French Police surround shooting suspect

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2012 3:42 PM GMT
    "About 300 police officers surrounded an apartment in the south of France Wednesday, trying to coax a man whom authorities called a self-styled al Qaeda jihadist to surrender after a series of shootings that left seven people dead.
    ....
    A prosecution official in Paris named the suspect as Mohammed Merah, 23. He was born in Toulouse, said Elisabeth Allanic, a magistrate at the prosecutors office."


    http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/21/world/europe/france-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

    000_Par6954296.jpg
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Mar 21, 2012 5:12 PM GMT
    Another example of muslims attacking people of other religions?

    Or, seen from a larger picture, since he said his motive was to avenge the deaths of Palestinian children killed at the hand of Israelis (of which there have been quite a large number over the years), is it even conceivable that the Israelis might possibly make the connection - that if they don't give back the settlements, withdraw from the occupied territories, and let the Palestinians develop, there will never be an end to crazy attacks on Israelis and Jews by gihadists? Unfortunately I think not - I think Israel would prefer the status quo to actual peace. I think long after we are all dead, Israel will still be fighting the Palestinians. Too bad the Israelis could not learn any lessons from the English and Irish - the Irish continued to fight the English for 800 years - and eventually won (most of their country). Maybe Israel hopes that the Palestinians will go the way of the american Indians, who lost out after only a generation or so. That would indeed be wishful thinking on the part of Israel.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2012 4:19 AM GMT
    Let me see if I follow. Four French Jews - 3 of them children - are brutally murdered... and 99% of Seutonius' post is about condemning Israel?!

    See also:

    This is Palestine
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/349491

    UN Security Council Resolution 242, Oslo Accords, Camp David & Taba.
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/354843

    Yalla, Peace!
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1285693

    Let me note that the majority of Palestinian Arab children killed over the last 12 years (since the start of the Arab violence and terrorism known as the "intifada") have been males aged 15-17. An age group deemed fit for military service under Islamic tradition (with even younger children used as bombers).

    Aside from the Arab terrorists' use of child soldiers, they put others in the line of fire when they launch rockets from the midst of their population centers, from school yards and hospital roofs.

    During this period, there is no comparable case of Arab children being murdered in cold blood as the children in Toulouse were. Yet we remember the Fogel children, slaughtered at close range as they slept in their beds. And the Ohayon children, murdered futilely trying to hide under the sheets from a real life monster who had just murdered their mother who had been reading them bed time stories.The Hatuel family girls, four of them aged 2-7, picked off one by one (along with their mother, who was 7 months pregnant). Or two 14-year old boys (Yossi Ish-Ran and Kobi Mandell) bludgeoned to death in a cave. Or the numerous children targeted and murdered in school buses, ice cream shoppes, and pizzerias that were blown up.

    How sick is it for someone to murder innocent children over the death of other children amidst a war?
    Or to use these murders to push political talking points?

    Let's not forget that his prior victims were French soldiers and that he boasted of "bringing France to its knees".

    Murder a few innocent Jewish children... and suddenly (in some circles) the killer gains understanding rather than condemnation?
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Mar 22, 2012 2:36 PM GMT
    Wolverine4 saidLet me see if I follow. Four French Jews - 3 of them children - are brutally murdered... and 99% of Seutonius' post is about condemning Israel?!

    Having read a lot of your other posts, I begin to realize that either you can't read, english is a second language for you and of which which you have inadequate comprehension, or you suffer from a severe deficiency in the reasoning department.

    My post did not condemn Israel. I merely point out in terms or realpolitik, that in the long run Israel's policies are unlikely to accomplish their intended goals, and are likely to hurt Israel itself. Someone famous once concluded (I believe Einstein), "Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and yet expecting a different result." That is applicable to Israel's policies toward Palestine and the Palestinians. Whether or not the reactions of the gihadists are polite, moral, honorable, or even effective, there is no reason to expect them ever to change. Just as the general policies of Irish revolutionaries did not change over 800 years. I actually pity moral Israeli citizens for continuing to put in power such short-sighted leaders as they have (and presumbaly will continue to do).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2012 3:05 PM GMT
    Suetonius said
    Wolverine4 saidLet me see if I follow. Four French Jews - 3 of them children - are brutally murdered... and 99% of Seutonius' post is about condemning Israel?!

