Christianity was also peaceful till it's wider acceptance by ruling classes, and thats really just evidence that Empires and rulers are violent. They'll find one reason or another for fighting.
Ultimately, humans are a violent species. We'll find reasons to kill each other, religion itself isn't violent. It can be a reason, and some are openly violent, but its not a baseline characteristic.
Grey Templar wrote: Ultimately, humans are a violent species. We'll find reasons to kill each other, religion itself isn't violent. It can be a reason, and some are openly violent, but its not a baseline characteristic.
I think I'm going to go ahead and sig that, it seems that this needs pointing out in OT these days.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Buddhism's not one of the big 4, you're thinking of Hinduism, and I seem to recall some Gandhi fellow setting a rather convincing non-violence example.
Both Buddhism, Hinduism and Sikhism deserve the title of “one of the big four” more than Judaism, actually.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Regardless of my accuracy of defining the big four, it's silly to question whether there's ever been any peaceful intent in religion whatsoever.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Regardless of my accuracy of defining the big four, it's silly to question whether there's ever been any peaceful intent in religion whatsoever.
Did you not read the posts showing you were wrong?
mitch_rifle wrote: It happened with christianity and look how much western civilisation has progressed in the past 500 years. I don't need to follow christianity and openly so and don't have to be worried about being brutally tortured/murdered.
We've gone through our* Reformation/Renaissance. They haven't yet, and are still in the societal equivalent of the Europe's Middle Ages. When they do thing'll mellow.
*And I say 'our' in the full knowledge that my country, the US, Canadia and NZ did not exist as they do today at the time.
Whats the scoop for those who don't have speakers right now?
The guy seems to be saying that religious fundamentalists of all stripes try to control what you can and can't say, and uses the example of Jerry Falwell suing Hustler magazine.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Regardless of my accuracy of defining the big four, it's silly to question whether there's ever been any peaceful intent in religion whatsoever.
Did you not read the posts showing you were wrong?
What, the part where you agreed with me? What am I missing?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Regardless of my accuracy of defining the big four, it's silly to question whether there's ever been any peaceful intent in religion whatsoever.
Did you not read the posts showing you were wrong?
What, the part where you agreed with me? What am I missing?
The part where I and others pointed out there were indeed religions with peaceful intent.
EDIT: And never mind, and I am sorry. I misread the quote layers in other posts and mistakenly attributed another poster's words to you (in my mind). I am sorry I did so.
daedalus wrote: There've been a handful of them. None quite so... worldwide... though. They certainly haven't attacked people continents away over... well, anything.
And certainly not for drawing a mother fething picture...
Wow, i just saw this and read the thread. Glad they've caught them at least. Is there likely to be a significant response from france after the fact? I guess there's not much to do now but start the clock and see if/when it happens again.
H.B.M.C. wrote: We've gone through our* Reformation/Renaissance. They haven't yet, and are still in the societal equivalent of the Europe's Middle Ages. When they do thing'll mellow.
I'm bringing this back here because Egypt's president just gave a speech in which he said:
I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma* is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.
*"umma" could refer to Eygpt, or the Muslim world itself. That isn't clear from the translation.
I doubt there is much the French can do beyond what they have done. Its not like this was an attack by a foreign power against the state.
Overall, I hope people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, would realize that radical Islam is not a fringe issue. Its a viewpoint held by a significant portion of all Muslims. Certainly not a majority, but its not the fringe element that many would have you believe. Its also growing.
H.B.M.C. wrote: We've gone through our* Reformation/Renaissance. They haven't yet, and are still in the societal equivalent of the Europe's Middle Ages. When they do thing'll mellow.
I'm bringing this back here because Egypt's president just gave a speech in which he said:
I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma* is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.
*"umma" could refer to Eygpt, or the Muslim world itself. That isn't clear from the translation.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Glad they caught them from their professional demeanor during the attack I doubted they would. Good job France!
Now....for the interrogation.
I suggest we send in Brian Blessed after they've been shown a complete back to back Jersey Shore rerun.
If we're going for the revenge angle, I say we lock them in a cell, give them access to newspapers and television. Then, we make sure that any information they get on the outside world paints their cause as completely lost, with news stories of "democratic riots" and the like in the Middle East. Kinda like the Arab spring, except succesful.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Glad they caught them from their professional demeanor during the attack I doubted they would. Good job France!
Now....for the interrogation.
Last i heard they hadn't caught anyone yet. They're raiding an apartment in Reims right now, but not word on prisoners yet.
These guys strike me as the type who have a plan in place beyond 'kill cartoonists'. If that was their only objective, they'ed have gone in, and then hole'd up with as many guns as they could and killed the cops as they came up or planted explosives to eliminate the first responders. I think this is 'part 1' of a larger plan. Hopefully Police put the breaks on it.
Well... let's be honest, the more he can turn Egyptian public opinion against Islamists, particular his nemesis in the Muslim Brotherhood, the more license he’ll have to suppress them in protecting his own power. Let's hope he doesn't go "Saddam Huessin" on us...
Well... let's be honest, the more he can turn Egyptian public opinion against Islamists, particular his nemesis in the Muslim Brotherhood, the more license he’ll have to suppress them in protecting his own power. Let's hope he doesn't go "Saddam Huessin" on us...
Would you listen to the man who had seized power from the first democratically elected government you had had in years?
whembly wrote: [Well... let's be honest, the more he can turn Egyptian public opinion against Islamists, particular his nemesis in the Muslim Brotherhood, the more license he’ll have to suppress them in protecting his own power. Let's hope he doesn't go "Saddam Huessin" on us...
You mean be given weapons of mass destruction (including chemical) by the usa and then attacked by the usa for invading an anti-american country that would have had strategic significance to him?
Well... let's be honest, the more he can turn Egyptian public opinion against Islamists, particular his nemesis in the Muslim Brotherhood, the more license he’ll have to suppress them in protecting his own power. Let's hope he doesn't go "Saddam Huessin" on us...
Would you listen to the man who had seized power from the first democratically elected government you had had in years?
Woah... wasn't he elected too? ... off to google research...
EDIT: back from research: He was installed in a coup and then later elected to office. (Over the protests of the now-outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, of course)
whembly wrote: [Well... let's be honest, the more he can turn Egyptian public opinion against Islamists, particular his nemesis in the Muslim Brotherhood, the more license he’ll have to suppress them in protecting his own power. Let's hope he doesn't go "Saddam Huessin" on us...
You mean be given weapons of mass destruction (including chemical) by the usa and then attacked by the usa for invading an anti-american country that would have had strategic significance to him?
Grey Templar wrote: I'm seeing multiple sources saying 2 in custody and 1 dead.
BBC is carrying one surrendered. Nothing on the other two. Hamyd Mourad is the youngest of the three, and apparently turned himself in around 1:22 GMT
Yeah, it seems that NBC jumped the gun, French, British and Dutch media sources report only one suspect in custody, supposedly surrendering near the French-Belgian border. http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-30710777 2:04-2:17 reports
French police have released photos of the other two suspects and asking the public for information:
Spoiler:
Better news is that the larger French media sources have agreed to help Charlie with personnel and funding now that most of the editors have been killed, to ensure its continued existence. Source in Dutch: http://nos.nl/liveblog/2012114-volg-de-klopjacht-op-de-daders.html
It is a bit of an odd situation, police have not confirmed his arrest yet, but it is most likely the case as you note with the photo. On the other hand there is a twitter topic trending where his supposed classmates state that he is innocent because he was in class at the time of the shooting, make of that what you will.
Should have known NBC would screw up the reporting. Sorry about that, guys.
cnn wrote:(CNN) -- An 18-year-old who was considered one of three suspects in the shooting at Charlie Hebdo magazine offices has turned himself in to police, a source close to the case told the AFP news agency. Hamyd Mourad was implicated alongside two brothers in the attack. Mourad turned himself in late Wednesday night after seeing his name mentioned on social media, the source told AFP. The manhunt is still going on for the two suspected gunmen: Cherif Kouachi and Said Kouachi. Police warn the two brothers could be armed and dangerous.
MrDwhitey wrote: Care to understand what and why the feth he is actually typing that instead of going off half-cocked at any perceived anti-Christian sentiment?
Also, I preferred the "wild eyed bigoted comment" version.
Well I would like to know why 'Christian leaders' are synonymous with terrorists. As for anti-Christian sentiments, they do exist here and are evidently strong and heavily discriminatory.
To add bigotry to bigotry its now apparently my fault as a Christian that I question why other Christians are to be lumped together with terrorist murderers without any explanation.
If I were to blanket link atheists, with terrorists, on a whim, atheists would take offense and rightly so.
He considers non Muslims to be animals for living their lives in the way they wish, which of course means outwith Islam.
I understood his statement to mean that he believes Muslims who allow their beliefs to waver cease to be Muslim, not unlike non-Muslim religious people, and that people without a religion of any sort live as animals; bending the rules.
That's not a uniquely Muslim position by any stretch of the imagination.
MrDwhitey wrote: Care to understand what and why the feth he is actually typing that instead of going off half-cocked at any perceived anti-Christian sentiment?
Also, I preferred the "wild eyed bigoted comment" version.
Well I would like to know why 'Christian leaders' are synonymous with terrorists. As for anti-Christian sentiments, they do exist here and are evidently strong and heavily discriminatory.
To add bigotry to bigotry its now apparently my fault as a Christian that I question why other Christians are to be lumped together with terrorist murderers without any explanation.
If I were to blanket link atheists, with terrorists, on a whim, atheists would take offense and rightly so.
So you're still refusing to actually read why he said it.
Well done, the blinkers are on.
For your information, he's explaining the content of a video he found ridiculous. Jesus fething Christ. Actually read the thread, thanks.
MrDwhitey wrote: Care to understand what and why the feth he is actually typing that instead of going off half-cocked at any perceived anti-Christian sentiment?
Also, I preferred the "wild eyed bigoted comment" version.
Well I would like to know why 'Christian leaders' are synonymous with terrorists. As for anti-Christian sentiments, they do exist here and are evidently strong and heavily discriminatory.
To add bigotry to bigotry its now apparently my fault as a Christian that I question why other Christians are to be lumped together with terrorist murderers without any explanation.
If I were to blanket link atheists, with terrorists, on a whim, atheists would take offense and rightly so.
So you're still refusing to actually read why he said it.
Well done, the blinkers are on.
For your information, he's explaining the content of a video he found ridiculous. Actually read the thread, thanks.
The video does nothing to equate the 'Christian leaders' with terrorists. One opening a lawsuit is not in any as comparable than walking in with a machine gun, it's a lawful act for a start and some cases are actually upheld in some western courts. Though the case of the lawsuit vs Hustler is not one of them.
It's a very poor interpretation to fail to distinguish between a litigious act and a violent act, when the source was clear to do so.
Edit: And on a second look after your above post o make sure I hadn't missed anything..... It's clear that the commentators actually agreed with the interview host that there was a distinct difference between previous cases of litigious religious leaders and the events of yesterday.
Grey Templar wrote: I'm seeing multiple sources saying 2 in custody and 1 dead.
BBC is carrying one surrendered. Nothing on the other two. Hamyd Mourad is the youngest of the three, and apparently turned himself in around 1:22 GMT
I am very surprised that after what was a well coordinated attack the suspects were identified so quickly. I wonder if the got caught on low angle CCTV somewhere.
Almost as surprised as to hear of one man turning himself in.
Torga_DW wrote: Do we know if the guy who turned himself in is actually involved in all of this? Other than being related to the shooters, that is.
Possible. I don't see a jihadist turning himself in, it doesn't sit with the profile. However if one of the gunmen is identified and the ID of the other two is extrapolated from a single identification, then it may be that an innocent party who is related to the suspects is misidentified as one of he attackers, and if he had nothing to do with the atrocity, he could decided to had to the nearest police station as quickly as possible.
It makes sense that the attackers are brothers it also makes sense that not all the brothers in a family were actually involved. One might have refused to be radicalised and if so likely had no idea what his siblings, and third accomplice, were doing.
