France – Not who was there, but who wasn't

Home › Forums › Decaffeinated Coffee › France – Not who was there, but who wasn't

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • January 12, 2015 3:45 pm at 3:45 pm #614654
    Working on it
    Participant

    I know its a bit late but with all the talk about abbas and abdullah being at the French rally, there is surprisingly little comment about who wasn’t there – namely the President or any high ranking officers of the cabinet. If that doesn’t paint a clear picture of their sentiment, I don’t know what will

    January 12, 2015 4:30 pm at 4:30 pm #1051470
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    ITs not clear to me, maybe you can help.

    what kind of picture does it paint?

    They support the attack in particular?

    Or that they support radical Islam in general?

    They don’t like the French?

    What picture (“clear picture” ?) does it paint?

    Thanks

    January 12, 2015 4:40 pm at 4:40 pm #1051471
    oomis
    Participant

    And we are surprised, why, exactly?????? It is APPALLINGLY obvious where our administration’s true allegiance lies.

    January 12, 2015 5:03 pm at 5:03 pm #1051472
    Working on it
    Participant

    ubiquitin – I think oomis just answered your question fairly well. More to the point, they demonstrate that they do not care. How many other world leaders were there to show their support at an “anti-terrorism” rally? While it doesn’t mean they support radical islam or the attacks, it does show their ambivalence toward the situation. If it isn’t a big deal, why is Kerry backpedaling now and making “every effort to get there” as soon as he can? What message do YOU think it sends to the rest of the world?

    January 12, 2015 5:28 pm at 5:28 pm #1051473
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Working on it

    I dont know. I’m confused as to the message I know it is easy spin.

    You dont seem to be saying the same as oomis though

    in your view it shows “ambivalence toward the situation” I agree. Certianly a bad message.

    Oomis says it shows in an “appalingly obvious” way where the administartion’s true alleigance lies. Unless she ment an allegiance with ambivoulsness you arent saying the same thing.

    Which hardly paints a “clear picture” (in OP’s words) of the administration’s sentiment

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.