How Emmanuel Macron wants to retaliate against Erdogan

[bsruzm]

Yawn.

 

[Deliorman]

Both sides of the spectrum to me are absolutely pathetic and using all that for their own political agenda and profits. This whole drama is being escalated on purpose and for ideological/political gains. It comes very handy and in the right moment for some people who will now try to gain some votes using Islam again after focking up everything else.

I find it stupid to provoke others and insult them on purpose and then hide behind your so called “freedom of speech and expression”... which we all know that applies to some and not for others. That magazine thrives on scandalizing and mocking people which for me is not a problem but when you see that a joke goes too far and starts insulting others you can just stop and be respectful for a minute.

At the same time these damned Salafists and Islamists and their actions make me want to vomit. No mater what you can’t decapitate innocent people and terrorize others because of a stupid cartoon and doing it all in the name if Islam, the Prophet and etc. If you feel offended and you don’t like it in France and how they threat you and your religion you can always pack your bags and leave.

All of those idiots (from the far- Right to the Radical Islamists etc) are helping each other grow bigger by escalating the tensions. Action and Reaction.

In the end in the middle of this sheit storm it’s the normal people that just want to live peacefully and are tired of this crap.

 

[Ryder]

The followers of the religion of peace have just beheaded another 2 people in a Church in Nice, France.....otherwise, Islam doesn't have a problem...

Mate its a piece of shit wahabi that committed this act.

 

[bsruzm]

Guys, all what I know is Macron needs to fix France's sinking image, and strengthen his position in France. "He beheaded her, OMG! Screams, violence, Islamofascist!, religion of peace etc." France knows the best, and we know these people. It is easy to set such scene, finding a killer is easier. Just don't give up your rightful stance. Any problem with what I say, we are right here.

 

[Ravenman]

Macron said the truth, and we see it clearly....as per beheading people over caricatures, I won't even dignify that with an answer. Muslims who think like that have no place in Europe.

Well, your grandgrandfathers beheaded muslims for less (fun, racism, oil, spices, gold).

What makes you better than the beheaded muslims in the French colonies who died for the economy and 'freedom' of France? Or is it French? Or Frankiye?

 

[Costin84]

Well, your grandgrandfathers beheaded muslims for less (fun, racism, oil, spices, gold).

What makes you better than the beheaded muslims in the French colonies who died for the economy and 'freedom' of France? Or is it French? Or Frankiye?

I don't know what you're raving about...

 

[Saiyan0321]

Would like to hear @Joe Shearer @Saiyan0321 take if they would like to share theirs.

Here is the thing. When it comes to blasphemy or extreme religious aspects which can interpreted as blasphemy, i avoid those topics since i have been sworn by my mother to not indulge those topics with anyone or on any platform. She cares about me and loves me alot and has sacrificed alot for me so i shall keep that oath and not indulge in the religious aspect of things thus you must excuse me on this nilgiri however as for french freedom of expression. I already wrote on that so let me bring it up

'
The Freedom of Expression is indeed considered an essential freedom in france and is enshrined in the constitution due to the addition of the 'Universal Declaration of Human and Civic Rights 1789' and Articles 10 and 11 of the Declaration protect freedoms of opinion and expression, describing the “free communication of ideas and of opinions” as “one of the most precious rights of man.”
Yet Despite its foundational importance, freedom of speech was never intended to be absolute. In contrast to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the 1789 Declaration of Human and Civic Rights provided limits to freedom of expression in its very definition. Article 10 declares;
“No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order.”

This was also echoed in the European Human Rights Convention that Freedom of Speech needs to have bars and france is part of the EU.


The European Convention on Human Rights declared:

"The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."


So we witness that in both cases the freedom of speech is home to limitations that are to be made so that such rights do not become a form of weapon to be used against other people. This was even more true since these rights could be used to slander and abuse, disturbing the harmony of a modern state. This has been interpreted by the French courts as well since in 2014 decision in which the Council of State upheld the prohibition of a public performance by controversial comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, because it was justified by the high risk that he would disturb public order by engaging in illegal hate speech.

Now the French courts have applied, what one can say is the notion of "Principle of Proportionality" which in criminal law layman term would be defined as the punishment of a criminal should not be greater or severe than the nature of the crime like for stealing 10 Euro, you dont hang the person. The French courts applied the same principle in freedom of speech that the risk of public disorder will decide whether a speech should be stifled or not. In this case, the risk of public disorder is huge.

