Thread: World Leaders Gather For Paris Unity March in an empty street.

Huge Crowds, World Leaders Gather For Paris Unity March





empty st.

Charlie Hebdo: Marsch durch Paris mit Staatschefs auf einsamer Straße - SPIEGEL ONLINE

million march was also a fake.
They lead themselves marched 100 meters at a closed street closed by by 3000 policeman.

million march was also a fake.
They lead themselves marched 100 meters at a closed street closed by by 3000 policeman.

Not so surprising really.. Whats more surprising though, is that this is actually considered to be news..?

It's ironic that it's called a "unity march" when the message is completely incoherent. We are all Charlie Hebdo. We are all muslims. What the fuck? Mothercunting muslims killed Hebdo because he insulted the prophet. Anyone else see a slight disconnect here?

Originally Posted by cmind

Mothercunting muslims killed Hebdo because he insulted the prophet. Anyone else see a slight disconnect here?

Not really. When they say "we are all Muslims," I imagine they're not talking about the militant Muslims such as the ones who attacked Charlie Hebdo. It's a show of solidarity between themselves and the civilized individuals of that group.

It'd be like saying "We are all Christians...but not the ones in Africa who burn witches at the stake."

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

It'd be like saying "We are all Christians...but not the ones in Africa who burn witches at the stake."

Bro, you can't just put things into perspective like that. That makes people nervous.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Not really. When they say "we are all Muslims," I imagine they're not talking about the militant Muslims such as the ones who attacked Charlie Hebdo. It's a show of solidarity between themselves and the civilized individuals of that group.

Go ahead and ask any of your muslim friends (I'm sure you have lots, right?) what they think about the killings. Ask them if it's wrong to kill someone, even if they insulted the prophet, or if they "had it coming". Just because 90% of the people in a group don't have the balls to carry out a massacre of innocents, it doesn't mean they don't support it.

Originally Posted by cmind

Go ahead and ask any of your muslim friends (I'm sure you have lots, right?) what they think about the killings. Ask them if it's wrong to kill someone, even if they insulted the prophet, or if they "had it coming". Just because 90% of the people in a group don't have the balls to carry out a massacre of innocents, it doesn't mean they don't support it.

This is very true.

I myself am an ex muslim and I live between "moderate" muslims. True they don't,t do the dirty work, but they support that Islam can't be treated like that and the artists deserve the death penalty. My physics teacher too was saying "After they killed the artists, a number of French newspapers publicly announced their refrainment from drawing Islamic stuff anymore", and everyone was like "Go terrorism!" Lol they consider all quaida and ISIS to be terrorists BUT they agree to that crazy faith of killing and forcing sharia law on other countries, being very offensive against non believers, sexism, etc. They really really believe Allah's way is right.

I was arguing them in class saying that this is terrorism and they were like "people should respect religions" but I answered "look who's talking, the #1 insulters of Jews and Christians! Besides, critisizing Islam isn't a crime. It's fine to joke about evil stuff in religions. Freedom of speech". Then the teacher was like "if you want it to be OK for freedom of speech then I want it OK for killing", and I was like "Really?! Criticizing a bad belief system and I don't care if it was a perfect belief system, deserves death penalty?!". Then he brought up some example about a politician that killed a guy for critisizing him, and then I told him well that guy is wrongful too.

They really really deal with this like it's a bomb. "DON'T TOUCH IT OR I'LL BLOW YOU UP!!!" Lol they da bom'!

Ha, a religion of peace. Yeah and Hitler was the nicest guy alive too! *sarcasm*

Well I know that there are a bunch of Muslims who don't agree with these Islamic fundamentals, but they are breaking Islamic laws that clearly say that you cannot modernize the sharia. I'm glad they do, but they are technically like half Muslims, being ignorant of the fundamentals.

Originally Posted by cmind

Go ahead and ask any of your muslim friends (I'm sure you have lots, right?) what they think about the killings. Ask them if it's wrong to kill someone, even if they insulted the prophet, or if they "had it coming". Just because 90% of the people in a group don't have the balls to carry out a massacre of innocents, it doesn't mean they don't support it.

