Terrorist Attack on Paris Satirical Magazine

by Cass Wed Jan 07, 2015 3:48 pm

so awful to wake up to this. 12 dead including editor in chief, cartoonists and policemen assigned to protect them.

the video footage is chilling.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/01/07/france-charlie-hebdo-satirical-publisher/21377861/

Hunt them down. Capture them alive and let them rot in jail forever.

by Original Quill Wed Jan 07, 2015 4:29 pm

I saw that. It's still happening.

by Cass Wed Jan 07, 2015 4:32 pm

Original Quill wrote:I saw that. It's still happening.

they have found the car - possibly another also used.

My guess is that the terrorists will have some type of bomb or will want to go out to martyrdom by suicide by cop. That's why, in my opinion, its imperative to take them alive.

by Original Quill Wed Jan 07, 2015 4:38 pm

They appear to be quite professional and well-prepared. It's doubtful they failed to have an escape strategy. We'll just have to see.

Agreed...anytime you can bag one of these pimps, you can learn something.

by Cass Wed Jan 07, 2015 4:45 pm

sadly very professional - most horrific scene where one of them calmly executed the wounded police officer.

indications of urban guerrilla training.

also surprised that no group has been shouting/claiming responsibility as yet.....that is slightly different MO to the main groups.

by Original Quill Wed Jan 07, 2015 4:59 pm

The news is coming fast and furious, but I though I heard that they were claiming to be al Qaeda. Of course, what is that these days?

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:14 pm

So what we are seeing here in france, and have see in many other places is that the states concerned can no longer keep up their end of the bargain as concerns their duty to protect their citizens from foreign hostiles. Indeed from ANY hostiles.
Of course the truth of that has been evident from DAY ONE when the various euro states (unlike their sensible American counterparts) disarmed their subjects.

add to the fact it probably suits the powers that be for some attacks to "get thorough" thus providing the excuse for even more intrusive and anti freedom laws.

Of course that doesnt remove the point that this attack COULD have been prevented Twisted Evil

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:15 pm

Cass wrote:so awful to wake up to this. 12 dead including editor in chief, cartoonists and policemen assigned to protect them.

the video footage is chilling.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/01/07/france-charlie-hebdo-satirical-publisher/21377861/

Hunt them down. Capture them alive and let them rot in jail forever.

and let us pay for them, yeah yeah

by Cass Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:19 pm

darknessss wrote:
Cass wrote:so awful to wake up to this. 12 dead including editor in chief, cartoonists and policemen assigned to protect them.

the video footage is chilling.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/01/07/france-charlie-hebdo-satirical-publisher/21377861/

Hunt them down. Capture them alive and let them rot in jail forever.

and let us pay for them, yeah yeah

yup and try and get some intelligence from them. Also this denies them martyrdom.

same costs as keeping an "ordinary" murderer or rapist in jail

by Cass Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:23 pm

darknessss wrote:So what we are seeing here in france, and have see in many other places is that the states concerned can no longer keep up their end of the bargain as concerns their duty to protect their citizens from foreign hostiles. Indeed from ANY hostiles.
Of course the truth of that has been evident from DAY ONE when the various euro states (unlike their sensible American counterparts) disarmed their subjects.

add to the fact it probably suits the powers that be for some attacks to "get thorough" thus providing the excuse for even more intrusive and anti freedom laws.

Of course that doesnt remove the point that this attack COULD have been prevented

could you please provide a link to where the so called "powers that be" wanted this to happen? and how could this have been prevented or a future attack prevented if you already think current laws are too intrusive and anti-freedom?

thanks

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:26 pm

Cass wrote:
darknessss wrote:

and let us pay for them, yeah yeah

yup and try and get some intelligence from them. Also this denies them martyrdom.

same costs as keeping an "ordinary" murderer or rapist in jail

yep...and we "keep" far to many of those too

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:28 pm

Cass wrote:
darknessss wrote:So what we are seeing here in france, and have see in many other places is that the states concerned can no longer keep up their end of the bargain as concerns their duty to protect their citizens from foreign hostiles. Indeed from ANY hostiles.
Of course the truth of that has been evident from DAY ONE when the various euro states (unlike their sensible American counterparts) disarmed their subjects.

add to the fact it probably suits the powers that be for some attacks to "get thorough" thus providing the excuse for even more intrusive and anti freedom laws.

Of course that doesnt remove the point that this attack COULD have been prevented

could you please provide a link to where the so called "powers that be" wanted this to happen? and how could this have been prevented or a future attack prevented if you already think current laws are too intrusive and anti-freedom?

thanks

consider "the patriot act"
would never have got through but for 9/11
britain id getting worse with surveillance and intrusive policeing

how could it have been stopped? I would have though that was obvious

by Cass Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:33 pm

^darknessss

Im against the Patriot Act and agree it was everyone running around like a headless chicken and fear lingering that lead to its passing - but lets face it President Darth Chaney......oops I mean Bush, was always headed down this path.

as to stopping? enlighten me.....

by Original Quill Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:44 pm

darknessss wrote:So what we are seeing here in france, and have see in many other places is that the states concerned can no longer keep up their end of the bargain as concerns their duty to protect their citizens from foreign hostiles. Indeed from ANY hostiles.