The 1789 Declaration of Human and Civic Rights defines freedom in general as the following
“being able to do anything that does not harm others.”
Consistent with that definition, freedom of speech in France is limited by the right to privacy, the presumption of innocence, the right to “human dignity,” and by rules prohibiting defamation and insult.

Now this was basically how they interpreted the constitutional aspect of things but there exists other bars as well. The Freedom of Speech in France is not absolute. There are basic penal laws in France which prohibit as such

Furthermore, the Law of 29 July 1881 on Freedom of the Press, which is still in force, prohibits defamation and insults, both written and verbal. The Law of 29 July 1881 defines “defamation” as
“any allegation or imputation of a fact which harms the honor or consideration of the person or group to which the fact is imputed.” T
he same provision defines “insult” as “any offensive expression, term of contempt, or invective which does not contain the imputation of any fact.”

The following are punishable by law by the 1881 law:

- Public provocation to hatred, violence or racial discrimination.

- Public defamation on the grounds of an actual or assumed membership or non-membership to a specific ethnic group, nation, race or religion.

- Public slander on the grounds of an actual or assumed membership or non-membership to a specific ethnic group, nation, race or religion


Now the above basically means that the magazine itself is not acting on freedom of speech but is breaking it through incitement of hatred and public provocation. These are absolute offences which need to be punished rather than supported and Macron would do well to remember the laws of his own country. There are many cases and this discussion would be a long one on legal ground but nobody can deny the existence of such laws in France. It declares the breakdown of French system when the Prime Minister is ignorant of his own laws and speaks in contravention to it simply because something is a trend and would earn him negative report.

Now i am not the master of French law however the wordings seem pretty basic for me to interpret the actions of hebdo as illegal in French law.'


Freedom of expression will always be home to limitations and the courts have always tried to balance expansive interpretation with strict interpretation. They have always done so and it is not the matter of faith and its strength but the respect of a person's faith. Ofcourse we also have the right to disagreement here which is another fundamental right. All in all i believe that Macron is playing politics and dangerous politics on a sensitive issue that involves a fundamental right. Men far smarter, wiser and greater than macron saw what limitless freedoms bring forth and declared that this expansive freedom must be home to limitations.

 

[Saiyan0321]

However this in no way justifies the actions at Paris and NICE. Both are highly deplorable and should be condemned and i am not going to add a 'but' here. Wrong is wrong.

 

[Paro]

Quick question (and then my take on this issue and a larger issue beyond that):

If a Muslim (in whatever definition...let me go by the basic one that submits to the Quran as his/her central tenet of faith) is offended by these cartoons in some significant way, does that not mean he/she is first recognizing in some way (overtly or subconsciously o whatever mix) the prophet is capable of being visually depicted in first place?

Does that not run fundamentally contrary to what is stated+mainstream-interpreted in the Quran itself (the final prophet and other prophets before him) cannot be visually depicted.

If this holds true, where is the fundamental cause for offense to be had? Any visual depiction (mocking , glorifying. neutral or otherwise) is summarily rejected if you hold your faith. Is it not?

Ab initio, the misunderstanding is totally to be held by the other side in that they have no idea or understanding of what they are attempting to do.

Not to put Yankeestani on the spot here but am I as a Hindu/Indian supposed to be overly offended at this meme?:

The Meme Thread

defencehub.live

Am I to call for its removal from sight and vision for my personal offense (or the affront/offense it may have on my larger community of faith/identity....as though I can somehow personally harness that too in the resolution needed for some further argument and reasoning?)

If this meme were published in charlie hebdo or even a mainstream publication, should I ask for that publication to be banned? Nope....because I have literally no way of giving objective reference to my personal offense level to another person in first place. Neither does he have in the other way.

How do any ONE of you know what resides in my personal faith and conscience? How may I describe it to ANY single one of you in the most appropriate way so you may understand it fully with your own context and references to get exactly HOW i feel? How would you know its real or if I am lying?

It is impossible....is it not? So how does it make it possible for you to do so for another?

There is a reason why such relative things are left in the realm of faith and why the best system of laws must govern what is physically proven to a much higher absolute standard.

My religion makes no rule against visual depiction of anything in the supernatural or earthly realms...all that has existed, exists and will exist....all is fair game.

