Dear Poirot,

Indifference is the attitude of the best fighters, not the motive - which should be to do one's duty.

When emotions are triggered, one's balance is lost and they are more likely to lose the battle. Emotions made Australia to unnecessarily lose 10,000's of its best in Gallipoli.

Those who fight with indifference fight best, emotion gets one killed. What also gets others killed are sophists, quislings and "I don't draw mean cartoons". Stand up strong to Muslim murderers and they quail, weak kneed prevarications empower them.

Yuyutsu, McCackie,

I take your point that in the theatre of organised military manoeuvres, combatants are better served if they follow set strategy and not emotive reactions.

However, I'm referring to the base motivations involved in fighting for a particular "cause". The attackers in Paris and other similar operatives are operating to a strategy, but the origin of their involvement is an emotive one in the defence of what they deem worth fighting for.

If they were "indifferent" to their cause, they would not take up arms.

Dear McCackie,

<<Stand up strong to Muslim murderers and they quail>>

Stand up wise and they will do your work themselves - that's the essence of every martial art.

Those who draw mean cartoons - demean themselves.

Cursing and mocking the prophet does him no harm (after all he is long dead), but makes the moderates take the side of the extremists.
If I were a jihadist, I would therefore covertly pay the cartoonists to achieve that end!

Dear Poirot,

<<The attackers in Paris and other similar operatives are operating to a strategy>>

Yes, I just mentioned that strategy above: they want to alienate the moderate Muslims from the general society.

<<If they were "indifferent" to their cause, they would not take up arms>>

Who said that one should be indifferent to their cause? One should rather be indifferent towards an evil enemy.

Had the Jihadists been indifferent to non-Muslims, working calmly and calculatedly, without hate, to achieve their goal of making the world Muslim, thus using logic, sweet talk and flowers instead of guns and bombs, then by now they would have probably succeeded in that goal.

Are others not allowed to totally disbelieve in the
prophet Mohammed and Allah, must they be killed and everyone made to
believe. Charlie was a secular Frenchman, why should the muslims tell him what he should believe? Why should he not have the freedom to laugh at something he didn't believe in. Read my lips
he has the freedom to laugh at something, he doesn't believe in.

I suggest if the muslims don't like it, they stay in their own
countries where everyone is forced to agree with their ideas
or die.

Don't come to European countries that don't have the muslim faith
as their religion, don't go on Websites from non-muslim countries
and then become offended. People from other countries have
their own beliefs just as the muslims have their beliefs in their
own countrys and communities.

I've got one thing to say to them.
We didn't ask you to come to non-muslim countries. The fault is yours.