    Having read a lot of your other posts, I begin to realize that either you can't read, english is a second language for you and of which which you have inadequate comprehension, or you suffer from a severe deficiency in the reasoning department.

    My post did not condemn Israel. I merely point out in terms or realpolitik, that in the long run Israel's policies are unlikely to accomplish their intended goals, and are likely to hurt Israel itself. Someone famous once concluded (I believe Einstein), "Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and yet expecting a different result." That is applicable to Israel's policies toward Palestine and the Palestinians. Whether or not the reactions of the gihadists are polite, moral, honorable, or even effective, there is no reason to expect them ever to change. Just as the general policies of Irish revolutionaries did not change over 800 years. I actually pity moral Israeli citizens for continuing to put in power such short-sighted leaders as they have (and presumbaly will continue to do).

    My reading comprehension is quite good. I did not see your message as condemning Israel, but I do question your motive and the appropriateness of your message here. The thread was about a crime. You can take any crime and discuss abstractions which may or may not be relevant. Same thing about 9/11. Or someone of one race kills a person of a different race. You can discuss race relations to explain the context, which can take the focus away from the guilty person to effectively share the blame. You can make your points, but I question doing so in this thread. It is about a specific crime.
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Mar 22, 2012 4:08 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Suetonius said
    Wolverine4 saidLet me see if I follow. Four French Jews - 3 of them children - are brutally murdered... and 99% of Seutonius' post is about condemning Israel?!

    Having read a lot of your other posts, I begin to realize that either you can't read, english is a second language for you and of which which you have inadequate comprehension, or you suffer from a severe deficiency in the reasoning department.

    My post did not condemn Israel. I merely point out in terms or realpolitik, that in the long run Israel's policies are unlikely to accomplish their intended goals, and are likely to hurt Israel itself. Someone famous once concluded (I believe Einstein), "Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and yet expecting a different result." That is applicable to Israel's policies toward Palestine and the Palestinians. Whether or not the reactions of the gihadists are polite, moral, honorable, or even effective, there is no reason to expect them ever to change. Just as the general policies of Irish revolutionaries did not change over 800 years. I actually pity moral Israeli citizens for continuing to put in power such short-sighted leaders as they have (and presumbaly will continue to do).

    My reading comprehension is quite good. I did not see your message as condemning Israel, but I do question your motive and the appropriateness of your message here. The thread was about a crime. You can take any crime and discuss abstractions which may or may not be relevant. Same thing about 9/11. Or someone of one race kills a person of a different race. You can discuss race relations to explain the context, which can take the focus away from the guilty person to effectively share the blame. You can make your points, but I question doing so in this thread. It is about a specific crime.

    Disagree. In comparison to most non-sexual RJ threads, this is hardly off topic, just tangentially related. Crimes have motives, and the motive of this attacker was reported in the press. To refuse to consider the motivations for crime, or the ramifications of the motives, but to allow only posting the news as "event", along with everyone's automatic sympathy for the crime victims, is not very helpful for anyone's future. These incidents occur on a very frequent basis. RJ is not a pure news site.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2012 4:33 PM GMT
    Muslim thread needs Muslim theme song

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2012 5:51 PM GMT
    Suetonius said
    socalfitness said
    Suetonius said
    Wolverine4 saidLet me see if I follow. Four French Jews - 3 of them children - are brutally murdered... and 99% of Seutonius' post is about condemning Israel?!

    Having read a lot of your other posts, I begin to realize that either you can't read, english is a second language for you and of which which you have inadequate comprehension, or you suffer from a severe deficiency in the reasoning department.