I would wager that the man who turned himself in was misidentified, which is easy to do if you are trying computer identification through ski masks and/or grainy footage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote:
Whats the scoop for those who don't have speakers right now?
That what these terrorists did is really nothing more than Christian leaders do every day, you know.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 08/01/2015 00:49:06
It was a reply to a comment asking for the content of the video from someone who couldn't hear the content, so it can be read as a synopsis unless there are clear indicators like [/sarcasm].
Reading reports of a new shooting in Paris 2 French cops shot.
From Telegraph:
A police officer has been seriously injured in a second shooting in Paris.
Gunmen are said to have escaped into the Metro after automatic gunfire was reported at Montrouge.
A suspect has reportedly been arrested after the shootout.
One of two municipal policemen was badly hurt, a police source told Reuters.
The source added that it was unclear if there is any link at this stage to the Charlie Hebdo attack, in which three suspected al-Qaeda gunmen targeted the offices of the French satirical magazine, killing 12 people.
ITELE television station said that two police officers were lying on the ground after the second shooting.
French police are carrying out manhunt for two brothers suspected of killing 12 people on Wednesday at Charlie Hebdo in a presumed Islamist militant strike.
On Thursday, authorities released photos of the two French nationals still at large, calling them "armed and dangerous."
Seven people have already been arrested in the ongoing investigation, Prime Minister Manuel Valls said.
A massive manhunt is under way for two suspects in the terror attack on a satirical magazine.Images have been released of brothers Said Kouachi and Cherif Kouachi, both in their early 30s, who are suspected of being part of the attack that left 12 people dead.Officials have said the French nationals are linked to a Yemeni terror network.The youngest of the suspects in the shooting has handed himself in to police after he was named on social media as Hamyd Mourad, 18.
Sky sources say the man, who has been arrested, is the brother-in-law of the suspects at large.
On Wednesday night heavily armoured French police raided an apartment in the city of Reims, east of Paris, as they continued a massive manhunt to find the killers.
French officials say seven people have been detained overnight. Meanwhile, two police officers were wounded in a shoot-out in southern Paris overnight, but it is not being linked to the attack on the magazine.
Thousands of officers have reportedly been deployed in the hunt for the men behind the attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo.
It has previously been targeted over its portrayal of the Prophet Mohammed.
In Wednesday's attack, masked gunmen stormed the offices and called out their victims by name before opening fire during a morning editorial meeting.
They were armed with Kalashnikov assault rifles and a rocket-propelled grenade.
They were let inside the Charlie Hebdo building by a female employee who was threatened at gunpoint along with her daughter and forced to punch in a security code to allow them inside.
The editor and a cartoonist for the newspaper, who went by the pen names Charb and Cabu, were among those killed.
Radio France chief executive Mathieu Gilet announced that contributor Bernard Maris was also killed.
Two police officers were among the dead, including one assigned as Charb's bodyguard after he had received death threats and another who was shot in the head as he lay wounded on the ground outside the offices.
He has been named as Ahmed Merabet and is believed to be a Muslim.
French President Francois Hollande has declared today a national day of mourning and a nationwide minute of silence is planned for noon.
In a televised address on Wednesday he said: "We have to respond according to the crime, first of all by finding the authors of this infamy and we have to ensure that they are arrested, judged... and punished very severely."
With the country on maximum terror alert, more than 800 extra soldiers are helping to guard media offices, places of worship and other sensitive areas.
Tens of thousands of people have staged silent protests in France and across the world in solidarity with the victims.
Social media users have used the hashtag #jesuischarlie to show solidarity for the victims of the shooting, with the Charlie Hebdo website also using the image as its masthead.
In the wake of the attack, the British Government is holding an emergency Cobra meeting chaired by the Home Secretary this morning.
Torga_DW wrote: Well i'm glad somebody is holding a meeting about this, it's kind of a big deal imo. These arrests so far just sound like guessing.
The kid they arrested handed himself in. Hardly guesswork. Also from the way it was organised there had to have been other people involved to get that sort of firepower into their hands.
Torga_DW wrote: Well i'm glad somebody is holding a meeting about this, it's kind of a big deal imo. These arrests so far just sound like guessing.
The kid they arrested handed himself in. Hardly guesswork. Also from the way it was organised there had to have been other people involved to get that sort of firepower into their hands.
With seven arrests so far and the police only claiming to look for three active participants (though they wont necessarily tell us everything) it s evident they are hunting the wider support network.
That being said, arrest doesn't mean guilty, or even suspicion of involvement. There will be a lot of fundamentalist Islamists on the files, many of whom are sympathetic to the attackers beleifs , and known to them but not necessarily in actuality involved. Police may well arrest some of these people and bring them in for routine questioning, most will likely be released without charge.
Yet again the police might turn up a whole rats nest of active jihadists, including weapons suppliers and end up finding charges to place on large numbers of people. Even then the men who supplied the AKs might not have known about the target, but that wont be entirely relevant except to the severity of sentecing.
I was referring to the other arrests that have been made, they just seem too 'obvious' for me compared to how professionally the attack seemed to have been executed (no pun intended). This seems really well planned, surely they would have anticipated that their friends would be investigated.
edit: do we know exactly where the AKs were supplied? If border travel is that easy, they could have been smuggled in from quite some distance away.
‘North African wielding assault rifle and wearing bullet-proof vest'. If not directly related i'd imagine it inspired by our favourite religion of peace.
Journalist with RFI-Radio France, Carrie Nooten, says the police officer who died after being shot in Montrouge had been in the area to assist in the aftermath of a traffic accident.
Stay classy. He's also on the run.
Seems there's been an explosion at a Kebab shop across from a Mosque in the East of France.
On the BBC just there - Suspects spotted in North of France in a vehicle carrying weapons. Apparently they have a rocket launcher. Not sure where that source is from but it was Lyse Doucet that said it.
I have to say, I've looked through the Charlie Hebdo 'satires' and I must admit that whilst I fully support their right to draw the satires and carticatures, as is their right, they aren't, IMO, clever satire.I must clarify before I continue that I don't in anyway at all think that they 'got what they deserved' or 'reaped what they sowed' - these atrocities are incredibly out of scale as a reaction to the simple publishing of an 'offensive' image and are deeply saddening, but my only point is that I think there was a lack of intelligence to the brand of satire, which has unfortunately provoked this response.
I think the problem with the Charlie Hebdo brand of satire is that it's not true satire. Rather than clever suggestion or euphemism it's merely crude exhibition. Anybody can draw a picture of Mohammed engaging in dubious acts (As Charlie Hebdo have done previously) and call it 'Satire' but in reality it isn't clever satire, just an image to cause offence. It doesn't carry any particular meaning, point or attempt to enlighten the viewer. I say it isn't clever satire as I don't think it cause the viewer to consider his or others moral or political values - it's just a cheap laugh. Clever satire should seek not to push a point by outrage or shock, but by quietly mocking core values of the subject, implying things rather than crudely displaying them and by systematic deconstruction of the fallacies constructed by the subject (Be it political, religious or social). In doing so, the point of the satire remains the same, but the message is conveyed much more effectively and crucially it serves a purpose in that, by having a specific point, it actively fights back against these savages by persuading people to the cause. By doing this it can change the way people think, negate the influence of vile people like these terrorists and all in a manner that does not provoke them.
At this point, you'll be thinking 'What has any of this got to do with Charlie Hebdo?'. My point is, if the satire had been 'clever' as I outlined above, rather than the crude images that Charlie Hebdo has published in the past, it would not be as provocative. The reason being is that it requires a certain amount of intelligence to decipher the meaning behind indirect 'clever' satire - intellect that educated Western society (And, I suppose those civilised countries of Asia and Northern Africa) possesses, but fundamentalist extremists do not. As a result we can appreciate the satire, but to extremists with blinkered vision - they simply do not understand it enough to regard it. However when the satire is crude, as IMO it was, then we as educated minds can laugh it off or ignore it, agree with it or be offended by it, but ultimately we are balanced enough to know what the appropriate response is and allow people their basic right to express it. Unfortunately, we aren't dealing with balanced people and these extremists are too ignorant and moral-less to know how to do the above - so their only recourse is violence, which tragically we have seen yesterday and this morning.
To sum it up, I'm simply saying that in my own opinion, whilst I support Charlie Hebdo's right to publish their satire, indeed encourage it, I don't think it's the best way to go about satire, especially in the current world. IMO, it needs to be more intelligent and less crude to better get the point across and avoid provocation. Of course, I needn't say that the response to their satire is wildly out of proportion and horrific.
Why should we "avoid provocation"? Why should western democracies curb their freedom of speech in any way to try and avoid offending the fragile sensibilities of barbarians that commit acts that are extremely repulsive to our way of life every single day?
Exactly. It's insipid nonsense to stifle freedom of expression in the face of barbarism. It suggests that might makes right which is anathema to civil society.
If a government can't defend its citizens and suggests it remain silent in the face of disgusting evil it has no authority to govern and the people should be allowed to have arms to defend themselves. We should be allowed to defend ourselves anyway.
PhantomViper wrote: Why should we "avoid provocation"? Why should western democracies curb their freedom of speech in any way to try and avoid offending the fragile sensibilities of barbarians that commit acts that are extremely repulsive to our way of life every single day?
Why be an ass about it though? Satire has it's place, but being confrontational for the sake of being confrontational doesn't really achieve anything.
Warpig - sharper, more precisely aimed satire might seem less provocative to you or me, but to the perpetrators of this atrocity it would have made no difference whatsoever. These two guys may well have never seen the cartoons, the nature of the cartoons isn't the issue for them, it's the fact they exist at all that they are willing to commit mass-murder over.
PhantomViper wrote: Why should we "avoid provocation"? Why should western democracies curb their freedom of speech in any way to try and avoid offending the fragile sensibilities of barbarians that commit acts that are extremely repulsive to our way of life every single day?
Why be an ass about it though? Satire has it's place, but being confrontational for the sake of being confrontational doesn't really achieve anything.
It achieves the goal of showing those people that they cannot make us change our values no matter what terrorist actions they take.
Ah, my only point was not that we shouldn't poke fun at the terrorists, it just that in an uncertain world such as this - look what happens when we use 'crude' satire. If we were to poke fun at them using 'clever' satire it may be more effective and cause less of a backlash. I still support the mocking and degrade of the terrorists, but people need to be more intelligent about it. That was all really.
EDIT:
PhantomViper wrote:It achieves the goal of showing those people that they cannot make us change our values no matter what terrorist actions they take.
You're right of course, they will not grind us down with such base acts - but how many senseless deaths will occur first, which could be avoid through the application of more intelligent methods of mocking, confounding and destroying them?
EDIT2:
Darkjim wrote:Warpig - sharper, more precisely aimed satire might seem less provocative to you or me, but to the perpetrators of this atrocity it would have made no difference whatsoever. These two guys may well have never seen the cartoons, the nature of the cartoons isn't the issue for them, it's the fact they exist at all that they are willing to commit mass-murder over.
Granted, I see your point. I suppose I'm talking more from an ideal point of view. Sorry.
Warpig1815 wrote: Ah, my only point was not that we shouldn't poke fun at the terrorists, it just that in an uncertain world such as this - look what happens when we use 'crude' satire. If we were to poke fun at them using 'clever' satire it may be more effective and cause less of a backlash. I still support the mocking and degrade of the terrorists, but people need to be more intelligent about it. That was all really.
Then you are curbing our society to their desires.
It isn't defiance if the persons that you are supposed to be defying don't know about it.
Warpig1815 wrote: Ah, my only point was not that we shouldn't poke fun at the terrorists, it just that in an uncertain world such as this - look what happens when we use 'crude' satire. If we were to poke fun at them using 'clever' satire it may be more effective and cause less of a backlash. I still support the mocking and degrade of the terrorists, but people need to be more intelligent about it. That was all really.
EDIT:
PhantomViper wrote:It achieves the goal of showing those people that they cannot make us change our values no matter what terrorist actions they take.
You're right of course, they will not grind us down with such base acts - but how many senseless deaths will occur first, which could be avoid through the application of more intelligent methods of mocking, confounding and destroying them?