I don't really see the need to redefine what is simple criminal activity into some earth shattering definition that, like Chicken little, screams the sky is falling, the sky is falling... That's what GWB and Cheney did--calling criminal activity an act of war--and we ended up with 10-years of kidnapping, rape, torture and killing, not to mention a $17-trillion debt. Tweek a few concepts and you end up with an abandoned Constitution and a place like Guantanamo.

As horrible as this is--and 9/11 and 7/1 were. too--it's better to think in 'cause-and-effect' terms. It's two men with guns, not a call to restructure the French Parliament.

darknessss wrote:Of course the truth of that has been evident from DAY ONE when the various euro states (unlike their sensible American counterparts) disarmed their subjects.

And turn the loss of 12 lives into 20 lives?

darknessss wrote:add to the fact it probably suits the powers that be for some attacks to "get thorough" thus providing the excuse for even more intrusive and anti freedom laws.

Of course that doesnt remove the point that this attack COULD have been prevented

Probably not without "more intrusive and anti-freedom laws," like we had during the Bush/Cheney administration. There's a certain amount of trust that mature countries indulge themselves, and neither free-carry laws nor checkpoints to check for 'papers' are consistent with that.

by Cass Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:15 pm

Original Quill wrote:The news is coming fast and furious, but I though I heard that they were claiming to be al Qaeda. Of course, what is that these days?

nope nothing yet as to who did it.

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:31 pm

First of all my thoughts go out to all those murdered and their families.

Things strike me as odd here.
First of these killers were very professional, as if very much ex-army, very proficient in their execution of this murder.
Second, they did not rush and they took time to inquire the names of the journalists and timed for them to be in a meeting.
Third, they come out again very calm, have a gun battle with the Police and execute an officer when wounded on the ground.

If they are Muslim extremists, they are the most highly trained and clam ones I have read about.

Why take your time to find out the names of individuals instead of just shooting them all dead, why waste time?
Then after this go up to an injured officer not the objective and execute them?
Some things are not adding up here.
There could be an easy explanation, but they really need to catch them as soon as possible, being as they seemed highly trained.

by Cass Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:38 pm

^Didge

the editor and at least one of the cartoonist were on an Al-Qeuada hit list....the office was also firebombed last couple of years

by Cass Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:39 pm

edit AQIAP

stoopid technology

by Ben Reilly Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:43 pm

The attacks do seem different from previous terrorist attacks, but it does seem pretty solidly motivated by Islamic extremism. I wonder whether they intend to do a Breivik-style attack, against multiple targets, or if they'll go to ground. If they do that, they can't create as much fear as if they'd continued to attack varied targets, and it also raises the question of why they'd use an attack on a satirical magazine as the attack that put them on law enforcement radar -- that's not really "going big."

One thing's for sure -- these guys need to be caught alive, there are way too many questions.

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:46 pm

Original Quill wrote:
darknessss wrote:So what we are seeing here in france, and have see in many other places is that the states concerned can no longer keep up their end of the bargain as concerns their duty to protect their citizens from foreign hostiles. Indeed from ANY hostiles.

I don't really see the need to redefine what is simple criminal activity into some earth shattering definition that, like Chicken little, screams the sky is falling, the sky is falling... That's what GWB and Cheney did--calling criminal activity an act of war--and we ended up with 10-years of kidnapping, rape, torture and killing, not to mention a $17-trillion debt. Tweek a few concepts and you end up with an abandoned Constitution and a place like Guantanamo.

that would be a fair point , except that this particular failing (of not keping to the bargain struck vis a vis diarming the people) is a constant and has nothing really to do with "simple criminal act vs terrorist act". It is plainly obvious that the police are there not to PREVENT crime but to "clean up the results thereof" (and latterly to act as the states "bully boys"). Given that my right to bear ANY sort of weapon for self defence has effectively been removed (dont forget in britain we cant even legally carry pepper spray) then why do I not have the right to sue for unlimited damages when the state fails to protect me in all ways necessary and i become a victim of crime, particularly personal crime.

As horrible as this is--and 9/11 and 7/1 were. too--it's better to think in 'cause-and-effect' terms. It's two men with guns, not a call to restructure the French Parliament.

and there motivation s unimportant? sorry but I disagree. It is not merely two men with guns. It is "representatives of an ideology" and that makes it far more dangerous

darknessss wrote:Of course the truth of that has been evident from DAY ONE when the various euro states (unlike their sensible American counterparts) disarmed their subjects.

And turn the loss of 12 lives into 20 lives?