    My post did not condemn Israel. I merely point out in terms or realpolitik, that in the long run Israel's policies are unlikely to accomplish their intended goals, and are likely to hurt Israel itself. Someone famous once concluded (I believe Einstein), "Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and yet expecting a different result." That is applicable to Israel's policies toward Palestine and the Palestinians. Whether or not the reactions of the gihadists are polite, moral, honorable, or even effective, there is no reason to expect them ever to change. Just as the general policies of Irish revolutionaries did not change over 800 years. I actually pity moral Israeli citizens for continuing to put in power such short-sighted leaders as they have (and presumbaly will continue to do).

    My reading comprehension is quite good. I did not see your message as condemning Israel, but I do question your motive and the appropriateness of your message here. The thread was about a crime. You can take any crime and discuss abstractions which may or may not be relevant. Same thing about 9/11. Or someone of one race kills a person of a different race. You can discuss race relations to explain the context, which can take the focus away from the guilty person to effectively share the blame. You can make your points, but I question doing so in this thread. It is about a specific crime.

    Disagree. In comparison to most non-sexual RJ threads, this is hardly off topic, just tangentially related. Crimes have motives, and the motive of this attacker was reported in the press. To refuse to consider the motivations for crime, or the ramifications of the motives, but to allow only posting the news as "event", along with everyone's automatic sympathy for the crime victims, is not very helpful for anyone's future. These incidents occur on a very frequent basis. RJ is not a pure news site.

    Fair enough. Just briefly along the lines of looking at bigger pictures, I ask, only rhetorically, if the same kind of discussion would occur if an extremist Jew had killed Muslims. Again, just rhetorical - not making any insinuation against you. I would like to share this article, from a source I normally don't quote:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/sophisticated-liberal-jew_b_191135.html
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Mar 23, 2012 1:48 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Suetonius said
    socalfitness said
    Suetonius said
    Wolverine4 saidLet me see if I follow. Four French Jews - 3 of them children - are brutally murdered... and 99% of Seutonius' post is about condemning Israel?!

    Having read a lot of your other posts, I begin to realize that either you can't read, english is a second language for you and of which which you have inadequate comprehension, or you suffer from a severe deficiency in the reasoning department.

    My post did not condemn Israel. I merely point out in terms or realpolitik, that in the long run Israel's policies are unlikely to accomplish their intended goals, and are likely to hurt Israel itself. Someone famous once concluded (I believe Einstein), "Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and yet expecting a different result." That is applicable to Israel's policies toward Palestine and the Palestinians. Whether or not the reactions of the gihadists are polite, moral, honorable, or even effective, there is no reason to expect them ever to change. Just as the general policies of Irish revolutionaries did not change over 800 years. I actually pity moral Israeli citizens for continuing to put in power such short-sighted leaders as they have (and presumbaly will continue to do).

    My reading comprehension is quite good. I did not see your message as condemning Israel, but I do question your motive and the appropriateness of your message here. The thread was about a crime. You can take any crime and discuss abstractions which may or may not be relevant. Same thing about 9/11. Or someone of one race kills a person of a different race. You can discuss race relations to explain the context, which can take the focus away from the guilty person to effectively share the blame. You can make your points, but I question doing so in this thread. It is about a specific crime.

    Disagree. In comparison to most non-sexual RJ threads, this is hardly off topic, just tangentially related. Crimes have motives, and the motive of this attacker was reported in the press. To refuse to consider the motivations for crime, or the ramifications of the motives, but to allow only posting the news as "event", along with everyone's automatic sympathy for the crime victims, is not very helpful for anyone's future. These incidents occur on a very frequent basis. RJ is not a pure news site.

    Fair enough. Just briefly along the lines of looking at bigger pictures, I ask, only rhetorically, if the same kind of discussion would occur if an extremist Jew had killed Muslims. Again, just rhetorical - not making any insinuation against you.

