I need you all to lend me a hand here. I THINK I understand the situation, but it keeps sending my mind into 'emergency shutdown' mode because of the weirdness of the entire thing. Let me explain, then maybe you can tell me where I'm going wrong:
1. A bloke in some remote other part of the world (Florida) burns a piece of paper
2.Some other bloke (several, actually) from some other other remote part of the world (Afghanistan) decides to "avenge" this by murdering a woman from some other other part of the world (Norway) and:
3.murdering yet another bloke (beheading) from some other other other remote part of the world (Nepal).
All the murder victims here are strangers to each other, and to the murderers, and to the bloke who burned the piece of paper.
And yet, and yet (and this is the bit that keeps driving me into shutdown mode because I just don't seem to be able to grasp this without risk of losing my sanity) ... IT'S ALL THE FIRST BLOKE'S FAULT FOR BURNING THAT PIECE OF PAPER!!!! BEEP BEEP RING RING RING EMERGENCY SHUT DOWN SHUT DOWN SHUT DOWN.
Can any of you help me make a bit of progress on this? It just seems so batshit insane to me ... where does chopping someone's head off come on the scale of retaliation for the offence of some other bloke - a stranger - harmlessly burning a piece of paper thousands of miles away?
We try and pretend we are dealing with rational human beings ... but we're not are we. They're Mohammedans, and there's nothing rational about people who think it's appropriate to murder strangers without warning over the offence of yet another stranger burning a piece of paper
Oh - and there were a load more murder victims than just the two.
Wonder what the animals would have done if there had been a baby on site? Ah no - ok - Palestinian Mohammedans gave us the answer to that a few weeks back when they murdered a three-month old Jewish baby by cutting her throat so severely that it nearly turned into a beheading.
Morg
.