"sweden and norway" gun deaths and guns per capita, read up. What you are talking about is the American experience, I think there may a be a difference .

darknessss wrote:add to the fact it probably suits the powers that be for some attacks to "get thorough" thus providing the excuse for even more intrusive and anti freedom laws.

Of course that doesnt remove the point that this attack COULD have been prevented

Probably not without "more intrusive and anti-freedom laws," like we had during the Bush/Cheney administration. There's a certain amount of trust that mature countries indulge themselves, and neither free-carry laws nor checkpoints to check for 'papers' are consistent with that.

THAT made me laugh...trust my arse,

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:05 pm

I suppose we will now see the obligatory half dozen "tame" Muslims hauled out to show "solidarity with the people of paris, and tell us how "not real Muslim" these animals are. Rolling Eyes

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:07 pm

Cass wrote:^Didge

the editor and at least one of the cartoonist were on an Al-Qeuada hit list....the office was also firebombed last couple of years

I know me Lady, something just does not add up, why waste time and not shoot indiscriminately?

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:12 pm

darknessss wrote:I suppose we will now see the obligatory half dozen "tame" Muslims hauled out to show "solidarity with the people of paris, and tell us how "not real Muslim" these animals are.

So your view is on real Muslims which is in itself absurd reasoning, as each will believe they are the true Muslims based on their view.
Maybe you can show me what a True Christian is or a Jew, as all again believe their denomination is the true one.
So your view is to fear those who believe they are the true Islam, even though hundred of millions of Muslims do not follow such a belief pattern.
Do not gt me wrong, there are many things wrong within Islam, mainly because of the invention of the hadiths, which the Muslims mistakenly take as divine, even though this makes their own Quran incomplete and not prefect. If a book is perfect and complete then and you then use other sources you then render that book incomplete and imperfect. It is these inventions of the hadiths which create most of sharia law, anyway getting back to the point at hand.

So what is your suggestion now make all Muslims culpable to those you class as true Muslims and intern them in camps?

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:13 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Cass wrote:^Didge

the editor and at least one of the cartoonist were on an Al-Qeuada hit list....the office was also firebombed last couple of years

I know me Lady, something just does not add up, why waste time and not shoot indiscriminately?

the evolution of terrorism
the IRA eventually came to the same conclusion here on the mainland...
DONT kill indiscriminately it makes the general population annoyed
so they began to get good at giving plenty of warnings

same here ..hit what you consider a legitimate target but leave the drones alone..it makes you look better generally and adds legitimacy to your cause it allows you to call youself a soldier rather than a terrorist.

by Cass Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:14 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Cass wrote:^Didge

the editor and at least one of the cartoonist were on an Al-Qeuada hit list....the office was also firebombed last couple of years

I know me Lady, something just does not add up, why waste time and not shoot indiscriminately?

like I said in above post - seems they have training in urban guerrilla warfare.

the asking by names hasn't been officially confirmed. How did they know that a meeting was taking place today as according to news reports there were not fixed meeting times. Obviously they have been under surveillance for some time.

sine the second car was hijacked hopefully there will be reliable witness statements

this is why they need to be captured alive - to answer all these questions.

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:15 pm

darknessss wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

I know me Lady, something just does not add up, why waste time and not shoot indiscriminately?

the evolution of terrorism
the IRA eventually came to the same conclusion here on the mainland...
DONT kill indiscriminately it makes the general population annoyed
so they began to get good at giving plenty of warnings

same here ..hit what you consider a legitimate target but leave the drones alone..it makes you look better generally and adds legitimacy to your cause it allows you to call youself a soldier rather than a terrorist.

But that is wrong, they did kill indiscriminately here, again read the reports so far.
So again you are taking the view they took due care here and then walked up and executed an officer, not their intended aim of the operation.

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:16 pm

Cass wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

I know me Lady, something just does not add up, why waste time and not shoot indiscriminately?

like I said in above post - seems they have training in urban guerrilla warfare.

the asking by names hasn't been officially confirmed. How did they know that a meeting was taking place today as according to news reports there were not fixed meeting times. Obviously they have been under surveillance for some time.

sine the second car was hijacked hopefully there will be reliable witness statements

this is why they need to be captured alive - to answer all these questions.

This seemed more professional to me, you could very well be right Cass, as I am just pondering points that seem a tad out of place for the kind of extremism we have seen so far in the west. It seemed very well organized and as if they were ex-forces, maybe of France yet still Muslims.

I would rather they were killed but see your point to capture them alive

by Cass Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:18 pm

darknessss wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

I know me Lady, something just does not add up, why waste time and not shoot indiscriminately?

the evolution of terrorism
the IRA eventually came to the same conclusion here on the mainland...
DONT kill indiscriminately it makes the general population annoyed
so they began to get good at giving plenty of warnings

same here ..hit what you consider a legitimate target but leave the drones alone..it makes you look better generally and adds legitimacy to your cause it allows you to call youself a soldier rather than a terrorist.

I don't think they evolved to that level per se......Omagh and Warrington spring to mind where the warnings were completely misleading and actually drove people into the bomb's strike zone.