    Who knows? I think everyone on here is generally against against murders by extremists. Note, however, that as of these posts being up for 2 days, they have been viewed on;y 77 times. Not a lot of interest her, I would say. Only had time to skim this article, but unlike APAC, I would not equate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. (And lest we forget, Palestinians are also semites.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 4:52 AM GMT
    I suspect this topic has few views because many have put mocktwinkie on ignore.
    Which has nothing to do with anything.

    Suetonius> anti-semitism. ...Palestinians are also semites.

    So you don't believe they descend from the Canaanites or Philistines, in which case they would be Hamites?
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/979648

    Why connect Anti-Semitism with Semites?

    Words don't mean the sum of their parts.
    Anti-Semitism ≠ anti+Semitism just as drive-way ≠ drive+way and park-way ≠ park+way.

    The term "anti-Semitism" was coined by Jew-haters as a scientific-sounding euphemism for "Jew-hater" at a time when hating Jews for no other reason than that they were Jews starting going out of style in Europe at the end of the 19th century.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 4:17 PM GMT
    Suetonius> My post did not condemn Israel. I merely point out in terms or realpolitik....

    Doublespeak.
    It's not like you pointed this out to compliment Israel.

    You might as well have tried:
    "Obama is a Muslim.
    I'm not saying this to condemn him, just pointing it out...."

    Equally as bankrupt:

    Suetonius> I actually pity moral Israeli citizens for continuing to put in power such short-sighted leaders as they have (and presumbaly will continue to do).

    How can it be that all of Israel's leaders, left, center or right, are "short-sighted"?
    Worse, in Suetonius' one-dimensional thinking, all these leaders/governments have pursued the same policies:

    Suetonius> "Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and yet expecting a different result." That is applicable to Israel's policies toward Palestine and the Palestinians.

    So it doesn't matter if Israel withdraws from Gaza, doesn't respond to rocket-fire from Gaza for months or attacks Gaza, it's all the same? It doesn't matter if Israel is willing to negotiate at Camp David I (but the PLO rejects President Carter's invitation), or Camp David II (but, to quote President Clinton, Arafat "said no to everything"), but Israel - not the Arab leadership - is the problem? Even if Netanyahu imposes a 10-month construction moratorium and still the PA leadership won't resume negotiations?

    It gets even worse. My original post noted that rather than condemn the murder of innocents, Suetonius used the murder as a stage to proliferate the murderer's (alleged) political platform. You know, just like some (when not denying the Holocaust), seek to explain that the nazis were just concerned about Jews controlling the banks, etc.:

    Suetonius> if they don't give back the settlements, withdraw from the occupied territories, and let the Palestinians develop, there will never be an end to crazy attacks on Israelis and Jews by gihadists?

    Those stupid women wearing lipsticks and short skirts. Don't they realize that until they stop doing that, other women will be raped? Not to mention those homosexuals flaunting it. They're just asking to be bashed.

    Israel did withdraw from Gaza, and rather than see any peaceful reciprocation, this led to the skyrocketing of Arab terrorism from Gaza against Israeli civilians.

    Israel is under no obligation to withdraw from the territories. The accepted framework (UNSCR 242, Oslo Accords) is to first make peace and then for Israel to withdraw to the border to be established in that agreement.

    By Suetonius' "logic", the Germans and Japanese should have kept fighting because after the war the Allies occupied them....

    Then there's the disconnect between Suetonius' parroting of the party line and the facts:

    As if the "settlements" were taken rather than barren land (owned by Jews) which was developed? Not to mention that some of these Jewish villages existed prior to the complete ethnic cleansing of all Jews in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and eastern Jerusalem during the Arab invasion of 1948.
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/960691


    It gets worse with this false moral equivalence:

    Suetonius> avenge the deaths of Palestinian children killed at the hand of Israelis (of which there have been quite a large number over the years),

    As I pointed out, most of the Palestinian Arab casualties are males aged 15-17 (of fighting age under Islamic tradition) and none of them were murdered in cold blood.

