad it is just a few hundred people, if they poisoned the city water system we would have had millions of dead people.
Better not give bright ideas so I stop here.
Btw you should love France, thanks to them we (europe) might actually take some action at last.
I'm going to take this opportunity to make the observation that (and this is merely my uneducated opinion) both you guys are idiots.
Thanks for your contribution to the topic at hand.
Okay, I reserve the right to amend my statement: at least one of you is an idiot.
I must confess, however, that I also harbor an unreasonable distaste for France. Well, that's not fair to France; France would be fine were it not for the French. But the whole, "I don't care about a bunch of dead Frenchies..." thing is counter- productive.
Hmm... I don't fucking like Islam... I also don't live in Europe, so I don't know how every single country there is being affected by Islam, so I don't know enough to form an opinion outside of the fact that I don't fucking like it.
I am coming from a Muslim family+nation but I am an atheist. It is not Islam that is to be blamed. It is the people. IF you read the Kur'an, you will see that it is a religion that supports peace. But the 'Muslim' people that are in ISIS are not muslim. they go against their holy book. You know what, In my country, people go as the Kur'an says and we don't have terrorism in here. Think before you say something. How can you put my family in the same place as that terrorists? And how the fuck can you say you dont care about the people who died? so you hate everyone that doesnt think as you do?
" IF you read the Kur'an, you will see that it is a religion that supports peace. "
Bullshit, go and find me a "peaceful" verse from the Quran then. The story in the Quran is nothing but war, murder, rape and execution.
The only so-called "peaceful" phrase from the Quran is a bastardization of a verse from the Talmud. The "in so who ever kills a man it is as though he has killed the whole of humanity", of course though this is a snippet of the truth as the verse starts with "and God spoke unto the children of Israel and said in so who ever kills a man..." that is to say God was talking to jews at the time, the verse following this verse in the Quran starts with god speaking to the Muslims and ends with God telling them to kill non-believers.
Let's get one thing clear, Paris-style terrorist attacks are the price you pay for having Muslim filth in your country. France was not attacked for a reason, the Muslim attacked France because France allowed him to go there.
The French are a weak and pathetic people, they have riddled their state with the ideological sickness that is Islam and they will surely die. One day the Muslims will get a nuclear weapon into one of these countries you know, and then they'll finally get what they've been asking for by allowing these people into their country, they wont be able to cover that up or ignore it as they do with the Muslim rapists and thugs on their streets which they pretend don't exist.
The only jewel of this whole situation is that the only society Muslims are able to create are shit-hole corrupt dictatorships that which will probably be the end of this planet given it's delicate environmental situation.
No, I don't care about those people that die, as far as I'm concerned they and everyone else in Europe died years ago when they started letting these people into their countries.
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Muslims, the nature of the Muslim will and always will be that of evil and chaos. If you put two Muslims together and lock them in a room, one will surely kill the other. War and vengeance is the path of Islam and if Muslims cannot fight with non-Muslims then they will kill each other.
I actually think it is quite beautiful in a way, Muslims are a fantastic expression of mans most primal nature and his desire for violence. No, I do not hate the Muslim, I hate those liberal-left idiots who do not appreciate Islam for what it truely is.
Daz - "Bullshit, go and find me a "peaceful" verse from the Quran then. The story in the Quran is nothing but war, murder, rape and execution."
The Quran is a large religious text; so it is almost assured to contain passages which will fall into just about any category you can imagine. Your claim to the contrary is ridiculous.
Indeed, much like Judaism and Christianity, it supports both peace and war. As such, when opposed groups pop up, they both yell about how that other group isn't really X. It is ridiculous.
" The Quran is a large religious text; "
Oh really? Go and find me that verse then.
Yeah, the Quran is a large religious text, entirely filled with murder and rape.
Mohammed was a pedophile warlord, Jesus was a weird megalomaniac hippy who told some lies and got killed.
There is huge difference in the level of harm between Islam and Christianity, Islam is a complete political ideology.
Daz - "Oh really? Go and find me that verse then."