As the dragon told Merlin, the old religion was around eons before you my young warlock, and will be there eons well after.

It is I that have to then give everyone a full benefit of the doubt as the default as to their intention and understanding. It rests on me, no one else. In the end the realm of faith is a personalised exercise, it is your decision to believe and implement in your actions. If a society deems it should be collectivised, I disagree with it...but then that society simply does so in the well-spring of this to begin with....it has no foundation to (forcibly) exert on another society the same thing. History (and current affairs) have too many examples of where this leads to, please read up on them.

It is why I simply reject (in capacity I have to bring to bear...i.e myself) any misconstrued mocking or humour thrown my way at my religion or any other identity (country, ideology, ethnicity...you name it). They simply do not know of it in the way I hold dear...but that is my personal decision, and theirs....as nothing can be proven....can I reach into their head and they into mine to fully establish this stuff?

So the freedom for anyone to engage in that must never be limited...as it is simply highly non-referenced in the absolute sense.

On this issue I stand 100% with the French republic. @Vergennes

You can attack Macron all you want....but he is a President, he is the highest executive, brought there by the democratic process of his nation.

Many of you here do not seem to understand he is merely voicing what is long established in something deeper: The French constitution and its judicial branch. Surely the highest political office of a country must be aligned to this?

As close French friend of mine years ago gave as parting conclusion (I was taking many of your lot position for devils advocate game I like to play from time to time with people in general...and he fell for it then ):

(In French, paraphrasing) This country my good friend, is the land of Voltaire....there are certain things you simply won't understand....and what blood and strife and cost it involved to get here....we hold it dear, the dearest thing of all about our nation.

I can go on at some length on how this still manifests an ocean distance away here in Quebec (our BQ party leader just stepped into it recently...but he explained it so well it stunned the typical liberals these days).

So what is the real problem many of you seem to have?

Is it where free speech starts and ends compared to freedom of expression?

Many of you, in fact I would venture most of you, do not know the difference between these two concepts in first place... sorry to say (and one or two of you are noticeably severely intellectually deprived on this whole topic to begin with).

You will have to define what they are before we can get into things like its application w.r.t Holocaust denial (which by the way I consider as free speech....but French republic disagrees...and I do not agree with them there).

My own position is maximising free speech is a good thing...but freedom of expression is not absolute and must be well defined (your rights end where they provably infringe on mine). The countries that define, implement and achieve the greatest amount of free speech are noticeably far more developed and (intrinsically) progressive (in the original definition) for a reason.

Likewise in that exercise, this is the reason freedom of expression is (and must be) constrained by provable tort.

You don't get to yell fire! in a crowded theatre etc...and say hey free speech right?!

You don't get to spray paint nazi signs on a synagogue and say free speech!

You don't get to enter a private home by force to tell someone something and say free speech!

You all have to try understand what is provable action and intent (and the tort)....and what cannot be proven (and resides in the mind and conscience fully).

By this, the (murdered) French teacher did nothing wrong legally. Do we even know the context of why he was bringing up the cartoons for study? This is important btw.

After all if offense-basis is the principle for employment legally, where does the limit go?...till whole society is totally fractured on it (given at some point something that doesnt offend you... offends someone else).

Leaving side Islam and Hinduism which I have brought up already here:

Are we to ban halloween and any potential mocking of witchcraft....because a number of Wiccans assert they are offended?

I have a Jehovah's witness friend....each year around Christmas time, he diligently explains to me new things that offend him about this "Pagan" holiday and how he says Christianity mainstream has been corrupted.

He hates pretty much every cultural depiction of it that is mainstreamed, and the very holiday's date itself (moved to cover a pagan solstice festivity by a certain sect of Christianity that seem to have the naming rights and inertia itself he says). He hates Christmas trees, the decoration of them, he hates visual depiction of Santa Claus (very different to Saint Nicholas he says), the idolatry of this and that...and just about everything causes him great offense...(known to only him).

But what he wont say is there should be a legal movement to change all this...much less some mob force (even if say his group was big enough to do so)....because he gets what Faith is in the end. This is why he can literally have a conversation and earthly co-existence with me (that even has elements of friendship), a complicated Eastern Pagan by his definition.