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:21 pm

Brasidas wrote:
darknessss wrote:I suppose we will now see the obligatory half dozen "tame" Muslims hauled out to show "solidarity with the people of paris, and tell us how "not real Muslim" these animals are.

So your view is on real Muslims which is in itself absurd reasoning, as each will believe they are the true Muslims based on their view.
Maybe you can show me what a True Christian is or a Jew, as all again believe their denomination is the true one.
So your view is to fear those who believe they are the true Islam, even though hundred of millions of Muslims do not follow such a belief pattern.

see my comment about "moderate Muslims in another thread

Do not gt me wrong, there are many things wrong within Islam, mainly because of the invention of the hadiths, which the Muslims mistakenly take as divine, even though this makes their own Quran incomplete and not prefect. If a book is perfect and complete then and you then use other sources you then render that book incomplete and imperfect. It is these inventions of the hadiths which create most of sharia law, anyway getting back to the point at hand.

So what is your suggestion now make all Muslims culpable to those you class as true Muslims and intern them in camps?

I have no idea what constitutes a "true Muslim" and I suspect neither have YOU. nor do either of us have any idea of the intent/motivation of the "silent Muslims". but as history shows whenever one group has ascendancy (or thinks it has) over another and religion motivates then the silent majority are happy to have the rest enslaved/whatever)
DONT ask me for an answer to the problem, I dont have any reasonable ones, but I'm telling you now....war is coming. These attaks are merely "feelers" to see how far they can push things and the push will get harder each time.

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:38 pm

darknessss wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

see my comment about "moderate Muslims in another thread
There is no such thing as a moderate, only political, literal, practicing etc

I have no idea what constitutes a "true Muslim" and I suspect neither have YOU. nor do either of us have any idea of the intent/motivation of the "silent Muslims". but as history shows whenever one group has ascendancy (or thinks it has) over another and religion motivates then the silent majority are happy to have the rest enslaved/whatever)
DONT ask me for an answer to the problem, I dont have any reasonable ones, but I'm telling you now....war is coming. These attaks are merely "feelers" to see how far they can push things and the push will get harder each time.

You just tried to claim they follow true Islam and hence why I never would claim who is following the true way of a religion. You do reliase there is many different motivations behind terrorism or extremism, which will be revenge, political, under occupation, where the religious aspect plays a part but is minor to the core of reasons why such attacks happen. 9/11 motivation is documented in retaliation to support of Israel, first conflict with Iraq, being on saudi soil. 7/7 was revenge again due to a claim of raping and killing Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We have been at war with Islamic terrorism for over a decade, where have you been?:
People seem to think and wish for a war with a religion as if it is an entity itself. Such views have persisted for centuries and have continued on and off for centuries with such a view point.
It is always attacks that lead to revenge attacks that lead to those with more hate whipping up more hate wishing for some mythical war they wish to start.
It was because of unity in the UK, that even though Irish people were discriminated and attacked that many people did not succumb to the fear and unified and showed defiance against the terrorist attacks. To give into the fear now is exactly what the extremists want, it is the object of terror, where they also wish for this mythical war to start, between their faith and the west.
The question that has to be asked is why are people willing to do the bidding of this extremists by committing to what they want, an all out war?

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:49 pm

Brasidas wrote:
darknessss wrote:

You just tried to claim they follow true Islam and hence why I never would claim who is following the true way of a religion. You do reliase there is many different motivations behind terrorism or extremism, which will be revenge, political, under occupation, where the religious aspect plays a part but is minor to the core of reasons why such attacks happen. 9/11 motivation is documented in retaliation to support of Israel, first conflict with Iraq, being on saudi soil. 7/7 was revenge again due to a claim of raping and killing Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We have been at war with Islamic terrorism for over a decade, where have you been?:
People seem to think and wish for a war with a religion as if it is an entity itself. Such views have persisted for centuries and have continued on and off for centuries with such a view point.
It is always attacks that lead to revenge attacks that lead to those with more hate whipping up more hate wishing for some mythical war they wish to start.
It was because of unity in the UK, that even though Irish people were discriminated and attacked that many people did not succumb to the fear and unified and showed defiance against the terrorist attacks. To give into the fear now is exactly what the extremists want, it is the object of terror, where they also wish for this mythical war to start, between their faith and the west.
The question that has to be asked is why are people willing to do the bidding of this extremists by committing to what they want, an all out war?

So back to my point....12 dead people and you suggest what?
do nothing
the state (in this case france) has failed those 12 people and failed to keep its end of a bargain and failed in its bounden duty.

are these 12 (and the many others over the years) merely "acceptable fodder " to the grinding and oppressive mill of multiculturalism? to be dismissed as little more than an academic figure, a statistic?

