10

Yesterday something happened that made me think of another reason to talk about this. I think that people here may need to better realize that a judge can have and state a view that is disagreeable but still be just. Judges, like the rest of the people, should not be suffocated within the field of stating only agreeable statements. Moreover, as much as a judge has a history of cases for his fairness to be evaluated as much as one can spare the use of this inferior method of depending on opinions or beliefs to predict the fairness in actions.  

9

Unlike those who made the fake show of someone apologizing for saying the N word despite supposedly being threatened with a gun to make the people take their collaborated abuse without complaining, I don't think that being insulted brings me even anywhere close to be the main issue and takes precedence over the suffering of an injustice for much less than that of being killed (Again, I have real things in my mind not those fabricated attacks by the government and its corruption partner here) .

[(Added 12/13/15) For those who don't recall what I was referring to, neither the apologizing nor the apologized to were the real reason behind making that show]

8

Some may use the expression that those who made the attack in France hijacked Islam. However, depending on how you see that "Hijacking" of Islam, aside from Islam being a theory, if you say that implying a strong association, let alone a representation, with that religion simply based on those words those attackers used then it could be you who were actually hijacked by the claims of those attackers not Islam. Should I just ignore counting all the killers who are Christians on Christianity but simply continue to count on Islam the Muslims who made that attack  just because they shouted Islamic words? An intelligent person would contain the claim of the other side rather than being contained by it.

7

I don't like the reactions that suggest a desire to sensor the talk of that guy and despite the joy of watching the cartoonish character he is portraying to the outside.

  

6

Let me remind some of the idiots talking about Muslims here that you are not sampling. You are generalizing based on a group already formed. On the other hand, try to sample the Jews about not being connected to their corruption forces and see how much you can succeed even within only nine people selected for the nation's highest court. 

5

All this talk about Islam shows the level of superficiality and/or identity complex in this country. Why? Because if I suffer a harm I would be making my argument against that based on how just or unjust it is and I cant care less about the religion of the opposing side for the purpose of arguing against the validity of its actions.In fact, if the other side itself invokes an argument based on his religion I would try to take it back to the justice argument. Those here on the other hand are themselves volunteering the abandonment of that position to the other side's field.

4

Even when a generalization could apply on me in a much better way than that which came from those throwing stones from the weakest glass houses, I still would not accept forgetting the other side as the price for my right to be held to my own actions only. Instead, like I talked before about 9/11, the two sides should both exist and go in parallel to each other. Ignoring the rights of a victim in order to give me my right of being held to my own actions is to me like somebody stealing from someone else in order to give me what he owes me.

Of course I am referring to tragic events like that which happened in France and not the stupid fabrication going on here pushed by the corruption forces.