You all can take all of this and compare it to charlie hebdo depictions and think strongly upon your reasoning on what you can prove (emotional hurt wise) to another on it....and if you do so...what can be done back your way if that is the standard? What if the very intrinsic performance/rituals of your own religion/culture is highly offensive to another...if we are to have an offending basis for rule making?

There is reason why you must approach certain crucial things with deductive reasoning....not a flawed inductive one.

This applies to every identity issue in general...not just Faith.

Would like to hear @Joe Shearer @Saiyan0321 take if they would like to share theirs.

My views exactly. Was lazy to type so went back to ghost mode.

 

[Nilgiri]

Now i am not the master of French law however the wordings seem pretty basic for me to interpret the actions of hebdo as illegal in French law.'

Disagree. There is a heavy precedence in French law regarding this (involving especially the main religion i.e Christianity).

Macron is on fully secure ground here (and also why every EU country that has spoken backs him too)...there is a huge volume in just the French supreme court to look at governing this...even considering for France being civil law system rather than common law.

The Freedom of Speech in France is not absolute.

This is what I mean by difference in freedom of speech vs freedom of expression.

It is really only one country that really defines the difference well (US 1st amendment) like it does for every amendment concerning individual rights by "the govt shall not infringe" (i.e set the process by what the govt cannot do rather than what it allows i.e negative rights on govt). But where provable torts lie, such speech moves to expression which is not absolute (past the examples I gave earlier, there is obviously things like libel and slander too).

Other countries (like France) its question of maximising it and determining where the limits lie...the process is not set so absolutely and deductively like it has been in the US. Hence the precedence and conventions in such countries play larger role as to what is considered tort. If it has been dismissed in case of one religion, it is sufficient to dismiss it for any other.

It also brings up the process of should movies and material be banned that illustrate any monotheistic God...or movies that show abrahamic prophets like Moses in the flesh?.....or movies that mock/insult such a God or the very concept of God or prophets governing them that extend into Islamic theology as well.

Should France ban movies like "The Life of Brian" and "History of the World"? ...and likewise should any country where Muslims reside?

These after all involve mocking/parodying of prophets found in Islam as well...not to mention their very depiction in the first place. All of which may offend christians and jews or even just people of faith in general.

The issue why you cannot expect this to be done is as an individual you need not look on them...and you have far enough personal capacity to simply reject the existence of such depictions by others as their own narrative. You can control what you read/view and also what you decide to believe in such realms.

 

[Saiyan0321]

Disagree. There is a heavy precedence in French law regarding this (involving especially the main religion i.e Christianity).

Macron is on fully secure ground here (and also why every EU country that has spoken backs him too)...there is a huge volume in just the French supreme court to look at governing this...even considering for France being civil law system rather than common law.

The only way i see it happening despite all those laws is the court and legislator interpreted the clauses to be subject to individuals and not divine. Did the french courts or legislator ever do that?

As for the rest. Forgive me nilgiri but religious philosophy ( a topic i love studying and study as much as i can since i have a habit of questioning everything and learning everything so religion was that one topic i loved to study) cannot be discussed on an open forum. There are only two people in the world i ever discuss religious philosophy with. My mother and my namesake. Nobody else.

US has a rich constitutional history and was actually a very legally mature country even at its inception. Frankly both India and Pakistan had the chance to be something just as grand but lost the opportunity to be something else. Pakistan even more so. The US legislator is not the one that truly made the first amendment the first amendment but the US courts. Judgments like Macgowan vs Maryland or everson vs board of education and so many others and this is ofcourse to this day argued based on originalists and living constitutionalism.

 

[Nilgiri]

The only way i see it happening despite all those laws is the court and legislator interpreted the clauses to be subject to individuals and not divine. Did the french courts or legislator ever do that?

As for the rest. Forgive me nilgiri but religious philosophy ( a topic i love studying and study as much as i can since i have a habit of questioning everything and learning everything so religion was that one topic i loved to study) cannot be discussed on an open forum. There are only two people in the world i ever discuss religious philosophy with. My mother and my namesake. Nobody else.

US has a rich constitutional history and was actually a very legally mature country even at its inception. Frankly both India and Pakistan had the chance to be something just as grand but lost the opportunity to be something else. Pakistan even more so. The US legislator is not the one that truly made the first amendment the first amendment but the US courts. Judgments like Macgowan vs Maryland or everson vs board of education and so many others and this is ofcourse to this day argued based on originalists and living constitutionalism.