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:54 pm

darknessss wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

You just tried to claim they follow true Islam and hence why I never would claim who is following the true way of a religion. You do reliase there is many different motivations behind terrorism or extremism, which will be revenge, political, under occupation, where the religious aspect plays a part but is minor to the core of reasons why such attacks happen. 9/11 motivation is documented in retaliation to support of Israel, first conflict with Iraq, being on saudi soil. 7/7 was revenge again due to a claim of raping and killing Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We have been at war with Islamic terrorism for over a decade, where have you been?:
People seem to think and wish for a war with a religion as if it is an entity itself. Such views have persisted for centuries and have continued on and off for centuries with such a view point.
It is always attacks that lead to revenge attacks that lead to those with more hate whipping up more hate wishing for some mythical war they wish to start.
It was because of unity in the UK, that even though Irish people were discriminated and attacked that many people did not succumb to the fear and unified and showed defiance against the terrorist attacks. To give into the fear now is exactly what the extremists want, it is the object of terror, where they also wish for this mythical war to start, between their faith and the west.
The question that has to be asked is why are people willing to do the bidding of this extremists by committing to what they want, an all out war?

So back to my point....12 dead people and you suggest what?
do nothing
the state (in this case france) has failed those 12 people and failed to keep its end of a bargain and failed in its bounden duty.

are these 12 (and the many others over the years) merely "acceptable fodder " to the grinding and oppressive mill of multiculturalism? to be dismissed as little more than an academic figure, a statistic?

Did I say do nothing?
Like in the UK intelligence is key, hence why we keep thwarting attacks, only one has ever been successful for Islamic extremism. We need to get more Muslims on side which is not going to happen if they are castigated and seen as culpable, all you do is then push more vulnerable people being radicalized. Much work has to be done from the Muslim community itself and by the very religious leaders, which because of the disparity, is not much help. What is needed from Muslims is a unified voice they can get behind to counter this. Nobody is acceptable fodder. You really are not on the upytake with extremism in Europea it seems anyway where for years it has been sepratist movements that have committed most of the trrorism, so for a start, how did they go about bringing an end to the Basque separatists terrorist attacks? Or the IRA?

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:08 pm

Brasidas wrote:
darknessss wrote:

So back to my point....12 dead people and you suggest what?
do nothing
the state (in this case france) has failed those 12 people and failed to keep its end of a bargain and failed in its bounden duty.

are these 12 (and the many others over the years) merely "acceptable fodder " to the grinding and oppressive mill of multiculturalism? to be dismissed as little more than an academic figure, a statistic?

Did I say do nothing?
Like in the UK intelligence is key, hence why we keep thwarting attacks, only one has ever been successful for Islamic extremism. We need to get more Muslims on side which is not going to happen if they are castigated and seen as culpable, all you do is then push more vulnerable people being radicalized. Much work has to be done from the Muslim community itself and by the very religious leaders, which because of the disparity, is not much help. What is needed from Muslims is a unified voice they can get behind to counter this. Nobody is acceptable fodder. You really are not on the upytake with extremism in Europea it seems anyway where for years it has been sepratist movements that have committed most of the trrorism, so for a start, how did they go about bringing an end to the Basque separatists terrorist attacks? Or the IRA?

you know for a seemingly intelligent chap you dont half spout some rubbish.....

seperatist groups like the IRA and Basque are NOT the same ilk as the present Muslim types.....
primarily the intent of separatist groups is to do exactly that , seperate from the "parent" state
they do not, in general, make demands that involve the general "lifestyle" of the parent population (for instance only they dont try to make "sharia zones")

the prime intent of the Muslim is to destroy the western "norm" which it sees as essentially "evil" (within its religious bounds)
they demad that WE change to THEIR sad existence, that we alter our culture to accomodate theirs and then that we should abandon ours in favour of theirs at gun point if possible (cf boko harem)

totally different motives, two totally different objectives

by Irn Bru Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:08 pm

Cold blooded murder by extremists. It's truly shocking and they need to catch these people before they do it again. I suspect that if they find them then there will be more bloodshed in a shoot-out. I just hope that most of it is from the killers.

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:16 pm

darknessss wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Did I say do nothing?
Like in the UK intelligence is key, hence why we keep thwarting attacks, only one has ever been successful for Islamic extremism. We need to get more Muslims on side which is not going to happen if they are castigated and seen as culpable, all you do is then push more vulnerable people being radicalized. Much work has to be done from the Muslim community itself and by the very religious leaders, which because of the disparity, is not much help. What is needed from Muslims is a unified voice they can get behind to counter this. Nobody is acceptable fodder. You really are not on the upytake with extremism in Europea it seems anyway where for years it has been sepratist movements that have committed most of the trrorism, so for a start, how did they go about bringing an end to the Basque separatists terrorist attacks? Or the IRA?

you know for a seemingly intelligent chap you dont half spout some rubbish.....

