Mother of Paris suicide bomber says her son 'did not mean to kill anyone'

[PaintMyHouse]

The sins of the son require no more apology than the sins of the father. Neither is required, nor should necessarily be expected.

You are missing a crucial preposition. Two of them in fact.

That does not make you a disgusting person. It is the intended content of your posts that do so.

Parents are not required to atone for their children, nor children for their parents.

 

[jc456]

after her son took other mothers sons, I'd be frikn embarrassed as shit. She isn't. tells me something.

You're again trying to apply rational standards to a person who is grieving and irrational.

It makes no sense. She's in denial. She's grieving. You're gonna get some stupidness.

no, you keep your stupidness. I don't want any of it. I'll stay with my logic and common sense.

Logic and common sense have little to do with grieving the loss of a child. You're expecting a grieving mother who just lost her son a few days ago to respond with the same logic and common sense that you would with none of those losses.

That's unrealistic.

nope, again, she should be embarrassed. She isn't. She can grieve all she wants, doesn't change what her son did. And as such she has a responsibility to apologize for his acts. Now, I've already stated how she should have done that.

And please keep your stupidness away from me.

It doesn't change what her son did. But it will predictably change her reaction. Grieve can be wildly irrational. As is denial. You're expecting a woman who just lost her son to respond in a cool, logical manner in exact accordance to what you would do without any such losses.

Again, that's unrealistic. Grief and denial go together like peas and carrots.

the one thing she could have said was she can't believe what her son did, it's not how he was raised. Doesn't take much, sort of an end around apology without apologizing. But nope.

 

[jc456]

The sins of the son require no more apology than the sins of the father. Neither is required, nor should necessarily be expected.

You are missing a crucial preposition. Two of them in fact.

That does not make you a disgusting person. It is the intended content of your posts that do so.

Parents are not required to atone for their children, nor children for their parents.

sure parents atone for their children they raised them fool. See you have no idea.

 

[Meathead]

Parents are not required to atone for their children, nor children for their parents.

No, they should not be required to do so by law, but they should be required to do so by conscience. It is best that you had no children for yourself and the children you may have had.

These are things I doubt you have the morality to understand.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The sins of the son require no more apology than the sins of the father. Neither is required, nor should necessarily be expected.

You are missing a crucial preposition. Two of them in fact.

That does not make you a disgusting person. It is the intended content of your posts that do so.

Parents are not required to atone for their children, nor children for their parents.

sure parents atone for their children they raised them fool. See you have no idea.

Show us where such a thing is written?

 

[jc456]

The sins of the son require no more apology than the sins of the father. Neither is required, nor should necessarily be expected.

You are missing a crucial preposition. Two of them in fact.

That does not make you a disgusting person. It is the intended content of your posts that do so.

Parents are not required to atone for their children, nor children for their parents.

sure parents atone for their children they raised them fool. See you have no idea.

Show us where such a thing is written?

see you're all about what is on paper. It's called morality you fk, something you don't understand.

 

[Skylar]

You're again trying to apply rational standards to a person who is grieving and irrational.

It makes no sense. She's in denial. She's grieving. You're gonna get some stupidness.

no, you keep your stupidness. I don't want any of it. I'll stay with my logic and common sense.

Logic and common sense have little to do with grieving the loss of a child. You're expecting a grieving mother who just lost her son a few days ago to respond with the same logic and common sense that you would with none of those losses.

That's unrealistic.

nope, again, she should be embarrassed. She isn't. She can grieve all she wants, doesn't change what her son did. And as such she has a responsibility to apologize for his acts. Now, I've already stated how she should have done that.

And please keep your stupidness away from me.

It doesn't change what her son did. But it will predictably change her reaction. Grieve can be wildly irrational. As is denial. You're expecting a woman who just lost her son to respond in a cool, logical manner in exact accordance to what you would do without any such losses.

Again, that's unrealistic. Grief and denial go together like peas and carrots.

the one thing she could have said was she can't believe what her son did, it's not how he was raised. Doesn't take much, sort of an end around apology without apologizing. But nope.

If she were thinking rationally and not in the midst of grieving for a dead son only 4 days gone, perhaps.

But again, you're insisting that an grieving mother act explicitly rationally and logically days after her child is killed.

That's unrealistic.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Parents are not required to atone for their children, nor children for their parents.

No, they should not be required to do so by law, but they should be required to do so by conscience. It is best that you had no children for yourself and the children you may have had.

