:
|
Similarly to how I've shed no years about the millions of people who died in the holocaust. Have you?
|
I’ve seen Bergen-Belsen and Sachsenhausen with my own eyes, so yes.
:
|
I really, really doubt that's the case.
|
Please explain why you come to that conclusion.
:
|
In regards to the motive behind the Charlie Hebdo killings it's impossible to know exactly why they're being perpetrated. Is it what the Telegraph article supposes? Where they specifically sent on this mission to hit home that Islamic Extremism is a force to be reckoned with? Is it just a culture of brainwashing in which the depiction of Muhammed *was* their primary motivation? It's probably a combination of several things. Are these people acting independently? Are they just proving themselves? I don't know. It could be complex or it could be straightforward and delusional.
|
I think the point of the article is to say that the attack on Charlie Hebdo didn’t happen because it offended some extremists, but rather because the extremists saw an opportunity to use something they considered offensive as an excuse to further their agenda. By killing the magazine’s staff they want to make their enemies stand up for media like Charlie Hebdo, which has the effect of alienating more moderate Muslims and increasing tensions between them and the communities they live in.
Ultimately, these terrorists want as many people on their side as possible, so what they’re trying to do is provoke an aggressive response from their enemies in order to get Muslims to be more sympathetic to their cause.