seperatist groups like the IRA and Basque are NOT the same ilk as the present Muslim types.....
primarily the intent of separatist groups is to do exactly that , seperate from the "parent" state
they do not, in general, make demands that involve the general "lifestyle" of the parent population (for instance only they dont try to make "sharia zones")

the prime intent of the Muslim is to destroy the western "norm" which it sees as essentially "evil" (within its religious bounds)
they demad that WE change to THEIR sad existence, that we alter our culture to accomodate theirs and then that we should abandon ours in favour of theirs at gun point if possible (cf boko harem)

totally different motives, two totally different objectives

Not the same ILK?
Again you know little about terrorism or its aim I guess, where they have no care the sanctity of life. Just because some try to win over people by a warning does not mean many of them are not cold killers.
They make many demands and yet you fail to see here it is unity against them both that starved them of support to the point especially with the IRA in Northern Ireland where people started to march against such bloodshed, The same is required from the Muslim world where there is an opportunity here in Muslims uniting against IS. The aims of most Muslim extremists is political, can you not even see that?
They are demanding no such thing of our culture, they are demanding that we leave their lands, that we stop attacks on them and that we stop supporting Israel. This is the aims of most of these groups, if you are going by the aims of radicals, different from these extremist groups, with the likes of Ajem Choudrey, who want Islam to rule here which is different. The aims of Al Qeada for example are exactly as I have given you. They want a state ruled by them, that is for sure, but their aims against the west are those demanded of the west.

Not sure where you are getting your information, but it is badly wrong

It will be unity against these groups which will defeat them, take the Taliban attack, they have shot themselves in the foot with that attack, IS also is losing support, by many of its followers dying, it will take a Muslim stand against them to defeat them. You then starve the internet of its source of hate, which targets vulnerable religious novice Muslims here.

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:33 pm

Brasidas wrote:
darknessss wrote:

you know for a seemingly intelligent chap you dont half spout some rubbish.....

seperatist groups like the IRA and Basque are NOT the same ilk as the present Muslim types.....
primarily the intent of separatist groups is to do exactly that , seperate from the "parent" state
they do not, in general, make demands that involve the general "lifestyle" of the parent population (for instance only they dont try to make "sharia zones")

the prime intent of the Muslim is to destroy the western "norm" which it sees as essentially "evil" (within its religious bounds)
they demad that WE change to THEIR sad existence, that we alter our culture to accomodate theirs and then that we should abandon ours in favour of theirs at gun point if possible (cf boko harem)

totally different motives, two totally different objectives

Not the same ILK?
Again you know little about terrorism or its aim I guess, where they have no care the sanctity of life. Just because some try to win over people by a warning does not mean many of them are not cold killers.
They make many demands and yet you fail to see here it is unity against them both that starved them of support to the point especially with the IRA in Northern Ireland where people started to march against such bloodshed, The same is required from the Muslim world where there is an opportunity here in Muslims uniting against IS. The aims of most Muslim extremists is political, can you not even see that?
They are demanding no such thing of our culture, they are demanding that we leave their lands, that we stop attacks on them and that we stop supporting Israel.

How utterly absurd....those unfortunates today were murdered for the "crime" of offending "their" religious views. In other words they are attempting to control the freedom of the press and feedom of expression AND the freedom of religious choice of everyone in the west... This attack had nothing to do with all the albeit legitimate complaints they may have. What will it take for them to understand that they DO NOT have a right to not be "offended"?

This is the aims of most of these groups, if you are going by the aims of radicals, different from these extremist groups, with the likes of Ajem Choudrey, who want Islam to rule here. The aims of Al Qeada for example are exactly as I have given you. They want a state ruled by them, that is for sure, but their aims against the west are those demanded of the west.

Not sure where you are getting your information, but it is badly wrong

It will be unity against these groups which will defeat them, take the Taliban attack, they have shot themselves in the foot with that attack, IS also is losing support, by many of its followers dying, it will take a Muslim stand against them to defeat them. You then starve the internet of its source of hate, which targets vulnerable religious novice Muslims here.

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:43 pm

darknessss wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

How utterly absurd....those unfortunates today were murdered for the "crime" of offending "their" religious views. In other words they are attempting to control the freedom of the press and feedom of expression AND the freedom of religious choice of everyone in the west... This attack had nothing to do with all the albeit legitimate complaints they may have. What will it take for them to understand that they DO NOT have a right to not be "offended"?

Everyone has a right to free speech and you are correct in that we have freedom of expression and nobody has a right to ever kill somebody over any such expression, but ask yourself why would you want to offend someone, knowingly and intentionally?
To place this into perspective where you can amplify this, it is such things that started many wars before, where offense was taken at something said or done.
Again I am all for free speech, but speech deliberately intended to offend is really a no brainer.
It seems somebody have now taken what is really mean around free speech, not being denied your rights to speak out an injustice to now turn this as a poor means to justify being irresponsible with free speech.
If people want to offend it is again up to them, but what is their justification for doing so and again what do they hope to intent to get out of it?