These are things I doubt you have the morality to understand.

What part of sins of the father (or son) is morality? Go ahead, we'll wait while you try to show us...

 

[jc456]

no, you keep your stupidness. I don't want any of it. I'll stay with my logic and common sense.

Logic and common sense have little to do with grieving the loss of a child. You're expecting a grieving mother who just lost her son a few days ago to respond with the same logic and common sense that you would with none of those losses.

That's unrealistic.

nope, again, she should be embarrassed. She isn't. She can grieve all she wants, doesn't change what her son did. And as such she has a responsibility to apologize for his acts. Now, I've already stated how she should have done that.

And please keep your stupidness away from me.

It doesn't change what her son did. But it will predictably change her reaction. Grieve can be wildly irrational. As is denial. You're expecting a woman who just lost her son to respond in a cool, logical manner in exact accordance to what you would do without any such losses.

Again, that's unrealistic. Grief and denial go together like peas and carrots.

the one thing she could have said was she can't believe what her son did, it's not how he was raised. Doesn't take much, sort of an end around apology without apologizing. But nope.

If she were thinking rationally and not in the midst of grieving for a dead son only 4 days gone, perhaps.

But again, you're insisting that an grieving mother act explicitly rationally and logically days after her child is killed.

That's unrealistic.

then she didn't need to say a thing right?

 

[bodecea]

[

Of course she said that. She is a mother whose child just died. Very few mothers are capable of seeing their children as anything but basically good people no matter how terrible they really are.

Stop making excuses for these murderers, you miserable america-hating wretch.

What IS it with these hetero parents anyways?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The sins of the son require no more apology than the sins of the father. Neither is required, nor should necessarily be expected.

You are missing a crucial preposition. Two of them in fact.

That does not make you a disgusting person. It is the intended content of your posts that do so.

Parents are not required to atone for their children, nor children for their parents.

sure parents atone for their children they raised them fool. See you have no idea.

Show us where such a thing is written?

see you're all about what is on paper. It's called morality you fk, something you don't understand.

morality | beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior

Show us where that says a parent must atone for the sins of a child when you won't atone for the sins of a nation?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Logic and common sense have little to do with grieving the loss of a child. You're expecting a grieving mother who just lost her son a few days ago to respond with the same logic and common sense that you would with none of those losses.

That's unrealistic.

nope, again, she should be embarrassed. She isn't. She can grieve all she wants, doesn't change what her son did. And as such she has a responsibility to apologize for his acts. Now, I've already stated how she should have done that.

And please keep your stupidness away from me.

It doesn't change what her son did. But it will predictably change her reaction. Grieve can be wildly irrational. As is denial. You're expecting a woman who just lost her son to respond in a cool, logical manner in exact accordance to what you would do without any such losses.

Again, that's unrealistic. Grief and denial go together like peas and carrots.

the one thing she could have said was she can't believe what her son did, it's not how he was raised. Doesn't take much, sort of an end around apology without apologizing. But nope.

If she were thinking rationally and not in the midst of grieving for a dead son only 4 days gone, perhaps.

But again, you're insisting that an grieving mother act explicitly rationally and logically days after her child is killed.

That's unrealistic.

then she didn't need to say a thing right?

That's correct, and probably shouldn't have since some asshole somewhere for some reason wouldn't have agreed.

 

[Skylar]

Logic and common sense have little to do with grieving the loss of a child. You're expecting a grieving mother who just lost her son a few days ago to respond with the same logic and common sense that you would with none of those losses.

That's unrealistic.

nope, again, she should be embarrassed. She isn't. She can grieve all she wants, doesn't change what her son did. And as such she has a responsibility to apologize for his acts. Now, I've already stated how she should have done that.

And please keep your stupidness away from me.

It doesn't change what her son did. But it will predictably change her reaction. Grieve can be wildly irrational. As is denial. You're expecting a woman who just lost her son to respond in a cool, logical manner in exact accordance to what you would do without any such losses.

Again, that's unrealistic. Grief and denial go together like peas and carrots.

the one thing she could have said was she can't believe what her son did, it's not how he was raised. Doesn't take much, sort of an end around apology without apologizing. But nope.

If she were thinking rationally and not in the midst of grieving for a dead son only 4 days gone, perhaps.

But again, you're insisting that an grieving mother act explicitly rationally and logically days after her child is killed.

That's unrealistic.

then she didn't need to say a thing right?