By which Allah guides those who pursue His pleasure to the ways of peace and brings them out from darknesses into the light, by His permission, and guides them to a straight path. 5:16
And do not make Allah an excuse against being righteous and fearing Allah and making peace among people. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing. 2:224
And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah. Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing. 8:61
So go to him and say, 'Indeed, we are messengers of your Lord, so send with us the Children of Israel and do not torment them. We have come to you with a sign from your Lord. And peace will be upon he who follows the guidance. - 20:47
And the servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk upon the earth easily, and when the ignorant address them [harshly], they say [words of] peace - 25:63
_________________
You see, as with any major religion there is a enough written material to support any view point (if you are sufficiently selective). This allows the believer to justify anything they want, with 100% confidence God (or whatever) is on their side. Ever hear a believer lament that while they themselves feel they should do X, their religious documents demand they do Y? Of course not; God always magically agrees 100% with what the believer wants. This is the real danger of religion IMO.
I really didn't get the point of "I hate France".
All I read in the OP was "I disdain all who do not think like me and they do not deserve to live". Why not just name the thread "I am a gigantic douche"?
Why hate on France and the innocent civilians that died? To say that you don't care about the people who died is both apathetic and pathetic. Instead of putting the blame on the victims, why not just blame the gov't and the perpetrators of the incident? I hate Islam just as I hate any other religions, but I don't hate all Muslims.
if you are american, you should love france. french generals taught american farmers how to hold off the british until a truce was made
Yea in the american revolution the french aided a lot the Americans, one could say that without their support the revolution might not have been successful or with much more losses.
Yea without the french most likely the Germans would have won world war 2 too.
Unfortunately someone was needed to expose the German potential and serve as the meat to know how to counter German superior military might.
By that time everyone was still with post world war 1 defenses.
Imagine if the Germans hit first the British instead of the french(even though they would have needed a fleet for that).
Also the french were always at the cantre of most historical events like napoleon empire which paved the way to some burocratic reforms.
Erm, this is a bit strange:
"Yea without the french most likely the Germans would have won world war 2 too"
The French capitulated without a fight, De Gaulle spent the war in England, and it was left to everyone else to get rid of Hitler.
Then:
"Also the french were always at the cantre of most historical events like napoleon empire which paved the way to some burocratic reforms."
Napoleon was a vile dictator who brought years of war to Europe, and killed thousands of people.
Nutmeg
In world war 2, it's thanks to the french that the Allies leaned the strengths and weaknesses of German military might.
If the British were the first to be attacked when they had still post WW1 defenses, the British would have been the one to "capitulated without a fight".
Actually there was a fight initially, but the French were like the meat going into a meat grinder, with WW1 defenses which were every perfect to lose against WW2 type of attacks.
WW2 changed the way to do battle, it wan't just about how high your walls are, but how big your base and area of control is.
The Germans found the forts and high walls of the french very good target practice for gas attacks and air bombs.
Then there was the matter of the German strength being focused on land which avoided French main defenses and just blast it's way strait to Paris ending the war by capturing the capital itself with a pre-planed strategy, prepared before war was even declared.
The french just didn't know what hit them until it was too late.
England was lucky that it did not have to face the ground forces of the Germans else it would have shared the same fate regardless of preparations.
Actually The British with the help of most of their Allies did face the German ground forces and it resulted in a colossal defeat in Greece.
The Irony is that the Allies gave up Greece and the entire Mediterranean(accept Malta) much faster then the French.
To expect the French to stand a chance; on their own, with a surprise attack, technology wise unprepared, huge border to cover and their families lives unprotected, is just an argument from ignorance on your part.
BTW I am Maltese and napoleon captured Malta and stole most if not all of our relics and to this day they are in a museums in France.
So if I am saying anything about the french is because I know what i am talking about, not because I like them at all.
"Napoleon was a vile dictator who brought years of war to Europe, and killed thousands of people."
I agree but it does not change the fact that he established the basics of some bureaucratic reforms that are still in use today, reduced the tyrannical attitude of aristocrats world wide with his revolution concept, and proved that the french are not cowards.