I agree in general; there is a lot of passive agreement even among moderates, but I'm not sure it's nearly as high as you think. Either way, I think my original point stands. Obviously they're showing unity with the liberalized Muslims.

Originally Posted by cmind

Go ahead and ask any of your muslim friends (I'm sure you have lots, right?) what they think about the killings.

I doubt there are as many people who support the killings as you'd like to believe.

There are however many others, Muslim or otherwise, who aren't shaken up by it. The magazine constantly antagonized religious groups (not only Muslims), knowing full well that it would incite radicals. Now obviously, killing someone for something so trivial is ridiculous, but let's not act like the event was unforeseeable. It was the logical* consequence of antagonizing and baiting extremists. If you poke a bear enough times, it'll eventually maul you. It shouldn't shock anyone.

Charlie Hebdo knew what it was doing, they understood the risk, and they kept it up as a matter of principle. After the attack, a big hoorah has been raised about the freedom of speech... by people who truly couldn't give a fuck. You have a satirist who poked fun of the rally being arrested, and several world leaders putting on a show in France while they systematically undermine the freedom of expression back home. If these "Je Sui Charlie" folks truly cared about the freedom of speech, they'd be protesting actual rights violations perpetrated by their respective states, not an isolated incident carried out by a couple of lunatics.

* Not to be interpreted as "acceptable", more like "expected"

Originally Posted by cmind

Ask them if it's wrong to kill someone, even if they insulted [X], or if they "had it coming". Just because 90% of the people in a group don't have the balls to carry out a massacre of innocents, it doesn't mean they don't support it.

You can bet your ass that if some crazed gunman were to take aim at Obama in protest of his policies, there'd be a good number of Americans that would feel he "had it coming" too.

That sort of foolishness is prevalent everywhere, it isn't limited to Muslims or any particular group.

Sounds like some bullshit publicity stunt to garner respect for themselves since they probably know they're all crooked or something and want to hide it. I'll admit I'm talking out of my ass, but that's typically the only reason things like this happen and since they're all politicians it's fairly reasonable to assume that they're probably crooked. I usually don't judge a group by the actions of a few, but politicians are a special breed.

I am one who usually tries to defend a group because the actions of a few shouldn't cause a reactive negative response toward the whole group, but I also believe that religious institutions on the whole are as dangerous to society as governments who overstep their bounds and practice totalitarian and fascist principles. Even if a religion is, on its own, is neutral or even positive in its views of the world and humanity and is supposed to promote peace, tolerance, and love, by no means is that what they are used for. The new Pope is literally the only step in a positive direction I've seen any institutionalized religion take in I don't even know how long. Since their inception they have been a means of controlling the populace and taking their money without even needing fake rules to do it like governments do. If the fact of the matter is that Islam creates these kinds of attitudes in their followers, so long as it is the majority of them (which it arguably is), then it is a corrupt institution that is harming humanity on a whole--to include its own followers. Most religious institutions are the same way in this regard.

I have no problem with a personal relationship with God and wanting to have and share faith, but so many of the followers want to ram it down others' throats and believe that they are being told to do so and that it is righteous pretty much speaks for itself. God doesn't have to go, religion does.

The fake was not that nobody was there, they just faked that the world leaders lead on the demonstrations directly, they staged that, but of course people were on the street, if not the same street, get real. Staged it for security reasons.
See linked article with links to English sources 'Independent' and 'Daily News' provided within.

But we are all Muslims?
We are not all as stupid and/or culturally and/or personally unfortunate as to be religious, and it is well possible to say one is solidaric with people coming on the radar undeservedly and tell them go on dismantling their delusions in so many nice euphemistic words without such staggering idiocy of formulation.

Not the right signal.
At all.