EDIT2:
Darkjim wrote:Warpig - sharper, more precisely aimed satire might seem less provocative to you or me, but to the perpetrators of this atrocity it would have made no difference whatsoever. These two guys may well have never seen the cartoons, the nature of the cartoons isn't the issue for them, it's the fact they exist at all that they are willing to commit mass-murder over.
Granted, I see your point. I suppose I'm talking more from an ideal point of view. Sorry.
Dude, I agree entirely re the cartoons, as someone who has read Private Eye for 25 years (which itself has some pretty bad cartoonists, and some great ones), Charlie Hebdo just seem childish. Just nowhere near as infantile as killing over pictures.
Ah, maybe it's futile, but I'm just not convinced that crude humour is as effective as clever satire. I'm not saying that people should always do one or the other, they can do what they please - I'm was just trying to point out that being more intelligent about it than having an image of a naked Mohammed may have more of an effect of solidifying opinions against them at home.
EDIT: I do concede that regardless of the type of satire these terrorists are always going to be offended and attack, but I hope that if we use clever satire, we can inspire more people to defy them, rather than a more distasteful crude satire which carries no real point other than to shock.
Nevermind me then, perhaps I'm thinking too much about things...
Warpig1815 wrote: Ah, maybe it's futile, but I'm just not convinced that crude humour is as effective as clever satire. I'm not saying that people should always do one or the other, they can do what they please - I'm was just trying to point out that being more intelligent about it than having an image of a naked Mohammed may have more of an effect of solidifying opinions against them at home.
In an ideal world, certainly. Spoilered satire from Private Eye a few years back, the sort of thing PE will run because they know Christians are religiliously mature enough to not kill over this stuff -
Spoiler:
Proof that Jesus WAS married
1 - Good at DIY
2 - bad as judging how many loaves and fishes were needed without 2 goes at it
3 - out with his mates whenever possible
4 - didn't smile much
NOT intended to offend, from a Methodist background myself and have the greatest respect for any of the thousands of religions that say 'we interpret and worship in different ways, but whoever He is, we won't kill each other over it'.
If Charlie Hebdo had written that, aimed at another certain prophet, those 12 people would be just as dead, and our horror should be just the same.
Darkjim wrote: Warpig - sharper, more precisely aimed satire might seem less provocative to you or me, but to the perpetrators of this atrocity it would have made no difference whatsoever. These two guys may well have never seen the cartoons, the nature of the cartoons isn't the issue for them, it's the fact they exist at all that they are willing to commit mass-murder over.
Bingo.
The "Don't offend the ignorant animals, use satire they can't understand" argument he presented is silly. The fact is there are enough muslim leaders who are more than smart and educated enough to understand "clever satire", and the masses being instigated to riot and/or attack often never see the objects of offense, and even if/when they do their understanding or lack of understanding makes no difference, they are told it is offensive and guided to act appropriately. And in cases like this particular attack, the target was chosen to make a point, and the cleverness or lack there of any specific cartoon was completely irrelevant to the cell committing the attack.
Alright, I concede, I was just putting my opinion out there and hoping for a discussion. So (In a non-sarcastic manner) thanks for that. At least it gives me alternatives to think about.
Not bad not bad......at times they do indeed look to be wearing curtains. WHich sucks being they can somewhat conceal a AK in them. A RPG give away is the one wearing curtain walking with a stiff leg
.. What's really weird is posting the above reminded me of a conversation about that very strip had t'other day and have spent a few minutes finding it online.
at times they do indeed look to be wearing curtains.
Might be a Uk expression but if you describe something as being " Curtains for...." it means The end of/for etc etc.
Suspects seem to be tracked between Villers-Cotterêt and Crépy-en-Valois. Huge deployment of elite police forces. Three helicopters on the zone.
Looks like they left their car. Some news say they may be hiding in a house.
Meanwhile, some politicians already take the events for their own purposes....of course.
Explosions reported elsewhere look like acts of revenge. Nothing about a synagogue, though.
Still more blood and corpses to expect, I'm afraid...those guys must surely know they will die. Can still take as many people as they can with them. They are not some black kids playing with fake guns...they are clearly trained as fighters and know what they are doing.
Sarouan wrote: Suspects seem to be tracked between Villers-Cotterêt and Crépy-en-Valois. Huge deployment of elite police forces. Three helicopters on the zone.
What kind of distances are you talking? Does that mean they've caught them within a mile perimeter, 10 miles, 500 yards?
They're actively searching for the two. Media are beginning to come en masse. Raid is taking care of the north of the zone, GIGN keeping an eye on the south.
Jihadist flags and molotov cocktails found in the first car left behind after the attack on Charlie Hebdo on Wednesday in Paris. Some say they were prepared for other actions.
Since Belgium is on the North of France, our own police is keeping an eye on the events. Cooperation is there. Threat level in Belgium is 2 out of 4, higher on some specific areas not told for now.
Sarouan wrote: Since Belgium is on the North of France, our own police is keeping an eye on the events. Cooperation is there. Threat level in Belgium is 2 out of 4, higher on some specific areas not told for now.
It's my biggest worry that they'll go into Belgium, and then possibly the Netherlands or Germany. Although the police cooperation in the EU should be able to prevent that..
It's not helpful, at least I don't believe it is, and I know it's cruel, but my first thought after seeing that officer killed was that we should find these people, bring them to their home neighborhoods, line these three along the street and blow out their lower spinal columns. I don't believe I've been as angry as that clip made me in one hell of a long time. If it's possible to foam at the mouth out of anger, I would have been.
What effect, if any, do you think this attack will have on the French with regards to:
1. More police choosing to carry sidearms.
2. Allowance of no-go ethnic zones.
3. Immigration law.
4. Desire by the general populace to be allowed to own/carry weapons.
Filthy Sanchez wrote: What effect, if any, do you think this attack will have on the French with regards to:
1. More police choosing to carry sidearms.
2. Allowance of no-go ethnic zones.
3. Immigration law.
4. Desire by the general populace to be allowed to own/carry weapons.
There will undoubtedly be changes. I hope #1 in the list becomes one of them. I read about another police officer being shot since yesterday, unsure if it is related, but that image of the police officer being murdered, completely unable to defend himself, is going to be very powerful...
Filthy Sanchez wrote: What effect, if any, do you think this attack will have on the French with regards to:
1. More police choosing to carry sidearms.
2. Allowance of no-go ethnic zones.
3. Immigration law.
4. Desire by the general populace to be allowed to own/carry weapons.
There will undoubtedly be changes. I hope #1 in the list becomes one of them. I read about another police officer being shot since yesterday, unsure if it is related, but that image of the police officer being murdered, completely unable to defend himself, is going to be very powerful...
At least one of the police officers shot was armed.
This supports the theory that the named suspect was only assumed to possibly be the third gunman because he was closely related to the other two, and turned himself in because he is not responsible.
No problems with the police coming to the conclusions they did, as it was evidently handled in a manner that allowed the suspect to clear his own name safely.
Filthy Sanchez wrote: What effect, if any, do you think this attack will have on the French with regards to:
1. More police choosing to carry sidearms.
This should be a priority, had more armed police been able to respond it could have reduced the lives lost, or at the very least prevented the perpetrators from escaping so easily
Doubtful. The attackers spoke unaccented French per the reports, so they appear to be native. Cracking down on immigrants would send the wrong message. Also due to being part of the EU France cannot make a law that affects the free movement of workers within the EU
Filthy Sanchez wrote: 4. Desire by the general populace to be allowed to own/carry weapons.
European culture has been moving away from firearms for a very long time, so it is doubtful.
Filthy Sanchez wrote: What effect, if any, do you think this attack will have on the French with regards to:
1. More police choosing to carry sidearms.
2. Allowance of no-go ethnic zones.
3. Immigration law.
4. Desire by the general populace to be allowed to own/carry weapons.
Agreed wit Dreadclaw except for point one. Te european way with armed police is to present two extremes.
Most police don't carry guns, but those that do are very heavily armed and armoured.
In the UK each local force has an armed response unit ready at all times. they have a van, and in the van are assault rifles and other toys. The van moves around like any other and the police deploy unarmed, but in the event of armed responce request they drop what they are doing, go to the van tool up and move out.
European police move from unarmed to SWAT level policing directly, immediately and very rapidly. And if there is anything really serious it gets passed directly to Special Forces, with no pissing about in between. UK police don't have SWAT teams, ordinary armed police respond to armed reponce requests, and anything that would normally require a full SWAT response is likely to go straight to the SAS, though as armed incidents are relatively rare in Europe armed policing can be pooled as an alternative.
Its a better system as it doesn't level police having to handle armed people with only sidearms, police either bring it, or they don't try. Its a no half measures attitude that works exceptionally well.
IIRC France has a similar methodology to handling armed policing, as do the Germans.
Nothing really needs to change, and with the impressive speed the French have got their act together on this one, it sounds like they are doing fine as they are.
After all increasing armed policing will not stop attacks like these, you cant be everywhere.
Nothing really needs to change, and with the impressive speed the French have got their act together on this one, it sounds like they are doing fine as they are.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Impressive speed, to me, would have been getting armed cops to the site of the incident while the crap bags were still there, and cordoning off the area to prevent their escape from the scene. They get an 'F' for getting their act together in my book. Post incident, they may be doing better. We'll see.
Nothing really needs to change, and with the impressive speed the French have got their act together on this one, it sounds like they are doing fine as they are.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Impressive speed, to me, would have been getting armed cops to the site of the incident while the crap bags were still there, and cordoning off the area to prevent their escape from the scene. They get an 'F' for getting their act together in my book. Post incident, they may be doing better. We'll see.
You'll find it surprising how hard it is to get an armed response unit on site within minutes, in one of the most busy cities of the world.
Well they shot two cops, including one who was acting as security after threats. Why weren't they armed? What was the cop supposed to do in case someone came to carry out the threat exactly?
I will not fault the timing of arrival of other police. We've learned the hard way about that, with mass shootings. Current policy for most dpartments now is the first two that get to the scene don't wait for backup but go in anyway.
Nothing really needs to change, and with the impressive speed the French have got their act together on this one, it sounds like they are doing fine as they are.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Impressive speed, to me, would have been getting armed cops to the site of the incident while the crap bags were still there, and cordoning off the area to prevent their escape from the scene. They get an 'F' for getting their act together in my book. Post incident, they may be doing better. We'll see.
You'll find it surprising how hard it is to get an armed response unit on site within minutes, in one of the most busy cities of the world.
Nothing really needs to change, and with the impressive speed the French have got their act together on this one, it sounds like they are doing fine as they are.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Impressive speed, to me, would have been getting armed cops to the site of the incident while the crap bags were still there, and cordoning off the area to prevent their escape from the scene. They get an 'F' for getting their act together in my book. Post incident, they may be doing better. We'll see.
You'll find it surprising how hard it is to get an armed response unit on site within minutes, in one of the most busy cities of the world.
Had the officers who initially responded been armed, the armed response would have been almost immediate.
We can't say if anything would have changed... but there would have at least been the possibility of different outcomes.
Yeah, if the cops who actually happened to be there when it happened had all been armed, they would have had a chance to at least pin the attackers in the building long enough for the response team to get there.
Thats how it works in the US, although our cops usually also have a shotgun or AR in their patrol vehicle as well. But they can at the very least stabilize a situation till a bigger response can arrive, which does take time.
It would not guarantee a different outcome, but it would make a different outcome possible.
Frazzled wrote: Well they shot two cops, including one who was acting as security after threats. Why weren't they armed? What was the cop supposed to do in case someone came to carry out the threat exactly?
One of them was armed, apparently.
However, I'm sure that most people will agree that a handgun is simply outclassed when it comes up against two assailants with pump action shotguns and AK-47s. So unless you're going to arm all police with kevlar vests and MP5s, then the "they need more guns" argument isn't going to fly.
Even in the Netherlands where police officers do carry sidearms it has proven very difficult to respond to heavily armed criminals (thinking of the Brinks robbery in Amsterdam for the Dutch users). The difference in firepower is just too great in some cases, like this attack.