If she were thinking rationally and not in the midst of grieving for a dead son only 4 days gone, perhaps. But she wasn't thinking rationally and she is grieving.

Your entire argument is essentially 'a grieving mother shouldn't act like a graving mother. But like me'.

Which again is unrealistic.

 

[Meathead]

Parents are not required to atone for their children, nor children for their parents.

No, they should not be required to do so by law, but they should be required to do so by conscience. It is best that you had no children for yourself and the children you may have had.

These are things I doubt you have the morality to understand.

What part of sins of the father (or son) is morality? Go ahead, we'll wait while you try to show us...

If sin is immoral, than how could any be moral. Your question is convoluted as I suspect any claim you have to morality is.

On another level, I don't think you have the intellectual capacity for discourse at this level.

 

[Correll]

Are there any intelligent muslims in this world.? Hang them all.

Mother of Paris bomber says her son did 'not mean to kill anyone'

nov 17 2015 The mother of a Paris suicide bomber says her son 'did not mean to kill anyone' - and claims he may have blown himself up because of stress, while a third son said his family were 'thinking of the victims'.

Ibrahim Abdeslam, 31, launched a solo attack outside the cafe Comptoir Voltaire, close to the scene of the Bataclan concert hall massacre on Friday night.

Today Ibrahim's mother suggested his suicide jacket may have gone off by accident and said he could have carried out the attack because he was 'stressed'.

I never give any credibility to Mothers, Ex's and Lawyers.

The first is too invested. The second is too bitter. THe Third is a professional liar.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Parents are not required to atone for their children, nor children for their parents.

No, they should not be required to do so by law, but they should be required to do so by conscience. It is best that you had no children for yourself and the children you may have had.

These are things I doubt you have the morality to understand.

What part of sins of the father (or son) is morality? Go ahead, we'll wait while you try to show us...

If sin is immoral, than how could any be moral. Your question is convoluted as I suspect any claim you have to morality is.

On another level, I don't think you have the intellectual capacity for discourse at this level.

I know what morality is. Now show us where a mother is responsible for the behavior of her grown child? Go on, we'll wait.

 

[Skylar]

Parents are not required to atone for their children, nor children for their parents.

No, they should not be required to do so by law, but they should be required to do so by conscience. It is best that you had no children for yourself and the children you may have had.

These are things I doubt you have the morality to understand.

What part of sins of the father (or son) is morality? Go ahead, we'll wait while you try to show us...

If sin is immoral, than how could any be moral. Your question is convoluted as I suspect any claim you have to morality is.

How is applying the sins of one person to another who didn't commit them based solely on relation 'moral'?

 

[jc456]

You are missing a crucial preposition. Two of them in fact.

That does not make you a disgusting person. It is the intended content of your posts that do so.

Parents are not required to atone for their children, nor children for their parents.

sure parents atone for their children they raised them fool. See you have no idea.

Show us where such a thing is written?

see you're all about what is on paper. It's called morality you fk, something you don't understand.

morality | beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior

Show us where that says a parent must atone for the sins of a child when you won't atone for the sins of a nation?

you'd never understand because you have none. You're just one lost soul swimming in a fish bowl year after year.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Parents are not required to atone for their children, nor children for their parents.

sure parents atone for their children they raised them fool. See you have no idea.

Show us where such a thing is written?

see you're all about what is on paper. It's called morality you fk, something you don't understand.

morality | beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior

Show us where that says a parent must atone for the sins of a child when you won't atone for the sins of a nation?

you'd never understand because you have none. You're just one lost soul swimming in a fish bowl year after year.

So, explain it to everyone else then if you believe me immoral, but so far, you can't explain why a mother is responsible for the actions of her grown child? Now, show us.

And, I do not Wish You Were even on this earth with me...

 

[jc456]

Parents are not required to atone for their children, nor children for their parents.

No, they should not be required to do so by law, but they should be required to do so by conscience. It is best that you had no children for yourself and the children you may have had.

These are things I doubt you have the morality to understand.

What part of sins of the father (or son) is morality? Go ahead, we'll wait while you try to show us...

If sin is immoral, than how could any be moral. Your question is convoluted as I suspect any claim you have to morality is.

On another level, I don't think you have the intellectual capacity for discourse at this level.

I know what morality is. Now show us where a mother is responsible for the behavior of her grown child? Go on, we'll wait.

who said responsible? holy crap friend, you sure do jump around. It is what a society expects from parents. You don't understand because you don't fit in either category.