I wont bug you anymore on it....I would have understood if you also didn't answer at all my friend (I left option to you for that very reason). It is not really to debate the philosophy/religion/culture itself but rather how it scope can vary when you have different prevalence of intrinsic majority/minority where compromises and understandings have to be sought out.

It matters in end how the logic is done in the legal process (this is why I brought up inductive vs deductive) especially duration of time its been established and becomes part of the root identity.

The issue with lot of countries in West is this is 100s of years of inertia w.r.t Christianity debate in matters of state and separation of such matters in the public space (w.r.t private space). It is not immediately congruent with other cultures...that may arrive or develop later. Then it become case of that country having to impress its norms as the default basis....and what can and cant be compromised on given what it did with its own similar cases before.

I have clashed a lot of times explaining very basic matters to my family in this regard too...they are also quite conservative when it comes to religious matters...especially back home when the majority exists for its imposition into public setting. This is why I see India as aspiring on this topic (theoretically and legally), but very much still rooted by its own inertia w.r.t offense and personal+communal sentiment shielding.

This actually starts a long debate/study on why symbolism and visual depictions are found a great deal more in esp Catholic and Orthodox Christianity compared to Judaism and Islam. But that is for another topic and time.

 

[Paro]

.
@Nilgiri @Vergennes

 

[Kartal1]

Tu te trompes mon ami Avant que ça s’appelle Charlie hebdo ça s’appelait hara kiri C’est en 70 que ça a changé de nom la raison c’était pour Charles-de-Gaulle il venait de mourir il se sont moqué de lui quelques années plus tard et il s’est fait aussi censuré car ils avaient caricaturer la femme de Pompidou Il y a 10 ou 11 ans ils ont licencié senet sine Pour avoir caricaturer le fils de Sarkozy qui s’était marié avec la fille de Darty en sous-entendant Qu’il avait réussi sa vie car ce sont des juifs Il a même gagné aux prud’hommes si je me rappelle bien il a gagné 40 000 € je crois pour licenciement abusif Le motif du licenciement était d’associer le judaïsme à la réussite

Please translate your post bro. Try to get the information you post as accessible as you can. Thank you.

 

[Egemenlik verilmez alınır]

Merci pour les détails, je n'étais pas trop au courant de tout ça. Et bienvenu sur le forum aussi!

N'hésitez pas à vous présenter ici;

[URL unfurl = "true"] https://defencehub.live/threads/introduction.131/ [/ URL]

Ou simplement dire bonjour.

https://www.rtl.fr/actu/debats-soci...ra-kiri-etait-interdit-de-parution-7780536034.

"Charlie Hebdo" condamné pour le licenciement abusif du dessinateur Siné

L'hebdomadaire avait licencié le caricaturiste pour une chronique dans laquelle il ironisait sur une éventuelle conversion au judaïsme de Jean Sarkozy.

www.lemonde.fr

 

[dBSPL]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322516627871715328

101- How to set up an ex-Soviet-style stooge network in 2020

 

[Kartal1]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322516627871715328

101- How to set up an ex-Soviet-style stooge network in 2020

The whole situation is a big fail of the French intelligence and the anti-radicalisation initiative. The situation is not like that from yesterday. After so many years and so many French nationals traveled with "tourism" purposes on tourism jewel countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, people who are not careful with the operation of a fully loaded AKs (NO they didn't know that it is illegal) and also people that have concentration problems behind the wheel you expect the State to act appropriately. And this is not only concerning for the French internal security but also the security of the whole EU is jeopardized in a such way because the terrorist got EU citizenship and can travel wherever they want across the EU. With that ill approach to the national security of the major EU countries we are far from seeing EU countries secure. By the way Christmas is coming. I don't even want to think about the things that will most probably happen again. It is not enough that you can't deal with a problem existing for so many years but now you also provoke terrorists which got you by the balls. Not good.