I agree with Orlanth that the current system seems to do well enough. With SWAT being able to escalate quickly into military support or police special forces, which has happened on one occasion in the Netherlands as well as in Spain to combat terrorists. Now its ongoing in France.
Frazzled wrote: Well they shot two cops, including one who was acting as security after threats. Why weren't they armed? What was the cop supposed to do in case someone came to carry out the threat exactly?
One of them was armed, apparently.
However, I'm sure that most people will agree that a handgun is simply outclassed when it comes up against two assailants with against pump action shotguns and AK-47s. So unless you're going to arm all police with kevlar vests and MP5s, then the "they need more guns" argument isn't going to fly.
The one that was protecting the magazine was armed, but the attackers also attacked two months after security was toned down.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Even in the Netherlands where police officers do carry sidearms it has proven very difficult to respond to heavily armed criminals (thinking of the Brinks robbery in Amsterdam for the Dutch users). The difference in firepower is just too great in some cases, like this attack.
I agree with Orlanth that the current system seems to do well enough. With SWAT being able to escalate quickly into military support or police special forces, which has happened on one occasion in the Netherlands as well as in Spain to combat terrorists. Now its ongoing in France.
Well enough sure. These events are incredibly rare, thankfully. But you can't discount how powerful that video of the officer being shot is going to end up being in the coming weeks, and the debates that are going to follow this event. I would not be surprised if some changes to come about because of this.
Frazzled wrote: Well they shot two cops, including one who was acting as security after threats. Why weren't they armed? What was the cop supposed to do in case someone came to carry out the threat exactly?
One of them was armed, apparently.
However, I'm sure that most people will agree that a handgun is simply outclassed when it comes up against two assailants with against pump action shotguns and AK-47s. So unless you're going to arm all police with kevlar vests and MP5s, then the "they need more guns" argument isn't going to fly.
Its better than having no gun at all.
We're really suggesting they carry something. And hey, if they're in a patrol car or on a motorcycle, there isn't any reason they couldn't carry an MP5.
And Kevlar vests as standard would be a good idea too. I seem to recall cops in London wear anti-stab vests all the time, thats no different. Its really not an inconvenience to protect yourself.
I agree with Orlanth that the current system seems to do well enough. With SWAT being able to escalate quickly into military support or police special forces, which has happened on one occasion in the Netherlands as well as in Spain to combat terrorists. Now its ongoing in France.
So you and Orlanth are happy with the way the current system worked in this case. Again, we will agree to disagree. The current system allowed the scum to carry out their attack and get away from the scene. It is likely to end up with another shootout at another location putting more folks at risk.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Even in the Netherlands where police officers do carry sidearms it has proven very difficult to respond to heavily armed criminals (thinking of the Brinks robbery in Amsterdam for the Dutch users). The difference in firepower is just too great in some cases, like this attack.
I agree with Orlanth that the current system seems to do well enough. With SWAT being able to escalate quickly into military support or police special forces, which has happened on one occasion in the Netherlands as well as in Spain to combat terrorists. Now its ongoing in France.
Well enough sure. These events are incredibly rare, thankfully. But you can't discount how powerful that video of the officer being shot is going to end up being in the coming weeks, and the debates that are going to follow this event. I would not be surprised if some changes to come about because of this.
Agreed, perhaps there will be a discussion on protection, I can imagine that sidearms will become part of police equipment, but it is difficult to imagine it going further.
I agree with Orlanth that the current system seems to do well enough. With SWAT being able to escalate quickly into military support or police special forces, which has happened on one occasion in the Netherlands as well as in Spain to combat terrorists. Now its ongoing in France.
So you and Orlanth are happy with the way the current system worked in this case. Again, we will agree to disagree. The current system allowed the scum to carry out their attack and get away from the scene. It is likely to end up with another shootout at another location putting more folks at risk.
That just isn't 'well enough' for me.
Well that is the problem, do you change the whole system for one attack, something that occurs once in a decade? Even so, this type of attack would not allow enough time to respond for a sufficient number of police officers, as they only started to arrive on the scene as the attackers prepared to leave. Also the mentions of them possesing rpg's makes me wonder what police would need to stop them.
Some more news from the BBC
Police sources have told the AFP news agency that two suspects are in custody in connection with the fatal shooting of a policewoman in Paris this morning. The suspects are reportedly a 52-year-old man and one other.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Even in the Netherlands where police officers do carry sidearms it has proven very difficult to respond to heavily armed criminals (thinking of the Brinks robbery in Amsterdam for the Dutch users). The difference in firepower is just too great in some cases, like this attack.
You could also point to the North Hollywood bank robbery in the USA as an example. Two bank robbers with machine guns and body armour injured 11 policemen armed with handguns and shotguns. It was only when SWAT arrived that the gunmen were able to be subdued.
MrDwhitey wrote: I agree, it's a good idea to change the way you do things at the whim of terrorists.
It would seem better to adapt to an evolving threat than to stay with a process that is proven to not work. Hint: The bad guys are now exploiting the current way of doing business. Hence 12 dead folks and bad guys on the run and armed.
But hey, evolving along with the threat may push folks out of their comfort zone.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Even in the Netherlands where police officers do carry sidearms it has proven very difficult to respond to heavily armed criminals (thinking of the Brinks robbery in Amsterdam for the Dutch users). The difference in firepower is just too great in some cases, like this attack.
You could also point to the North Hollywood bank robbery in the USA as an example. Two bank robbers with machine guns and body armour injured 11 policemen armed with handguns and shotguns. It was only when SWAT arrived that the gunmen were able to be subdued.
It is a GREAT example. As a result of that incident, the LAPD and other LE agencies adapted and evolved.
France has a similar incident and I am hearing "Making changes is giving in, the system as is works fine".
*You'll also note the bad guys were never allowed to break contact with LE in that incident, can't say the same for the attack yesterday.
MrDwhitey wrote: I agree, it's a good idea to change the way you do things at the whim of terrorists.
Look, I'm not saying anything should change. But acting like giving police officers a better chance to survive is like ripping away civil rights is a little much.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Even in the Netherlands where police officers do carry sidearms it has proven very difficult to respond to heavily armed criminals (thinking of the Brinks robbery in Amsterdam for the Dutch users). The difference in firepower is just too great in some cases, like this attack.
You could also point to the North Hollywood bank robbery in the USA as an example. Two bank robbers with machine guns and body armour injured 11 policemen armed with handguns and shotguns. It was only when SWAT arrived that the gunmen were able to be subdued.
But they didn't get away. They were able to keep them in one location till backup arrived.
Also, shotguns are one of the most dangerous close quarter weapons you could ask for. They're quite a deadly weapon.
Is the North Hollywood Shootout though? According to events they got spotted by police before starting the robbery, drastically increasing response time compared with this case.
I agree with Orlanth that the current system seems to do well enough. With SWAT being able to escalate quickly into military support or police special forces, which has happened on one occasion in the Netherlands as well as in Spain to combat terrorists. Now its ongoing in France.
So you and Orlanth are happy with the way the current system worked in this case. Again, we will agree to disagree. The current system allowed the scum to carry out their attack and get away from the scene. It is likely to end up with another shootout at another location putting more folks at risk.
That just isn't 'well enough' for me.
One of the cops was armed, there are reports that the terrorists also carried a RPG that they didn't use, so what exact level of armament should the police carry around to handle that type of threat?
Also, it took you guys 4 days to arrest all the suspects of the Boston Marathon bombing. How come your system didn't prevent those terrorists from carrying out their attack, get away from the scene and end up in shoot outs in other locations?
Your system isn't any better than the European one and one could even argue that its a lot worse because it fosters a much heavier militarization of every day police duties so I have no idea where you guys are arguing for it.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Is the North Hollywood Shootout though? According to events they got spotted by police before starting the robbery, drastically increasing response time compared with this case.
Regardless, the cops were able to arrive and keep the bad guys from breaking contact. The reporting cops who saw them go in were armed, and positioned themselves to engage the perps when they came out all while awaiting back up.
AND as stated, the cops learned from the situation and changed they way they do business.
I agree with Orlanth that the current system seems to do well enough. With SWAT being able to escalate quickly into military support or police special forces, which has happened on one occasion in the Netherlands as well as in Spain to combat terrorists. Now its ongoing in France.
So you and Orlanth are happy with the way the current system worked in this case. Again, we will agree to disagree. The current system allowed the scum to carry out their attack and get away from the scene. It is likely to end up with another shootout at another location putting more folks at risk.
That just isn't 'well enough' for me.
One of the cops was armed, there are reports that the terrorists also carried a RPG that they didn't use, so what exact level of armament should the police carry around to handle that type of threat?
Also, it took you guys 4 days to arrest all the suspects of the Boston Marathon bombing. How come your system didn't prevent those terrorists from carrying out their attack, get away from the scene and end up in shoot outs in other locations?
Your system isn't any better than the European one and one could even argue that its a lot worse because it fosters a much heavier militarization of every day police duties so I have no idea where you guys are arguing for it.
You can't exactly compare these two incidents. With the Boston Bombing there was almost nothing to work off of. These guys left clues that were gathered right away.
One of the cops was armed, there are reports that the terrorists also carried a RPG that they didn't use, so what exact level of armament should the police carry around to handle that type of threat?
Also, it took you guys 4 days to arrest all the suspects of the Boston Marathon bombing. How come your system didn't prevent those terrorists from carrying out their attack, get away from the scene and end up in shoot outs in other locations?
Your system isn't any better than the European one and one could even argue that its a lot worse because it fosters a much heavier militarization of every day police duties so I have no idea where you guys are arguing for it.
You're comparing a bombing to an active shooter situation...totally different animals. We had Reddit neckbeards trolling macro photos of the marathon looking for suspects, and the internet incorrectly accused the wrong guy. In this case, we have video of the shooters committing the act and we have identification that they dropped at the scene.
I agree with Orlanth that the current system seems to do well enough. With SWAT being able to escalate quickly into military support or police special forces, which has happened on one occasion in the Netherlands as well as in Spain to combat terrorists. Now its ongoing in France.
So you and Orlanth are happy with the way the current system worked in this case. Again, we will agree to disagree. The current system allowed the scum to carry out their attack and get away from the scene. It is likely to end up with another shootout at another location putting more folks at risk.
That just isn't 'well enough' for me.
One of the cops was armed, there are reports that the terrorists also carried a RPG that they didn't use, so what exact level of armament should the police carry around to handle that type of threat?
Also, it took you guys 4 days to arrest all the suspects of the Boston Marathon bombing. How come your system didn't prevent those terrorists from carrying out their attack, get away from the scene and end up in shoot outs in other locations?
Your system isn't any better than the European one and one could even argue that its a lot worse because it fosters a much heavier militarization of every day police duties so I have no idea where you guys are arguing for it.
You can't exactly compare these two incidents. With the Boston Bombing there was almost nothing to work off of. These guys left clues that were gathered right away.
How would the clues that they left after leaving the scene help the cops in preventing them from leaving the scene?
There was a lucky break that a patrol car was coming down the street at the exact moment they were entering the bank.
The robbers were also a little dumb in that they didn't attempt to conceal their approach. But the fact the first responders were armed did prevent them from just hopping in a vehicle and driving away.
I agree with Orlanth that the current system seems to do well enough. With SWAT being able to escalate quickly into military support or police special forces, which has happened on one occasion in the Netherlands as well as in Spain to combat terrorists. Now its ongoing in France.
So you and Orlanth are happy with the way the current system worked in this case. Again, we will agree to disagree. The current system allowed the scum to carry out their attack and get away from the scene. It is likely to end up with another shootout at another location putting more folks at risk.
That just isn't 'well enough' for me.
One of the cops was armed, there are reports that the terrorists also carried a RPG that they didn't use, so what exact level of armament should the police carry around to handle that type of threat?
Also, it took you guys 4 days to arrest all the suspects of the Boston Marathon bombing. How come your system didn't prevent those terrorists from carrying out their attack, get away from the scene and end up in shoot outs in other locations?
Your system isn't any better than the European one and one could even argue that its a lot worse because it fosters a much heavier militarization of every day police duties so I have no idea where you guys are arguing for it.