Ever imagined how it sounds to the extremists? Capitulation, anybody?
People are underestimating the power of religious zeal on people's imagination in tamed Christendom of date.
What does it sound like to Jewish extremists, while we are at it? Fundamentalist Christians?

Thank you Louai for speaking up from Mount Lebanon!

Originally Posted by StephL

We are not all as stupid and/or culturally and/or personally unfortunate as to be religious, and it is well possible to say one is solidaric with people coming on the radar undeservedly and tell them go on dismantling their delusions in so many nice euphemistic words without such staggering idiocy of formulation.

> Implying that being an atheist is inherently the "smarter" choice.

Which it isn't.

Dropping a religion doesn't make one an intellectual, and adopting a faith doesn't make one a fool. College kids and budding armchair-intellectuals may disagree, but it's no different than picking one political ideology or social theory over another. It's just a set of ideas that an individual can use to help them orient themselves, nothing more. What one does with it is another matter, but it has more to do with how that individual internalizes and expresses any and all other ideas than it does with any specific concept (religious belief, atheism, etc.).

Religion isn't a scary mental trap that leads people astray and holds us back as a species any more than capitalism, communism, etc. are. That sort of shortsighted rationalization is best left to bloggers.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Of course you do.

lulz

Originally Posted by GavinGill

Implying that being an atheist is inherently the "smarter" choice.

Which it isn't.

Dropping a religion doesn't make one an intellectual, and adopting a faith doesn't make one a fool. College kids and budding armchair-intellectuals may disagree, but it's no different than picking one political ideology or social theory over another. It's just a set of ideas that an individual can use to help them orient themselves, nothing more. What one does with it is another matter, but it has more to do with how that individual internalizes and expresses any and all other ideas than it does with any specific concept (religious belief, atheism, etc.).

Religion isn't a scary mental trap that leads people astray and holds us back as a species any more than capitalism, communism, etc. are. That sort of shortsighted rationalization is best left to bloggers.

Oh well - each to their opinion.
Just because there are other scary mental traps out there holding us back, I do not have to approve of the religious variants.

The American Absence in Paris

By Russell Berman January 12, 2015

The American Absence in Paris

I think the Paris Hebdo attack was a false flag one which was a warning and punishment on France for its compromise to the Russia. Russia is the top consideration in US world strategy right now. That’s why they planned this “terror attack” and of course the top US leader won’t present in Paris parade.

Hollande Risks EU Split Over Russian Sanctions Relief

By James G. Neuger Dec 19, 2014

Europe stumbled into a debate over the end of sanctions on the economically distressed Russia after French President Francois Hollande became the first major leader to dangle the prospect of easing the curbs.

Hollande’s appeal at a European Union summit yesterday was a reminder that the bans on financing of major Russian banks and the export of energy-exploration equipment will lapse next July unless renewed unanimously by the 28 EU governments.

Hollande Risks EU Split Over Russian Sanctions Relief - Bloomberg Business

Originally Posted by katsung47

I think the Paris Hebdo attack was a false flag one....

Of course you do.

I find it amusing - a gathering of world leaders who ostensibly advocate for "free expression" and the satirizion of precious convictions, particularly - no especially when many of these leaders have committed an obvious offence.

The free-speech hypocrisy of some world leaders marching in Paris - The Washington Post

The Charlie Hebdo Attack: Characteristics of a False Flag Operation?

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Global Research, January 14, 2015

The Charlie Hebdo affair has many of the characteristics of a false flag operation. The attack on the cartoonists’ office was a disciplined professional attack of the kind associated with highly trained special forces; yet the suspects who were later corralled and killed seemed bumbling and unprofessional. It is like two different sets of people.

Usually Muslim terrorists are prepared to die in the attack; yet the two professionals who hit Charlie Hebdo were determined to escape and succeeded, an amazing feat. Their identity was allegedly established by the claim that they conveniently left for the authorities their ID in the getaway car. Such a mistake is inconsistent with the professionalism of the attack and reminds me of the undamaged passport found miraculously among the ruins of the two WTC towers that served to establish the identity of the alleged 9/11 hijackers.