Napoleon was a dictator/emperor but in his life-time he managed to achieve things which were deemed impossible even by the great leaders of history like "Alexander the Great" and "Julius Caesar".
The Fench capitulated without a fight. There was plenty of time to prepare, they'd seen what happened in the Spanish civil war and Poland, they'd seen the Luftwaffe, they weren't alone because the British were there too, and we wouldn't have had Dunkirk if they'd stood and fought. The war might well have ended earlier if they had.
The British fought the Germans in N Africa and won after a long campaign.
The French revolution got rid of the aristocrats before Napoleon came on the scene. He actually filled the vacuum created by getting rid of the top layer. As for the French not being cowards, it was his elite guards who ran from the field at Waterloo....
French bureaucracy is among the most inefficient in the world. About 7.5% of the workforce are expensive unsackable pen-pushers whose only task is to shift paper around.
Nutmeg seriously go and check history.
You have a very biased interpretation of it.
"The French capitulated without a fight."
I already told you that there was a fight, but the Germans did not face the french head on, they bypassed the french main forces and used the hard to cover huge border to their advantage to slip strait into Paris.
Communication was horrible on the french and the Germans did their best to cut their communications.
Once the capital was taken as hostage and the french forces were cut out from any communications and surrounded, it was over.
You can go and ask anybody who understands the art of war about this, the french were doomed to lose no matter what they did. They avoided a massacre and built a secret resistance that in the end helped more the Allies in the war itself.
You can go and ask any pilot who crashed on France how the french risked their own lives during a German occupied France to protect and hide pilots and smuggle them to safety.
"The British fought the Germans in N Africa and won after a long campaign."
That is partially true, the more accurate term the British/Allies survived long enough until the Germans finished the bullets and were forced to surrender.
The plan was to use Malta as a base to cut the supplies of the Germans from Italy to Africa, the sub fleet sank over 70% of the supplies the Germans should have received, this halted any strong attacks on the British and saved them until the Germans finished all the supplies.
"The French revolution got rid of the aristocrats before Napoleon came on the scene."
You missed the point, Napoleon introduced an ideal the basically threatened the authority of the aristocrats all around the world, it was one of the main reasons why coalitions were made against napoleon regardless of how much they hated each-other.
"As for the French not being cowards, it was his elite guards who ran from the field at Waterloo...."
Another argument from ignorance here.
His elite guards withstood several point blank cannon shots with nothing to shield them but human meat, it was obvious that the British had a very strong position and were not going to be beaten unless the full french force hit it,
The Prussians came just in time to stop that and the elite guards were sent in as an act of desperation in a hopeless situation.
I wanna see what you would have done if you see 100's of your friends die in a second when the short range(shotgun burst like) cannons fired with no hope of victory.
They kept moving forward up the hill regardless until they finally met the British line and it was a massacre.
Try watch an unbiased documentary about that battle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwVqlSKjJGc&feature=youtu.be
French bureaucracy?
Some bureaucratic reforms that napoleon introduced, are used as the basis of our democracy today.
Mostly when it came to Education, Equal taxation and Religious tolerance.
http://www.brighthubeducation.com/history-homework-help/86330-reforms-of...
"I already told you that there was a fight, but the Germans did not face the french head on, they bypassed the french main forces and used the hard to cover huge border to their advantage to slip strait into Paris.
Communication was horrible on the french and the Germans did their best to cut their communications."
Oh dear, the Germans didn't fight fair. Slipped straight into Paris? Just what I said, they turned down a fight, and caused a lot of Britsh casualities at Dunkirk.
So the resistance saved some lives while the Vichy government did what the Germans wanted.
You just confirmed what I said about the N Africa campaign, thanks for that.
"You missed the point, Napoleon introduced an ideal the basically threatened the authority of the aristocrats all around the world, it was one of the main reasons why coalitions were made against napoleon regardless of how much they hated each-other."
Rubbish. The French revolution got rid of the monarchy and aristocracy, that's all. By declaring himself Emperor, Napoleon effectively took their place. The rest of the European monarchies/aristocracies continued unchanged.
So you agree that they ran away, that's fine.