The Boston Marathon was a bombing. At the time of the blast there was no one for cops to chase, no one firing at innocents to engage. Not a good example for you to use at all.
As for the reports of the RPG, so? Again, any armed cops, even with handguns, would have had a chance to slow or prevent the bad guys from breaking contact until reinforcements could arrive. Your armed response cops DID NOT get there in time to prevent the bad guys breaking contact.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Is the North Hollywood Shootout though? According to events they got spotted by police before starting the robbery, drastically increasing response time compared with this case.
Regardless, the cops were able to arrive and keep the bad guys from breaking contact. The reporting cops who saw them go in were armed, and positioned themselves to engage the perps when they came out all while awaiting back up.
AND as stated, the cops learned from the situation and changed they way they do business.
Sure but I'm looking at it from this perspective: by the time the robbers left the bank there were already many more police officers present than the couple that were just arriving on the scene in Paris, which they engaged and incapacitated to enable their escape. If the two police officers who spotted the robbers had been the only ones present it might not be difficult to imagine much the same scenario as in Paris.
One of the cops was armed, there are reports that the terrorists also carried a RPG that they didn't use, so what exact level of armament should the police carry around to handle that type of threat?
Also, it took you guys 4 days to arrest all the suspects of the Boston Marathon bombing. How come your system didn't prevent those terrorists from carrying out their attack, get away from the scene and end up in shoot outs in other locations?
Your system isn't any better than the European one and one could even argue that its a lot worse because it fosters a much heavier militarization of every day police duties so I have no idea where you guys are arguing for it.
You're comparing a bombing to an active shooter situation...totally different animals. We had Reddit neckbeards trolling macro photos of the marathon looking for suspects, and the internet incorrectly accused the wrong guy. In this case, we have video of the shooters committing the act and we have identification that they dropped at the scene.
Again, what does anything of that has to do with how the US police would have prevented the suspects from leaving the scene in the first place?
You can't exactly compare these two incidents. With the Boston Bombing there was almost nothing to work off of. These guys left clues that were gathered right away.
Right but unless that clue was a piece of paper saying "we're going to be in house number X on Y street at Z time" it will take a bit of time to track them down.
Real life isn't like an episode of 24 where you can reposition a satellite in orbit to give you a 1080p picture of the suspects face and exact location you work out based on the reflection of a street sign off their eye.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Even in the Netherlands where police officers do carry sidearms it has proven very difficult to respond to heavily armed criminals (thinking of the Brinks robbery in Amsterdam for the Dutch users). The difference in firepower is just too great in some cases, like this attack.
I agree with Orlanth that the current system seems to do well enough. With SWAT being able to escalate quickly into military support or police special forces, which has happened on one occasion in the Netherlands as well as in Spain to combat terrorists. Now its ongoing in France.
Well enough sure. These events are incredibly rare, thankfully. But you can't discount how powerful that video of the officer being shot is going to end up being in the coming weeks, and the debates that are going to follow this event. I would not be surprised if some changes to come about because of this.
Agreed, perhaps there will be a discussion on protection, I can imagine that sidearms will become part of police equipment, but it is difficult to imagine it going further.
I agree with Orlanth that the current system seems to do well enough. With SWAT being able to escalate quickly into military support or police special forces, which has happened on one occasion in the Netherlands as well as in Spain to combat terrorists. Now its ongoing in France.
So you and Orlanth are happy with the way the current system worked in this case. Again, we will agree to disagree. The current system allowed the scum to carry out their attack and get away from the scene. It is likely to end up with another shootout at another location putting more folks at risk.
That just isn't 'well enough' for me.
Well that is the problem, do you change the whole system for one attack, something that occurs once in a decade? Even so, this type of attack would not allow enough time to respond for a sufficient number of police officers, as they only started to arrive on the scene as the attackers prepared to leave. Also the mentions of them possesing rpg's makes me wonder what police would need to stop them.
Some more news from the BBC
Police sources have told the AFP news agency that two suspects are in custody in connection with the fatal shooting of a policewoman in Paris this morning. The suspects are reportedly a 52-year-old man and one other.
Its not one attack though. So far we've had at least two attacks involving police, not to mention the armed robbery of the gas station.
I'm not really advocating anything here, just that I would bet there will be pressure to at least increase patrols where heavier weapons are in the vehicles.
I agree with Orlanth that the current system seems to do well enough. With SWAT being able to escalate quickly into military support or police special forces, which has happened on one occasion in the Netherlands as well as in Spain to combat terrorists. Now its ongoing in France.
So you and Orlanth are happy with the way the current system worked in this case. Again, we will agree to disagree. The current system allowed the scum to carry out their attack and get away from the scene. It is likely to end up with another shootout at another location putting more folks at risk.
That just isn't 'well enough' for me.
One of the cops was armed, there are reports that the terrorists also carried a RPG that they didn't use, so what exact level of armament should the police carry around to handle that type of threat?
Also, it took you guys 4 days to arrest all the suspects of the Boston Marathon bombing. How come your system didn't prevent those terrorists from carrying out their attack, get away from the scene and end up in shoot outs in other locations?
Your system isn't any better than the European one and one could even argue that its a lot worse because it fosters a much heavier militarization of every day police duties so I have no idea where you guys are arguing for it.
You can't exactly compare these two incidents. With the Boston Bombing there was almost nothing to work off of. These guys left clues that were gathered right away.
How would the clues that they left after leaving the scene help the cops in preventing them from leaving the scene?
Because the situations are in no way similar? You had guys drop an item set to a timer and walk away at Boston. There was no crime committed at that time to alert the authorities. A better comparison would be the LA shooting already referenced in this thread, and the shooters DID NOT get away in that case.
One of the cops was armed, there are reports that the terrorists also carried a RPG that they didn't use, so what exact level of armament should the police carry around to handle that type of threat?
Also, it took you guys 4 days to arrest all the suspects of the Boston Marathon bombing. How come your system didn't prevent those terrorists from carrying out their attack, get away from the scene and end up in shoot outs in other locations?
Your system isn't any better than the European one and one could even argue that its a lot worse because it fosters a much heavier militarization of every day police duties so I have no idea where you guys are arguing for it.
You're comparing a bombing to an active shooter situation...totally different animals. We had Reddit neckbeards trolling macro photos of the marathon looking for suspects, and the internet incorrectly accused the wrong guy. In this case, we have video of the shooters committing the act and we have identification that they dropped at the scene.
Again, what does anything of that has to do with how the US police would have prevented the suspects from leaving the scene in the first place?
MURICA GUNZ.
Is what I think the general argument here boils down to.
One of the cops was armed, there are reports that the terrorists also carried a RPG that they didn't use, so what exact level of armament should the police carry around to handle that type of threat?
Also, it took you guys 4 days to arrest all the suspects of the Boston Marathon bombing. How come your system didn't prevent those terrorists from carrying out their attack, get away from the scene and end up in shoot outs in other locations?
Your system isn't any better than the European one and one could even argue that its a lot worse because it fosters a much heavier militarization of every day police duties so I have no idea where you guys are arguing for it.
You're comparing a bombing to an active shooter situation...totally different animals. We had Reddit neckbeards trolling macro photos of the marathon looking for suspects, and the internet incorrectly accused the wrong guy. In this case, we have video of the shooters committing the act and we have identification that they dropped at the scene.
Again, what does anything of that has to do with how the US police would have prevented the suspects from leaving the scene in the first place?
It isn't a hard concept to grasp. Active shooter = suspect right there, identified and able to be engaged. Remotely detonated bomb = no suspect there able to be engaged.
You can't exactly compare these two incidents. With the Boston Bombing there was almost nothing to work off of. These guys left clues that were gathered right away.
Right but unless that clue was a piece of paper saying "we're going to be in house number X on Y street at Z time" it will take a bit of time to track them down.
Real life isn't like an episode of 24 where you can reposition a satellite in orbit to give you a 1080p picture of the suspects face and exact location.
But that ID card gave them a place to start, very quickly. US authorities had nothing more to go off of then attempting to track down video footage, which took quite a while. So you can't really compare these two incidents in how they went down, or how they were resolved.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Is the North Hollywood Shootout though? According to events they got spotted by police before starting the robbery, drastically increasing response time compared with this case.
Regardless, the cops were able to arrive and keep the bad guys from breaking contact. The reporting cops who saw them go in were armed, and positioned themselves to engage the perps when they came out all while awaiting back up.
AND as stated, the cops learned from the situation and changed they way they do business.
Sure but I'm looking at it from this perspective: by the time the robbers left the bank there were already many more police officers present than the couple that were just arriving on the scene in Paris, which they engaged and incapacitated to enable their escape. If the two police officers who spotted the robbers had been the only ones present it might not be difficult to imagine much the same scenario as in Paris.
And again, the French could not respond with armed officers in time. They responded with unarmed officers and the armed response did not show up. In the US, the first guys to respond would have been armed. That very well could have made a difference.
One of the cops was armed, there are reports that the terrorists also carried a RPG that they didn't use, so what exact level of armament should the police carry around to handle that type of threat?
Also, it took you guys 4 days to arrest all the suspects of the Boston Marathon bombing. How come your system didn't prevent those terrorists from carrying out their attack, get away from the scene and end up in shoot outs in other locations?
Your system isn't any better than the European one and one could even argue that its a lot worse because it fosters a much heavier militarization of every day police duties so I have no idea where you guys are arguing for it.
You're comparing a bombing to an active shooter situation...totally different animals. We had Reddit neckbeards trolling macro photos of the marathon looking for suspects, and the internet incorrectly accused the wrong guy. In this case, we have video of the shooters committing the act and we have identification that they dropped at the scene.
Again, what does anything of that has to do with how the US police would have prevented the suspects from leaving the scene in the first place?
The fact that they were actively shooting people in the open has everything to do with it. In this attack, there were police on scene and others with eyes on the suspects DURING THE ATTACK. In the case of the Boston Marathon bombing, we didn't even know who did it for days. Totally different situation.
The point isn't to throw French law enforcement under the bus, but rather to highlight this incident as a wake up call. Western LEO agencies need to recognize the threat of terrorism and equip officers accordingly. Most of America woke up after the North Hollywood shootout.
One of the cops was armed, there are reports that the terrorists also carried a RPG that they didn't use, so what exact level of armament should the police carry around to handle that type of threat?
Also, it took you guys 4 days to arrest all the suspects of the Boston Marathon bombing. How come your system didn't prevent those terrorists from carrying out their attack, get away from the scene and end up in shoot outs in other locations?
Your system isn't any better than the European one and one could even argue that its a lot worse because it fosters a much heavier militarization of every day police duties so I have no idea where you guys are arguing for it.
You're comparing a bombing to an active shooter situation...totally different animals. We had Reddit neckbeards trolling macro photos of the marathon looking for suspects, and the internet incorrectly accused the wrong guy. In this case, we have video of the shooters committing the act and we have identification that they dropped at the scene.
Again, what does anything of that has to do with how the US police would have prevented the suspects from leaving the scene in the first place?
MURICA GUNZ.
Is what I think the general argument here boils down to.
Oddly enough, that's almost the reason.
1) Cops in the US do respond to armed suspect with regularity.
2) Because of that, everyone is armed. So our cops are at least prepared to face armed resistance, and entertain the possibility of being outgunned. But its better to be outgunned than unarmed. A pistol is still capable of keeping a suspect from approaching you, enough time for better armed responders to come around. Its better than having an "O' " moment right before the bad guy just walks up and empties a bunch of 7.62 into you because you were both unarmed and unarmored.
Its not one attack though. So far we've had at least two attacks involving police, not to mention the armed robbery of the gas station.
I'm not really advocating anything here, just that I would bet there will be pressure to at least increase patrols where heavier weapons are in the vehicles.
Well it depends on what occured when the second attack on police officer happened, as there are not many details about that shooting. It depends on circumstances around these events to guess if there will be a call for heavier weapons, although I can certainly see more pressure to equip sidearms as a rule.
Because the situations are in no way similar? You had guys drop an item set to a timer and walk away at Boston. There was no crime committed at that time to alert the authorities. A better comparison would be the LA shooting already referenced in this thread, and the shooters DID NOT get away in that case.