It is a plausible inference that the ID left behind in the getaway car was the ID of the two Kouachi brothers, convenient patsies, later killed by police, and from whom we will never hear anything, and not the ID of the professionals who attacked Charlie Hebdo. An important fact that supports this inference is the report that the third suspect in the attack, Hamyd Mourad, the alleged driver of the getaway car, when seeing his name circulating on social media as a suspect realized the danger he was in and quickly turned himself into the police for protection against being murdered by security forces as a terrorist.

Hamyd Mourad says he has an iron-clad alibi. If so, this makes him the despoiler of a false flag attack. Authorities will have to say that despite being wrong about Mourad, they were right about the Kouachi brothers. Alternatively, Mourad could be coerced or tortured into some sort of confession that supports the official story.

The American and European media have ignored the fact that Mourad turned himself in for protection from being killed as a terrorist as he has an alibi. I googled Hamid Mourad and all I found (January 12) was the main US and European media reporting that the third suspect had turned himself in. The reason for his surrender was left out of the reports. The news was reported in a way that gave credence to the accusation that the suspect who turned himself in was part of the attack on Charlie Hebdo. Not a single US mainstream media source reported that the alleged suspect turned himself in because he has an ironclad alibi.

The Charlie Hebdo Attack: Characteristics of a False Flag Operation? | Global Research

katsung, do you ever sit back and wonder what it'd be like to not be a raging conspiracy theorist?

Police commissioner investigating Charlie Hebdo attack commits suicide while writing report

January 11, 2015
Police Commissioner likely ‘taken out’ upon discovery of evidence not fitting to establishment narrative, some speculate

By Shepard Ambellas

PARIS (INTELLIHUB) — Shockingly Police Commissioner Helric Fredou, 45, reportedly killed himself with his own gun while preparing a report just after meeting with a family member of a victim who was shot during the recent attack which took place at the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

Although reports claim that Helric Fredou suffered from “depression” and “burn out” some, like myself, remain skeptical that Fredou was ‘suicided’, murdered, by a third-party in an attempt to quell information he gained after speaking with key individuals during his investigation.


According to reports, the fatal blast took place in Fredou’s office during the early hours of the morning for “unknown” reasons.

According to reports, everyone surrounding the Fredou was “shocked”.

https://www.intellihub.com/police-co...riting-report/

...there's your answer, Blue.

Unlike Frank, who I believe is a troll, I think katsung really is a paranoid schizophrenic. Good luck reasoning with him.

World leaders- mainly European’s, gathered together having a unity march. They knew it’s US’ intimidation to force them into a fake “war against terror”. In a rare show, they say “no” to the US.

I sincerely hope they fuck over the US once and for all.

Paris attack designed to shore up France’s vassal status: Roberts
Sat Jan 10, 2015

A former White House official says the terrorist attack that killed 12 people on Wednesday in Paris was a false flag operation “designed to shore up France’s vassal status to Washington.”

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, made the remarks in an article published on Thursday.
Dr. Roberts stated that French President Francois Hollande this week said that the sanctions against Russia should end. “This is too much foreign policy independence on France’s part for Washington.”

He added that the CIA has apparently resurrected a policy that it followed against Europeans during the post-WW II era when the US spy agency would carry out attacks in European states and blame them on communist groups
Dr. Roberts said now the US agencies have planned false flag operations in Europe to create hatred against Muslims and bring European countries under Washington’s sphere of influence.

He noted that “the attack on Charlie Hebdo was an inside job and that people identified by NSA as hostile to the Western wars against Muslims are going to be framed for an inside job designed to pull France firmly back under Washington’s thumb.”

PressTV-CIA carried out Paris attack?

In Minsk Truce, German and France insist to solve Ukraine crisis by diplomacy, US suggest by supplying arm. US was absent in Minsk. In Paris world leaders unity March against "terror attack", US was absent too. The divergence is very clear.