Unfortunately all kinds of terrorism tend to grow in the EU. Not only radical Islam organizations. Turkey warned the EU many times of the dangers of terrorism and not only the PKK terrorism and warned that the snakes they give refuge to will bite them one day and that is what we are seeing right now. In the middle of the modern civilization you can run a terrorist organization without any problems just by changing its name to something that is not in the "registry for forbidden organizations" and that is what the EUROPOL says. People that traffic drugs, weapons, malign ideologies, doing kidnappings etc. The taste of freedom is so good! Pathetic. I am feeling bad for the ordinary citizens which think that the war on terror is a real thing in the EU but it's far from that. The fail is of the governments and the guys with the scary sunglasses who like to conspire behind their nations and play the role of a hard guys but in reality they are not something better than heavy smelly farts. Now next to the radical Islam terrorists they will have to watch out for far right terrorists that they created with their policies. Hard to decide if I have to laugh or to cry. I am just feeling sorry for the normal hard working citizens. Oh wait I forgot ERDOGAN AND THE MUSLIMS ARE GUILTY! Purely pathetic.

 

[Timur]

you wont convince the people against their countries propaganda...

muslim countries need more power the west is going into a real full out war.. muslim nations need also nukes because that is the thing that will be used against them.. mark my words this will happen

do we need to remind ourselfs of the millions of muslims killed by their hands? the worst thing is that the muslim nations dont hold on to each other due to shortsighted ugly despotes that serve western interests.. its also sure that this is what the western world wants.. they dont want you to be with a same status and wealth they want you to be under their rule.. that is reality that is the ugly reality that many people dont see.. but thanks to the internet more and more people see this reality..

europe is preparing themselves for a big change.. and than what they are doing today these little wars of EU will be like toying around if they really begin to fight..

people in the eu dont see that they are manipulated they had their BIG Nazi enemy, their BIG Sowjet enemy and now they have their imaginary Muslim enemy..

for their luck these muslims are weak and divided.. so they can play around, slaughter them, rape them, do pervert games with them, can put them in concentration camps and then they will talk about their freedom .. oho do they mean their freedom to kill? do they mean their freedom for rape? their freedom for sexgames with their prey? their freedom with concentration camps? and they they will say no that is not us thats not our democratic understandment.. it would be a game changer if they someone does it to their people than it would be something out of humanity.. than action needs to be done.. than it is a matter of humanity a matter in their hearts.. but else they would only say no thats not us or a mad man did that..


muslim countries need to get unity and power otherwise they are doomed.. because we are talking about people that never had been different in history.. go back 500 years if you want there is no difference except the personal freedom and more wealth they have.. and maybe all the porn on internet..

still you can write books and talk 24/24 with them they dont hear and see you

the best you can do is to educate your children and send them to school and get the help for them wich they need to be sucessfull dont say this cost too much that money you save is money that you waste for something useless,

teach them values, teach them culture and religion and keep them away from the poisenous effect of the west that makes them radicals

by the way I dont care if someone tries me to convince different views on this matter.. yes I am REALLY serious about that.. I learned my lesson and dont care but better you all take care of your children to be educated the right way without forgetting culture und religion..

 

[Nilgiri]

.
@Nilgiri @Vergennes

It is long complicated story and history. The main issue is how one identity ultimately rests with other ones an individual has....compared to how its done in other societies (especially ones that see themselves as having transitioned into a more enlightened rational approach on it).

For example to me religion and culture is important, but country/nation must come well before it (as I must leave the former up to the individual...but the latter is deeply tied to the final undeniable rational existence).

I will not make common cause by default with another Hindu simply because he is same religion to me...as there could very well be other identities and ideologies he has that conflict with red lines I have set up. This goes for every specific identity I have.

This is why I find it strange a Muslim half the world away takes France/Macron and France internal matters regarding its citizens and residents to be some globalist collectivised issue....when France has due process, sound rule of law and democratic process and free media principles established to make any societal grievance or tension addressed peacefully and resolutely.

Definitely criticize the foreign/geopolitical side of France that you perceive to be wrong (esp if you are in conflict with it)...like with any other country....but an extreme level of tarring the internals is silly, especially conflating the foreign policy matter with it.

Besides if same such approach suddenly stops all together at PRC borders (or is very nominal), my eyes glaze over from the utter shameful hypocrisy from these same people and so called leaders.

But maybe Stalin was sadly right in the end referencing collectivized psyche....1 is a pity, a million is a statistic.

 

[Barry]

You'll never have unity between majority-Muslim nations, and you'll never be accepted by the Christian/atheist western plebiscite, like some of the people in this thread, who seriously think that they're part of the state machinery and agenda, instead of being the meat that gets ground within it.