1) In the LA shooting there were a lot more police on the scene when the shooting actually happened due to prior warning (people seeing them enter the bank with guns).
Hell, there were even news helicopters filming the entire thing. That tells you how much time the police had to respond.
Would they have managed to shut down the situation with only two police officers on the scene due to nobody seeing them enter the bank?
Oh and the two shooters in the North Hollywood shootout had previously robbed an armoured car and two other branches of the Bank of America.
Because the situations are in no way similar? You had guys drop an item set to a timer and walk away at Boston. There was no crime committed at that time to alert the authorities. A better comparison would be the LA shooting already referenced in this thread, and the shooters DID NOT get away in that case.
1) In the LA shooting there were a lot more police on the scene when the shooting actually happened due to prior warning (people seeing them enter the bank with guns).
Would they have managed to shut down the situation with only two police officers on the scene due to nobody seeing them enter the bank?
The officers were the ones who radio'd in the situation. The bank never managed to call police.
2 armed officers were clearly more than sufficient to hold down the situation till backup arrived.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Is the North Hollywood Shootout though? According to events they got spotted by police before starting the robbery, drastically increasing response time compared with this case.
Regardless, the cops were able to arrive and keep the bad guys from breaking contact. The reporting cops who saw them go in were armed, and positioned themselves to engage the perps when they came out all while awaiting back up.
AND as stated, the cops learned from the situation and changed they way they do business.
Sure but I'm looking at it from this perspective: by the time the robbers left the bank there were already many more police officers present than the couple that were just arriving on the scene in Paris, which they engaged and incapacitated to enable their escape. If the two police officers who spotted the robbers had been the only ones present it might not be difficult to imagine much the same scenario as in Paris.
And again, the French could not respond with armed officers in time. They responded with unarmed officers and the armed response did not show up. In the US, the first guys to respond would have been armed. That very well could have made a difference.
Point granted, but it is all speculation if police with sidearms responding would have helped, as there are cases here in the Netherlands which disprove it, as well as US cases that would prove it.
The Boston Marathon was a bombing. At the time of the blast there was no one for cops to chase, no one firing at innocents to engage. Not a good example for you to use at all.
As for the reports of the RPG, so? Again, any armed cops, even with handguns, would have had a chance to slow or prevent the bad guys from breaking contact until reinforcements could arrive. Your armed response cops DID NOT get there in time to prevent the bad guys breaking contact.
So? You said it yourself, the amount of weapons expertise that these guys demonstrated was pretty good. Do you think that, had the cops in that initial patrol car, had given them a bigger challenge with handguns or even small automatic weapons that they wouldn't have deployed the RPG to end that threat? Why do you imagine that they carried the RPG in the first place?
And there was an armed cop in the building, he was the personal security detail for the editor of the newspaper, he accomplished nothing and neither would the cops in the patrol car if they had had heavier weapons, except probably getting themselves killed as well.
You guys always argue for bigger weapons for the cops to carry around, and then complain endlessly about the militarization of your country's police force. What is it? You can't have both you know...
The officers were the ones who radio'd in the situation. The bank never managed to call police.
2 armed officers were clearly more than sufficient to hold down the situation till backup arrived.
Well I googled it, first result was wikipedia, just says this:
While the robbers were still inside, more patrol and detective units arrived and took strategic positions at all four corners of the bank, effectively surrounding it
The Boston Marathon was a bombing. At the time of the blast there was no one for cops to chase, no one firing at innocents to engage. Not a good example for you to use at all.
As for the reports of the RPG, so? Again, any armed cops, even with handguns, would have had a chance to slow or prevent the bad guys from breaking contact until reinforcements could arrive. Your armed response cops DID NOT get there in time to prevent the bad guys breaking contact.
So? You said it yourself, the amount of weapons expertise that these guys demonstrated was pretty good. Do you think that, had the cops in that initial patrol car, had given them a bigger challenge with handguns or even small automatic weapons that they wouldn't have deployed the RPG to end that threat? Why do you imagine that they carried the RPG in the first place?
And there was an armed cop in the building, he was the personal security detail for the editor of the newspaper, he accomplished nothing and neither would the cops in the patrol car if they had had heavier weapons, except probably getting themselves killed as well.
You guys always argue for bigger weapons for the cops to carry around, and then complain endlessly about the militarization of your country's police force. What is it? You can't have both you know...
I don't complain about it. Notice how the French military is involved in this hunt? It is flat out illegal for the US military to partake in domestic crime issues.
The Boston Marathon was a bombing. At the time of the blast there was no one for cops to chase, no one firing at innocents to engage. Not a good example for you to use at all.
As for the reports of the RPG, so? Again, any armed cops, even with handguns, would have had a chance to slow or prevent the bad guys from breaking contact until reinforcements could arrive. Your armed response cops DID NOT get there in time to prevent the bad guys breaking contact.
So? You said it yourself, the amount of weapons expertise that these guys demonstrated was pretty good. Do you think that, had the cops in that initial patrol car, had given them a bigger challenge with handguns or even small automatic weapons that they wouldn't have deployed the RPG to end that threat? Why do you imagine that they carried the RPG in the first place?
And there was an armed cop in the building, he was the personal security detail for the editor of the newspaper, he accomplished nothing and neither would the cops in the patrol car if they had had heavier weapons, except probably getting themselves killed as well.
You guys always argue for bigger weapons for the cops to carry around, and then complain endlessly about the militarization of your country's police force. What is it? You can't have both you know...
Militarization has nothing to do with cops carrying around a rifle in the patrol car. It has to do with getting tooled up and kicking in peoples' doors over marijuana sales, when the correct course of action is to wait to nab the guy when he comes out to get a pack of smokes.
I don't complain about it. Notice how the French military is involved in this hunt? It is flat out illegal for the US military to partake in domestic crime issues.
AFAIK no French military are involved in this hunt, both the units mentioned are special police units and not military.
I don't complain about it. Notice how the French military is involved in this hunt? It is flat out illegal for the US military to partake in domestic crime issues.
AFAIK no French military are involved in this hunt, both the units mentioned are special police units and not military.
I don't complain about it. Notice how the French military is involved in this hunt? It is flat out illegal for the US military to partake in domestic crime issues.
AFAIK no French military are involved in this hunt, both the units mentioned are special police units and not military.
The GIGN involved is a military unit.
According to the French news 1150 soldiers are participating in this operation.
The GIGN is the National Gendarmerie Intervention Group, they are part of the National Gendarmerie which is a military force whose sole responsibility is police duties. They are a military force indeed but they aren't part of the military, hence my confusion since we don't really consider them to be "real" military.
We have the same thing over here in our Republican Guard (oh, the laughs we had when these guys were deployed to Iraq), they are military organizations but their sole responsibility is police duty.
Medium of Death wrote: If find it incredulous that they've supposedly been following them for hours and have yet to apprehend over even kill them.
I would rather no other cop died, so if they are doing this to maximize their chance to have no casualty (cops or civilian, actually), then I completely support it.
Medium of Death wrote: Honestly if French people themselves had had guns these scum would have been dead by now.
People or cops?
I think I can safely say that most people in France would not get guns even if the law allowed for it, and nobody is calling for anything related to gun control. The current “stupid debate raised up by the attack” is on death penalty. Well, at least this is the debate Marine Le Pen wants to raise, apparently.
djones520 wrote: I don't complain about it. Notice how the French military is involved in this hunt? It is flat out illegal for the US military to partake in domestic crime issues.
To expand on this, I'm going to add "normally" as a prefix or suffix to that last sentence.
Djones already knows what I am about to say but our international posters might not - our military is indeed normally prohibited from undertaking a civil law enforcement role. However, there are some rare exceptions in which the military can assist, and while pointing them out normally just makes you a pedantic jerk because they are so rare*, in this case since it's one of them it's probably appropriate.
To be more specific: with heavily armed gunmen of the type seen here, the governor of the state can declare a state of emergency and activate the national guard.
Additionally, the Insurrection act was expanded in 2006 to expressly allow the President to use federal troops to respond to a terrorist attack (among a few other things).
So if something like this happened in the US and it was felt that local SWAT or FBI SWAT couldn't handle it, there are numerous avenues in which regular military forces such as the Marines or a SEAL team to engage them.
*I can only think of 2 or 3 times in the last 20 years that the national guard was deployed to restore order, and only once that regular military did the same
By the way, I know Americans think our police goes out with flowers in their hands instead of weapons against criminals. Well, they're not stupid. They are armed. We have elite forces as well and they aren't jokes. The ones deployed right now in France have nothing to be ashamed of compared with your heavy armed policemen in America. Just like yours, they can't be everywhere all the time, it's as simple as that.
In this case, let's face it, the killers were prepared. They were trained. They knew where to go. They launched an attack against a satyrical magazine and wanted to kill very specific people. They knew they were there. Even in America, your police would be caught off guard if this happened, because "normal" police isn't suited against military type terrorist attacks. Maybe they would be killed more quickly in the end...but I'm pretty sure as well their targets would already been dead before their murderers were put down.
The policemen killed in France were the same. They fell into a trap and were murdered. They didn't have a chance to call reinforcements before the killers ran off. Having guns on civilians wouldn't have helped at all. Just adding more dead if someone wanted to play hero or cow-boy.
Their purpose has already been filled. If they die, they would be martyrs. If they live...well, I'm pretty sure they know they're better off dead, in fact. At least, in America, for sure...meaning they wouldn't be afraid to leave with a big bang, making more civilian deaths just because they have nothing to lose.
So stop saying stupid things like "it wouldn't have happened if all Europeans had guns with them". It would. Having a gun doesn't mean you will be ready to use it always, all the time. Or, if you try, something tragic is more likely to happen, like your child killing you with your own weapon because you didn't see what he did for a few seconds.
I'm talking about civilians here, without a serious training and awareness about how handling a gun. I'm not talking about "common sense", because I can see that even this is lacking in many more people nowadays. The numbers of death "by accident" in America because of guns talk by themselves; civilians aren't suited nor meant to use weapons. Even if I leave this aside, civilians are certainly NOT prepared to be faced with people trained to kill and knowing exactly what they do, where they go and when they go.
About the consequences, it's already happening with the "bombs" against mosques in France; acts of "revenge" againt innocent muslims (most likely people "who look like muslims" even if they aren't at all, in fact...) without discernment. And, of course, some politician will gladly use the fear of people so that they can grab power in the end. Front National can't be more than happy with this event; it's litterally holy bread for them.
Normal military cannot be involved in civilian police duties over here as well (well, AFAIK that is).
These guys aren't part of the normal military, their sole purpose is police duty and they answer to the same chain of command as the civilian police (the Minister of the Interior).
I think that you guys in the US don't have an equivalent police force.
You guys do realise that it's pretty hard for an armed officer to take his weapon and kill a man in a kevlar vest armed with an ak-47 that suddenly appears before he gets shot, right?
You guys do realise that it's pretty hard for an armed officer to take his weapon and kill a man in a kevlar vest armed with an ak-47 that suddenly appears before he gets shot, right?
As has been said repeatedly, there may not have been any difference. The armed officers may have just held them up for a minute or two before being killed. They may have wounded the guys. They may have gotten a lucky head or femoral artery shot and just dropped the guys.
No one can say with any certainty what may have happened. All we are saying is that there would have been possibilities for other things to happen, that is all.
You guys do realise that it's pretty hard for an armed officer to take his weapon and kill a man in a kevlar vest armed with an ak-47 that suddenly appears before he gets shot, right?
As has been said repeatedly, there may not have been any difference. The armed officers may have just held them up for a minute or two before being killed. They may have wounded the guys. They may have gotten a lucky head or femoral artery shot and just dropped the guys.
No one can say with any certainty what may have happened. All we are saying is that there would have been possibilities for other things to happen, that is all.
Except their wouldn't, because they'd have no time to react.
You guys do realise that it's pretty hard for an armed officer to take his weapon and kill a man in a kevlar vest armed with an ak-47 that suddenly appears before he gets shot, right?