Now there is much wrong where we should be able to be critical of a religion and this is different and again some Muslims take the view that this is some great offense, that is way over the top as it is with the cartoons, but I fail to understand how it is helping an increasing worsening situation to further fuel the chances of such attacks. Can you see my point?

As I say, it is not the brightest move really, which is placing lives at risks by their actions. This is not to say they should not be able to , where again of course they should be able to but is the end gain worth it when we see people butchered like this, knowing there are extremists out there who will kill for this?

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:55 pm

Brasidas wrote:
darknessss wrote:

Everyone has a right to free speech and you are correct in that we have freedom of expression and nobody has a right to ever kill somebody over any such expression, but ask yourself why would you want to offend someone, knowingly and intentionally?
To place this into perspective where you can amplify this, it is such things that started many wars before, where offense was taken at something said or done.
Again I am all for free speech, but speech deliberately intended to offend is really a no brainer.
It seems somebody have now taken what is really mean around free speech, not being denied your rights to speak out an injustice to now turn this as a poor means to justify being irresponsible with free speech.
If people want to offend it is again up to them, but what is their justification for doing so and again what do they hope to intent to get out of it?

Now there is much wrong where we should be able to be critical of a religion and this is different and again some Muslims take the view that this is some great offense, that is way over the top as it is with the cartoons, but I fail to understand how it is helping an increasing worsening situation to further fuel the chances of such attacks. Can you see my point?

As I say, it is not the brightest move really, which is placing lives at risks by their actions. This is not to say they should not be able to , where again of course they should be able to but is the end gain worth it when we see people butchered like this, knowing there are extremists out there who will kill for this?

Ahhh I see....
cop out of the righteous coward ...blame the victim...

allow a few views on this

Campaigners, Index on Censorship condemned the attack.

Index chief executive Jodie Ginsberg said: "The ability to express ourselves freely is fundamental to a free society.

"This includes the freedom to publish, to satirise, to joke, to criticise, even when that might cause offence to others. Those who wish to silence free speech must never be allowed to prevail."

Kate Allen, director of Amnesty International UK said: "This is a hideous attack on free speech not just in Paris but everywhere. Journalists are frequently on the frontline and this is another tragic reminder of the deadly risks they so often face."

Baroness Sayeeda Warsi - who was Britain's first female Muslim Cabinet minister - said: " There is no justification for this callous act.

in other word, many people of much greater standing than you would disagree

you look at this inversely

to quote
"As I say, it is not the brightest move really, which is placing lives at risks by their actions. This is not to say they should not be able to , where again of course they should be able to but is the end gain worth it when we see people butchered like this, knowing there are extremists out there who will kill for this?"

where as I would say instead of oppressing and suppressing OUR (western) way of satire and humour WE (as in the majority) should if necessary oppress and suppress their (within the context of OUR civilisation) foreign view point if that is what it takes

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:03 pm

I will ad further to the above as it is important:

You see this is what is wrong with people that intend to insult is why people have sadly died today.
Yes everyone has a right of freedom of speech, which is more about not being denied your rights, where I have never known a valid reason which is ethical or moral to offend people. People are in the main irresponsible with freedom of expression and the worst part is they fail to see if there will be any consequences for their actions. This can range from someone taking their own life from receiving abuse, to the extreme here where insulting a religious deity that they murder.

This is why people are so irresponsible, they center around a view to believe you can be as offensive as possible failing to see the consequences of such an action. Of course people should have every right to offend without a threat to their life, but the point missed, is there is idiots out there willing to kill for such an offense and now we have seen the reality of that. Not only that people do end up taking their own lives from abuse

This is why some people are clueless and yes it is wrong for Muslims to be offended here, I am not defending that, what I am saying is there are extremists willing to kill for that and what happens is innocent people die.
How many will have to die, for those who wish to offend to understand something as simple as that?

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:05 pm

I am not blaming the victims, as all who died today were innocent, I am explaining which you fail to grasp, that people do end up dying because there is nutters out there and even worse those out to offend are willing to happily place the lives of people at risk just to feel good about insulting something.

Ask the victims families if they feel it was worth it?

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:07 pm

So more info:

20.59 Police and anti-terror magistrates reportedly identified the three assailants, two of whom are brothers, reports The Telegraph's Henry Samuel.

The two brothers, born in Paris’ 10th arrondissement are French nationals called Saïd and Cherif Kouachi, aged 34 and 32.

Cherif was reportedly part of an Iraqi jihadi network dismantled in the nearby 19th arrondissement of Paris. He was sentenced to three years in prison with 18 months suspended in relation to terror charges in May 2008.

The two brothers are Franco-Algerians who came back from Syria this summer.

Hamyd Mourad, 18, is of no fixed abode. Last year, he reportedly was enrolled in a lycée in Charleville-Mezières around 50 miles from the Champagne capital of Reims, northeastern France. Police were reportedly hunting for him in Reims last night. The nationality of the youngest is unknown.

Their identity cards were circulating widely on Twitter last night.