    Others were killed because the Arab terrorists use their own civilians as human shields, firing rockets - at Israeli civilians! - from school playgrounds and hospital roofs. Something the selective and one-sided Suetonius can't be bothered with.


    Suetonius> I think not

    You really should try some independent thought.
    The change might do you good.


    Suetonius> I think Israel would prefer the status quo to actual peace. ...Too bad the Israelis could not learn any lessons from the English and Irish - the Irish continued to fight the English for 800 years

    Which is a complete reversal of reality.

    The Jewish Agency, in 1939, accepted the principal of partition.
    The Arab parties rejected it.

    The Jewish Agency, in 1947, accepted the UN partition compromise.
    The Arab parties violently rejected it and started a war to "throw the Jews into the sea".

    After the war, in 1949, Israel was willing to make peace.
    The Arab League declared "No negotiations, No recognition [of Israel], No peace".

    After further Arab attacks and the 1967 war, Israel accepted UNSCR 242 (which established the "land for peace" formula).
    The Arab League reiterated their "3 NOs".

    After another Arab war to destroy Israel failed in 1973, Anwar Sadat decided to give peace a chance.
    He found a ready, willing and able partner in Israel, then under its most right-wing government ever.
    All other Arab parties, including the PLO, condemned this.
    Egypt was expelled from the Arab League and Sadat assassinated.

    It would be another quarter of a century before the PLO would finally feign peace.
    This because Arafat backed Saddam in 1990 and alienated his Gulf sponsors.
    At Camp David and Taba, Israel was ready to accept the Clinton compromise.
    But Arafat balked. He couldn't bring himself to end the conflict.
    And instead started the intifada.
    While Arafat liked to compare himself to General Washington, he couldn't transition to being President Washington.
    Making peace, aside from possibly leading to his assassination (as he pointed out to Clinton) would have made him obsolete.

    In 2008, Abbas walked out on the Olmert peace plan.
    And I'm not even going to mention Hamas and their "insanity".

    In 2011, Abbas walked out on Obama, too.

    But in the small mind of Suetonius, it is Israel that rejects peace in favor of the status quo?
    Were this true, the PA should call Israel's "bluff" and resume negotiations!

    They don't because they lack a mandate to do so. And that is the problem.
    While 80% of Israelis support making peace, only 1/3rd of the Palestinian Arabs do, with another 1/3rd strongly rejecting it and the rest somewhere in between.
    And that's only looking at those in the territories, not those locked up in camps in Arab countries.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 7:14 PM GMT
    But all of the above has already been discussed in numerous other topics.
    Which makes it all the more bizarre why Suetonius brought it up here.

    How sick is it for someone to murder innocent children over the death of other children amidst a war?

    How depraved is it for Suetonius to use these murders to push his political talking points - sympathetic to the murderer?

    Let's not forget that the terrorists' prior victims were French soldiers and that he boasted of "bringing France to its knees".

    Murder a few innocent Jewish children... and suddenly (in some circles) the killer gains understanding rather than condemnation?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 8:07 PM GMT
    Wolverine4 saidBut all of the above has already been discussed in numerous other topics.
    Which makes it all the more bizarre why Suetonius brought it up here.

    How sick is it for someone to murder innocent children over the death of other children amidst a war?

    How depraved is it for Suetonius to use these murders to push his political talking points - sympathetic to the murderer?

    Let's not forget that the terrorists' prior victims were French soldiers and that he boasted of "bringing France to its knees".

    Murder a few innocent Jewish children... and suddenly (in some circles) the killer gains understanding rather than condemnation?

    I provided this link above. It certainly is not blindly pro-Israel but provides some excellent observations on opinions prevalent among the political left.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/sophisticated-liberal-jew_b_191135.html