As has been said repeatedly, there may not have been any difference. The armed officers may have just held them up for a minute or two before being killed. They may have wounded the guys. They may have gotten a lucky head or femoral artery shot and just dropped the guys.
No one can say with any certainty what may have happened. All we are saying is that there would have been possibilities for other things to happen, that is all.
Except their wouldn't, because they'd have no time to react.
thenoobbomb wrote: You guys do realise that it's pretty hard for an armed officer to take his weapon and kill a man in a kevlar vest armed with an ak-47 that suddenly appears before he gets shot, right?
At the very least by being able to engage the perpetrators it would have caused then to adjust their plan, possibly wounded or otherwise pinned down the perpetrators, given the other officers on the scene a chance to flank the perpetrators, and given the people in the office an opportunity to escape.
At the very least this suggestion has more advantages than disadvantages given the present scenario.
You guys do realise that it's pretty hard for an armed officer to take his weapon and kill a man in a kevlar vest armed with an ak-47 that suddenly appears before he gets shot, right?
As has been said repeatedly, there may not have been any difference. The armed officers may have just held them up for a minute or two before being killed. They may have wounded the guys. They may have gotten a lucky head or femoral artery shot and just dropped the guys.
No one can say with any certainty what may have happened. All we are saying is that there would have been possibilities for other things to happen, that is all.
Except their wouldn't, because they'd have no time to react.
You don't know that.
Two police officers not expecting a thing, versus two heavily armed terrorists that have been planning this for a very long time? Ehh..
thenoobbomb wrote: You guys do realise that it's pretty hard for an armed officer to take his weapon and kill a man in a kevlar vest armed with an ak-47 that suddenly appears before he gets shot, right?
At the very least by being able to engage the perpetrators it would have caused then to adjust their plan, possibly wounded or otherwise pinned down the perpetrators, given the other officers on the scene a chance to flank the perpetrators, and given the people in the office an opportunity to escape.
At the very least this suggestion has more advantages than disadvantages given the present scenario.
So you think that they'd even get the chance to react? It wouldn't have mattered in the slightest. One of them was armed, and shot before he could do a thing.
Sarouan wrote: By the way, I know Americans think our police goes out with flowers in their hands instead of weapons against criminals. Well, they're not stupid. They are armed. We have elite forces as well and they aren't jokes. The ones deployed right now in France have nothing to be ashamed of compared with your heavy armed policemen in America. Just like yours, they can't be everywhere all the time, it's as simple as that.
In this case, let's face it, the killers were prepared. They were trained. They knew where to go. They launched an attack against a satyrical magazine and wanted to kill very specific people. They knew they were there. Even in America, your police would be caught off guard if this happened, because "normal" police isn't suited against military type terrorist attacks. Maybe they would be killed more quickly in the end...but I'm pretty sure as well their targets would already been dead before their murderers were put down.
The policemen killed in France were the same. They fell into a trap and were murdered. They didn't have a chance to call reinforcements before the killers ran off. Having guns on civilians wouldn't have helped at all. Just adding more dead if someone wanted to play hero or cow-boy.
Their purpose has already been filled. If they die, they would be martyrs. If they live...well, I'm pretty sure they know they're better off dead, in fact. At least, in America, for sure...meaning they wouldn't be afraid to leave with a big bang, making more civilian deaths just because they have nothing to lose.
So stop saying stupid things like "it wouldn't have happened if all Europeans had guns with them". It would. Having a gun doesn't mean you will be ready to use it always, all the time. Or, if you try, something tragic is more likely to happen, like your child killing you with your own weapon because you didn't see what he did for a few seconds.
I'm talking about civilians here, without a serious training and awareness about how handling a gun. I'm not talking about "common sense", because I can see that even this is lacking in much many more people nowadays. The numbers of death "by accident" in America because of guns talk by themselves; civilians aren't suited nor meant to use weapons.
About the consequences, it's already happening with the "bombs" against mosques in France; acts of "revenge" againt innocent muslims without discernment. And, of course, some politician will gladly use the fear of people so that they can grab power in the end. Front National can't be more than happy with this event; it's litterally holy bread for them.
I'm quite disgusted that this happened, honestly.
Actually I didn't know they were unarmed until this happened.
Have there been bombs against mosques reported? I have not seen that reported here.
thenoobbomb wrote: You guys do realise that it's pretty hard for an armed officer to take his weapon and kill a man in a kevlar vest armed with an ak-47 that suddenly appears before he gets shot, right?
At the very least by being able to engage the perpetrators it would have caused then to adjust their plan, possibly wounded or otherwise pinned down the perpetrators, given the other officers on the scene a chance to flank the perpetrators, and given the people in the office an opportunity to escape. At the very least this suggestion has more advantages than disadvantages given the present scenario.
Well its not a question of escape really, the unarmed officers arrived at the scene when the shooting was happening/already happened. The one that was armed and present is amongst the dead in the office.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Have there been bombs against mosques reported? I have not seen that reported here.
This has been the image the BBC and other media have shown in regards to actions against muslims so far (spoilered for size).
Armed robbery is noisy. Personally, I'd have gotten a haircut, and simply paid in cash. Nobody notices that, and a shave and a haircut can be pretty effective in changing your appearance.
12 French-Canadian newspapers (including the biggest names) have decided to show support to the fallen and reproduced one of the most controversial depiction of Mohamet on their front page. In it, you can see the prophet of Islam shaking his head and lamenting "it's hard to be loved by morons".
I was wondering if you had heard of any similar initiatives?
As has been said repeatedly, there may not have been any difference. The armed officers may have just held them up for a minute or two before being killed. They may have wounded the guys. They may have gotten a lucky head or femoral artery shot and just dropped the guys.
No one can say with any certainty what may have happened. All we are saying is that there would have been possibilities for other things to happen, that is all.
Say that to your two New-Yorker policemen being ambushed by someone prepared to kill http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2014-12/21/c_133869528.htm. I'm pretty sure they would tell you how easy it is not to be caught off guard. Oh wait, they can't...they're dead.
You can build Rome in one day with your "if". Reality tells you something else, always. Sadly.
Kovnik Obama wrote: 12 French-Canadian newspapers (including the biggest names) have decided to show support to the fallen and reproduced one of the most controversial depiction of Mohamet on their front page. In it, you can see the prophet of Islam shaking his head and lamenting "it's hard to be loved by morons".
I was wondering if you had heard of any similar initiatives?
Quite a few newspapers have done cartoons. One Danish newspaper printed the same cartoon as you mentioned on their front page. Several large Dutch papers are doing cartoons as well, one has one of the last cartoons that was drawn and another has a front page cartoon where a Muslim is french-kissing (quite intense makeout session) Charlie. Same goes for Belgian newspapers as far as I have seen.
thenoobbomb wrote: So you think that they'd even get the chance to react? It wouldn't have mattered in the slightest. One of them was armed, and shot before he could do a thing.
As has been said repeatedly, there may not have been any difference. The armed officers may have just held them up for a minute or two before being killed. They may have wounded the guys. They may have gotten a lucky head or femoral artery shot and just dropped the guys.
No one can say with any certainty what may have happened. All we are saying is that there would have been possibilities for other things to happen, that is all.
Say that to your two New-Yorker policemen being ambushed by someone prepared to kill http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2014-12/21/c_133869528.htm. I'm pretty sure they would tell you how easy it is not to be caught off guard. Oh wait, they can't...they're dead.
You can build Rome in one day with your "if". Reality tells you something else, always. Sadly.
Again - it's not a comparable situation. The NYPD officers were the TARGET of the attack. The officers in France were not the target of the attack.
Again - it's not a comparable situation. The NYPD officers were the TARGET of the attack. The officers in France were not the target of the attack.
That's what you are saying.
The killers went into a patrol. They went for the killing purposedly. By the way, so that you know, Charlie Hebdo, the target, was under police protection because of former threats.
For the policewoman in Paris, it was a target. By someone else. Another killer, who fled. She was killed in the back without hesitation.
So yes, it's a comparable situation. I know it disturbs you in your "guns always protect the people who hold them" credo, but that's reality. Holding a weapon doesn't prevent you from being murdered.
Armed robbery is noisy. Personally, I'd have gotten a haircut, and simply paid in cash. Nobody notices that, and a shave and a haircut can be pretty effective in changing your appearance.
Seems a bit incompetent, given how meticulously planned the rest of their actions have been. Did they really just forget to plan ahead for Escape funds? Why risk an armed robbery with an extremely high profile and intense man hunt underway when they could have had bags of cash stashed somewhere?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Seems a bit incompetent, given how meticulously planned the rest of their actions have been. Did they really just forget to plan ahead for Escape funds? Why risk an armed robbery with an extremely high profile and intense man hunt underway when they could have had bags of cash stashed somewhere?
With the attention from police, and a close relative in police custody then their hand may have been forced and they had to improvise alternatives.
I was under the impression that French police were able to decide whether or not they wanted to carry a sidearm.
As to all the guns=murder posts, guns are tools. Nothing more. Carrying a gun, which I do at almost all times, gives me options that unarmed people don't have.
Again - it's not a comparable situation. The NYPD officers were the TARGET of the attack. The officers in France were not the target of the attack.
That's what you are saying.
The killers went into a patrol. They went for the killing purposedly. By the way, so that you know, Charlie Hebdo, the target, was under police protection because of former threats.
For the policewoman in Paris, it was a target. By someone else. Another killer, who fled. She was killed in the back without hesitation.
So yes, it's a comparable situation. I know it disturbs you in your "guns always protect the people who hold them" credo, but that's reality. Holding a weapon doesn't prevent you from being murdered.
It is NOT a comparable situation.
NYPD: Gunman attacks OFFICERS with the intent of killing officers. Officers have no time to react.
Charlie Hebdo: Gunmen attack BUILDING with the intent of killing CARTOONISTS. Officer outside the building had time to react.
If you don't understand the above, then I encourage you to enroll in an ESL course before responding.
I know very well that holding a weapon does not prevent you from being murdered. No amount of strawmen on your part will fill the deficiencies in your logic.
Again - it's not a comparable situation. The NYPD officers were the TARGET of the attack. The officers in France were not the target of the attack.
That's what you are saying.
The killers went into a patrol. They went for the killing purposedly. By the way, so that you know, Charlie Hebdo, the target, was under police protection because of former threats.
For the policewoman in Paris, it was a target. By someone else. Another killer, who fled. She was killed in the back without hesitation.
So yes, it's a comparable situation. I know it disturbs you in your "guns always protect the people who hold them" credo, but that's reality. Holding a weapon doesn't prevent you from being murdered.
It is NOT a comparable situation.
NYPD: Gunman attacks OFFICERS with the intent of killing officers. Officers have no time to react.
Charlie Hebdo: Gunmen attack BUILDING with the intent of killing CARTOONISTS. Officer outside the building had time to react.
If you don't understand the above, then I encourage you to enroll in an ESL course before responding.
I know very well that holding a weapon does not prevent you from being murdered. No amount of strawmen on your part will fill the deficiencies in your logic.
You realise that one of the two officers was inside, and the other was shot on the street?
Kovnik Obama wrote: 12 French-Canadian newspapers (including the biggest names) have decided to show support to the fallen and reproduced one of the most controversial depiction of Mohamet on their front page. In it, you can see the prophet of Islam shaking his head and lamenting "it's hard to be loved by morons".
I was wondering if you had heard of any similar initiatives?
All the cartoons and comics in my newspaper were replaced by "#JesuisCharlie" in white letters on a black background.
To clear some things up, the unarmed officer was not killed at the location of the shooting, although the armed officer was. As the BBC overview makes clear the officer encountered them, perhaps out of accident, when they had already left. He was most likely just as surprised by them as the armed one. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30708237
The black Citroen is thought to have driven south down the Boulevard Richard Lenoir, before doubling back on the northern carriageway. The car stopped and video footage shows the gunmen got out of the vehicle and shot police officer Ahmed Merabet, 42.
One of the attackers then walked up to the officer lying injured on the pavement and killed him at close range before returning to the car and driving away with his accomplice.