Earlier police conducted searches in the Paris suburbs of Pantin, in Seine-Saint-Denis, where the assailants were thought to have driven to.

They also conducted searches in Genevilliers, northwest of Paris.

Social media last night, people were reporting a significant presence of CRS anti-terror police in Reims. Another Twitter user suggested that there was an “incessant” helicopter surveillance.

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:08 pm

Brasidas wrote:I am not blaming the victims, as all who dies today were innocent, I am explain which you fail to grasp, that people do end up dying because there is nutters out there and even worse are willing to happily place the lives of people at risk to feel good about insulting something.

Ask the victims families if they feel it was worth it?

so your solution is to bow to the nutters...do what they want

rather than destroying the infection they have?

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:08 pm

your kind of thinking is known as colaboration

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:08 pm

and cowardice

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:10 pm

and clearly at least one of the VICTIMS thought it was worth it, quoting ...i would rather die standing a free man than on my knees begging or some such similar thing...I'm not going to read through all the reports to find the exact quote.

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:13 pm

darknessss wrote:your kind of thinking is known as colaboration

Oh here we go, the old appeasement chestnut, would you like some lessons on Churchill appeasement to Stalin and the fact in private Churchill told the Czechoslovakian ambassador he would have done the same thing as Chamberlain
happy to philosophies on this, please prey tell.
I am against extremism and take a different route one that starves the extremists of which they seek, to instill terror and maximum publicity, one that seeks to see them self implode, where they end up pissing off too many Muslims, that Muslims unite against them.
Maybe you can explain your words of wisdom, how that is collaboration and to what exactly I am meant to be collaborating to?

That would mean I am supporting extremism, which I do not, please do not try to insult me with such infantile views

Thank you

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:15 pm

darknessss wrote:and cowardice

So one word immature answers well, we see what kind of poster you are made of.
Sorry my faimly has a history of serving in the armed forces have lost relatives to the IRA and I am half Irish, so plase spare me any crap about cowardice, where there is nothing worse than a person who cowers as you do behind your PC making unfounded accusations

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:16 pm

darknessss wrote:and clearly at least one of the VICTIMS thought it was worth it, quoting ...i would rather die standing a free man than on my knees begging or some such similar thing...I'm not going to read through all the reports to find the exact quote.

Did he ask the other victims if they did?
Great he feels so defiant, maybe he should have asked the others if they also did.
How many have to die for you to understand something so simple?
Seriously, how many?

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:25 pm

ohho....
whatever

the point is YOU seem quite willing to be the one on your knees, suggesting WE should modify what WE do to suit THEIR sick agenda

afterall you are the one who is suggesting that the magazine was and is wrong to satirize islam (note along side of christianity and every other beife system going...its not like they were selective in their target

now are you suggesting therefore that ALL satire should be stopped
only religious satire?
only satire aimed at islam?
what about political satire, perhaps we should not satirize kim jomg un lest he send a killer squad
what about personal satire
perhaps we should not alow our royal family to be satirised and send the SAS to kill anyone who dares...because it "offends"

you are making the exact same argument that the sexist fools who say women "ask to be raped" because of how they dress?

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:35 pm

darknessss wrote:ohho....
whatever

the point is YOU seem quite willing to be the one on your knees, suggesting WE should modify what WE do to suit THEIR sick agenda

afterall you are the one who is suggesting that the magazine was and is wrong to satirize islam (note along side of christianity and every other beife system going...its not like they were selective in their target

now are you suggesting therefore that ALL satire should be stopped
only religious satire?
only satire aimed at islam?
what about political satire, perhaps we should not satirize kim jomg un lest he send a killer squad
what about personal satire
perhaps we should not alow our royal family to be satirised and send the SAS to kill anyone who dares...because it "offends"

you are making the exact same argument that the sexist fools who say women "ask to be raped" because of how they dress?

Modify?
How is be civil and decent, one of the very values we hold dear in the west modifying by being as intolerant of that which we claim is?
Please answer that?

There is nothing wrong with being critical but again you fail to grasp the point.
People are intentionally offending for the intent of deliberately enticing anger, why?
What does that achieve?
What need is there for doing so?

Now again should people be able to do so, of course they should, the point you seem unable to answer though is why?
Why do people feel the need to want to insult people knowing again it can have consequences?

I am not suggesting anything should be stopped but for people to act responsibly.

To then make the most absurd claim you have made to date, that now I endorse people to say women asked to be raped, is of no comparison. You do understand why men rape women, which is down to the power of control and placing fear into the victim. People who make arguments that women are asking for this are normally clueless conservatives who again hold Christian values, claiming that they are asking for it. Men though do not set out to rape a woman on how she dresses. If you think that why do women no matter how they are dressed or how they look are raped? It is idiot conservatives who perceive that, not the rapists, hence your view had no comparability. Women can wear as they place as they should be able to, but what they wear is is not intended to offend, so how on earth you find that comparable is sheer gobbledygook.

by Sponsored content