I already explained just how bad French bureaucracy is, go read what I said.
Napolean was a vile dictator, you've already agreed with that. The best thing about him is the vast tomb he built in Paris as a monument to his ego. He killed untold thousands and caused a long, long war. Anyone who iddolises him is either French or extremely misguided.
"Just what I said."
"You just confirmed what I said"
It is not what you said, the British/allies never once faced the German main land army in battle and won, neither did they face napoleon, always coward-ing on defense. It is quite the opposite of what you said.
Though I do not blame them for doing so either, it was a very effective and tactical strategy that was the right choice, however you cannot accuse the french of cowardice and not be a hypocrite.
When the Allies had the chance to show the French how to defend a country like Greece and Africa, they failed and could only surrender one and coward Cairo only.
The french not having the natural protection of an island like UK, the only option left was to face the Germans on the battlefield. the Germans manged to slip through them with better flexibility and communications and took Paris.
The french understood they lost, it is not the same as saying that they did not fight.
You might say that they did not fight till death but not that there was no fight.
You ignored basically every single point i made regarding your wrong conclusions.
Well it seems you don't want to see reason about this topic so I leave it at that.
"Anyone who iddolises him is either French or extremely misguided."
Anyone who fails to see reason is either STUPID or extremely misguided.
You just lost the argument by resorting to a cheap insult. I'm not going to do the same.
Not supporting your claims and ignoring my supplied facts about history is what made you lose the argument.
Chickening out like this does not help your unsupported claims either.
Nutmeg - "The [French] capitulated without a fight."
That is a myth.
We've already established that it's a fact.
Nutmeg - "We've already established that it's a fact."
The French (and BEF) inflicted heavy causalities, and took heavy casualties, but they lost. The myth that they didn't fight is just because of how quickly it all happened (which after this battle, was no longer considered fast, as it set the new standard). Get over yourself.
They lost in 6 weeks because they didn't fancy a protracted fight, and getting their lovely city bombed. The British put up with a protracted fight and put up with their lovely city getting bombed. My parents were nearly killed by a German bomb as a matter of fact.
So the North African campaign was quick? Russia was quick? That was the new standard?
You're the second one to start getting personal so cut it out.
France is dead. Murdered by the far-left with the Muslims as their weapon.
Muslims are psycho conservative permanent war-mongers. The only way to avoid terrorism is by not having Muslims in your country, there is nothing special about France. France has a terrorism problem because France has so many Muslims, it's as simple as that.
Being Muslim does NOT equal being a terrorist. It is very hypocritical to make such broad judgments about a belief-system. Yes, Muslims are more prone to terrorism because of some interpretations of the religious texts. However, what you are saying sounds suspiciously parallel to "All atheists are immoral, angry, intolerant, and act superior." Which is something a lot of Christians think. Don't judge the whole group based on a few people. As an atheist, I think we should be supportive of the people. After all, ignorance is not always chosen, we are all, ALL ignorant about some things.
In addition, you are advocating discrimination? "the only people who should be blamed for it are the liberal-left progressive pieces of trash that refuse to allow us to discriminate from between the civilized and uncivilized people on this planet." Okay, do you know how many people consider atheists the uncivilized people of the planet? In every aspect of history, some people are always considered "uncivilized," and of course, discriminating against them always leads to great outcomes.
But hey, of course, you are right. I have an idea! Let us completely annihilate Islam people out of our fear they are going to ruin our world. They will probably rape all of our women, kill all of our children, and take everything most dear to us. They are obviously the only thing that is wrong with the world, their ideology is so different from ours and evil. We must know everything about it, and hey, if we don't, we can tell they are bad because we have found Science, and they have not. We are therefor better than them. They can't have any logical thoughts because they are inhibited by their life philosophy, they must be inherently LESSER than us atheists, and should be treated as such. In fact, we are obviously REALLY superior than everyone else because we realize that there is a good chance no God exists, and we can prove this with our KNOWLEDGE that Science is true. We are the special ones who have come to this realization, that Science, which we have seen and which we know to be true, is the answer to life.
Disclaimer: This is satire.
Pages