Seems a bit incompetent, given how meticulously planned the rest of their actions have been. Did they really just forget to plan ahead for Escape funds? Why risk an armed robbery with an extremely high profile and intense man hunt underway when they could have had bags of cash stashed somewhere?
Because now that manhunt will be focused like a laser on points between that robbery and the boarder, with police making the assumption that they're trying to evade and escape. What I'd do now would be reverse course toward the coast instead and either steal or highjack (preferably steal) a sailboat or something else small but with range. A lot of yacht clubs stow their ships in boathouses for the winter along the north coast. With luck, a theft might not be discovered right away.
Yep. Magazine building was indeed the target
The two Paris LEO were unfortunate secondary when they rolled into it
If they had a RPG then they wouldn't need to have to gain access to the office building and call out names. They would have used more likely a thermobaric or fragmentation rounds and wreck the building and kill everyone.
I think the cop killer has a grenade launcher (GP30). Can see the protrusion of something slung under his AK as he jogs up and opted out the LEO.
Rather than worrying about the gun situation I think that if they didn't let Islamic Terrorist into the country the situation wouldn't occur, perhaps when the gunmen left the country to act as Jihadist and returned they should have been barred from re-entry. If somebody willingly joins a known terrorist group I think that it should be grounds for revoking their rights to participate in any civilized society. Want to go join a foreign terrorist army? Go get your haj on but don't come back.
Jihadin wrote: Yep. Magazine building was indeed the target
The two Paris LEO were unfortunate secondary when they rolled into it
If they had a RPG then they wouldn't need to have to gain access to the office building and call out names. They would have used more likely a thermobaric or fragmentation rounds and wreck the building and kill everyone.
I think the cop killer has a grenade launcher (GP30). Can see the protrusion of something slung under his AK as he jogs up and opted out the LEO.
Journalists and workers who had taken refuge on nearby rooftops filmed the gunmen getting out of the car, walking and shooting at the police vehicle, before driving off.
The police car's windscreen was riddled with bullets but the officers escaped unhurt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
stanman wrote: Rather than worrying about the gun situation I think that if they didn't let Islamic Terrorist into the country the situation wouldn't occur, perhaps when the gunmen left the country to act as Jihadist and returned they should have been barred from re-entry. If somebody willingly joins a known terrorist group I think that it should be grounds for revoking their rights to participate in any civilized society. Want to go join a foreign terrorist army? don't come back.
This has been an issue for a longer period, in the Netherlands you better not join up with jihadists in Syria, because you might lose your social benefits when you return
As experience as they are they know as soon as they fire that weapon every caliber of weapons going to pour into that position. With the launcher is more "shrouded" when fired. Also can move more freely with AK's and magazines then a RPG with multiple rounds
stanman wrote: Rather than worrying about the gun situation I think that if they didn't let Islamic Terrorist into the country the situation wouldn't occur, perhaps when the gunmen left the country to act as Jihadist and returned they should have been barred from re-entry. If somebody willingly joins a known terrorist group I think that it should be grounds for revoking their rights to participate in any civilized society. Want to go join a foreign terrorist army? Go get your haj on but don't come back.
He was detained in 2005 as he prepared to leave France for Syria, where he hoped to be trained to fight Americans. He has been living recently with the second suspect, his older brother Said, 34, in the home of a convert to Islam, and has worked occasionally as a pizza delivery man or a shop assistant.
It was not immediately known whether either suspect ever managed to leave France to join jihadist networks. But both men appeared to have gotten training in the use of commando tactics and firearms, and were prepared for their mission of killing the leadership of Charlie Hebdo.
Most of all, they seemed determined to kill Mr. Charbonnier, who was on a Qaeda list of “most wanted” Westerners for publishing cartoons that provoked radical Muslims with irreverent representations of the Prophet Muhammad.
Again - it's not a comparable situation. The NYPD officers were the TARGET of the attack. The officers in France were not the target of the attack.
That's what you are saying.
The killers went into a patrol. They went for the killing purposedly. By the way, so that you know, Charlie Hebdo, the target, was under police protection because of former threats.
For the policewoman in Paris, it was a target. By someone else. Another killer, who fled. She was killed in the back without hesitation.
So yes, it's a comparable situation. I know it disturbs you in your "guns always protect the people who hold them" credo, but that's reality. Holding a weapon doesn't prevent you from being murdered.
It is NOT a comparable situation.
NYPD: Gunman attacks OFFICERS with the intent of killing officers. Officers have no time to react.
Charlie Hebdo: Gunmen attack BUILDING with the intent of killing CARTOONISTS. Officer outside the building had time to react.
If you don't understand the above, then I encourage you to enroll in an ESL course before responding.
I know very well that holding a weapon does not prevent you from being murdered. No amount of strawmen on your part will fill the deficiencies in your logic.
Yes, and in Paris the armed officer was killed inside the building. As soon as they exit that building, every police officer is now a threat, as is obvious from the fact they killed and attempted to kill the next three that they encountered. Don't pretend that they had no intention of killing police officers, they were prepared to do so, and the facts speak for themselves.
Did some digging around, this perhaps changes the views of the weapon debate, the officer that was executed had been armed according to the BBC. So both officers killed had been armed.
Arriving at the scene of the attack, the 42-year-old opened fire on the gunmen but was injured in the exchange, Le Figaro writes.
Then, as he lay on the ground, a gunman shot him in the head from close range, in an act captured on amateur video.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Did some digging around, this perhaps changes the views of the weapon debate, the officer that was executed had been armed according to the BBC. So both officers killed had been armed.
Arriving at the scene of the attack, the 42-year-old opened fire on the gunmen but was injured in the exchange, Le Figaro writes.
Then, as he lay on the ground, a gunman shot him in the head from close range, in an act captured on amateur video.
Again - it's not a comparable situation. The NYPD officers were the TARGET of the attack. The officers in France were not the target of the attack.
That's what you are saying.
The killers went into a patrol. They went for the killing purposedly. By the way, so that you know, Charlie Hebdo, the target, was under police protection because of former threats.
For the policewoman in Paris, it was a target. By someone else. Another killer, who fled. She was killed in the back without hesitation.
So yes, it's a comparable situation. I know it disturbs you in your "guns always protect the people who hold them" credo, but that's reality. Holding a weapon doesn't prevent you from being murdered.
It is NOT a comparable situation.
NYPD: Gunman attacks OFFICERS with the intent of killing officers. Officers have no time to react.
Charlie Hebdo: Gunmen attack BUILDING with the intent of killing CARTOONISTS. Officer outside the building had time to react.
If you don't understand the above, then I encourage you to enroll in an ESL course before responding.
I know very well that holding a weapon does not prevent you from being murdered. No amount of strawmen on your part will fill the deficiencies in your logic.
Yes, and in Paris the armed officer was killed inside the building. As soon as they exit that building, every police officer is now a threat, as is obvious from the fact they killed and attempted to kill the next three that they encountered. Don't pretend that they had no intention of killing police officers, they were prepared to do so, and the facts speak for themselves.
Again: Strawman.
Who was the target of the attack in NY? NYPD officers.
Who was the target of this attack? Not French officers.
Being prepared to shoot French LEOs != targeting French LEOs.
I guess the unarmed comments must have been aimed at the two officers that first arrived at the scene but escaped unharmed. Regardless, it is still sad that in this case being armed for the two killed officers did not help.
I highly doubt they are going to surrender. Better get an rotary wing aircraft in there with a FLIR and basically run them to the ground with exhaustion. France would really want to know how they manage to get the weapons into country and the network (human) in play to make that happen.
Since the French Foreign Legion is use to dealing with Insurgents they should be the one's sweeping the forest. They're use to a RoE.
Edit
The intel came from one witness who seem to have seen the individuals leave a silver vehicle and enter into the woods...
Alternatively, sit tight. Have Australia fly in some of its more cuddly native life. They'll be out in no time. Of course you'll have to nuke the forest after. Its hard to kill those drop bear nests.
Again - it's not a comparable situation. The NYPD officers were the TARGET of the attack. The officers in France were not the target of the attack.
That's what you are saying.
The killers went into a patrol. They went for the killing purposedly. By the way, so that you know, Charlie Hebdo, the target, was under police protection because of former threats.
For the policewoman in Paris, it was a target. By someone else. Another killer, who fled. She was killed in the back without hesitation.
So yes, it's a comparable situation. I know it disturbs you in your "guns always protect the people who hold them" credo, but that's reality. Holding a weapon doesn't prevent you from being murdered.
It is NOT a comparable situation.
NYPD: Gunman attacks OFFICERS with the intent of killing officers. Officers have no time to react.
Charlie Hebdo: Gunmen attack BUILDING with the intent of killing CARTOONISTS. Officer outside the building had time to react.
If you don't understand the above, then I encourage you to enroll in an ESL course before responding.
I know very well that holding a weapon does not prevent you from being murdered. No amount of strawmen on your part will fill the deficiencies in your logic.
Yes, and in Paris the armed officer was killed inside the building. As soon as they exit that building, every police officer is now a threat, as is obvious from the fact they killed and attempted to kill the next three that they encountered. Don't pretend that they had no intention of killing police officers, they were prepared to do so, and the facts speak for themselves.
Again: Strawman.
Who was the target of the attack in NY? NYPD officers.
Who was the target of this attack? Not French officers.
Being prepared to shoot French LEOs != targeting French LEOs.
No, but they clearly had every intention of killing Police officers that got in their way. Hell, they even went out of their way to finish off a wounded officer instead of immediately escaping and leaving him writhing on the ground.
Jihadin wrote: The 18 year old it seems was not involve? Alibi of being in class at the time of the shooting backed by other students. So where is the third guy?
Has it been confirmed? So far Ive only seen the news referencing a trending twitter topic.
Jihadin wrote: The 18 year old it seems was not involve? Alibi of being in class at the time of the shooting backed by other students. So where is the third guy?
Has it been confirmed? So far Ive only seen the news referencing a trending twitter topic.
Shepard Smith on Fox went over it. The kid it seems knows the brothers but was in class. Like "Guilty by Association" came into play
Torga_DW wrote: Have they narrowed down their location yet? Better question, did they close the border or upgrade security/inspections at the border at any point?
'Northern France'. is as far as anyone seems willing to say. UK has started tightening security at ports, so someone in the Home Office had the same thoughts I did. The problem is as more time passes, your search areas tend ot get bigger rather than smaller unless you start getting solid leads.
They are still searching the previously mentioned area (20 by 15km or 13 by 10 miles), nothing yet. As far as news provides only the UK has stepped up border security, none of the other surrounding countries or France itself.
Torga_DW wrote: Have they narrowed down their location yet? Better question, did they close the border or upgrade security/inspections at the border at any point?
'Northern France'. is as far as anyone seems willing to say. UK has started tightening security at ports, so someone in the Home Office had the same thoughts I did. The problem is as more time passes, your search areas tend ot get bigger rather than smaller unless you start getting solid leads.
Yeah, is why i was kind of hoping they might have thought of the borders by now. Glad to see the UK is taking steps at least. Apparently australia has received a terror warning for indonesia (iirc) recently, there may have been other things planned to coincide with the shooting.
Jihadin wrote: Since the French Foreign Legion is use to dealing with Insurgents they should be the one's sweeping the forest.
I have a cousin who is officer in the FFL. But I do not think they can be deployed inside of France. They are the crazy BAFM that you send into the worst situations were their craziness is an asset rather than a liability. So, preferably when there are no French bystanders around .
What's so---I don't know--strange? about all this is I had never even heard of Charlie Hedbo before, and likely never would have, but now I have seen every cartoon about Mohammed they have ever published.
jasper76 wrote: What's so---I don't know--strange? about all this is I had never even heard of Charlie Hedbo before, and likely never would have, but now I have seen every cartoon about Mohammed they have ever published.
Only had heard of them when they ran that comic and even then didn't really pay any attention to it as it fell under gak I could care less about. The shooting however makes me both angry and sad for the victims, nobody should ever have to die over a comic no matter how insulting. But sadly there's very unreasonable people in the world.
“Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. ‘Respect for religion’ has become a code phrase meaning ‘fear of religion.’ Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect.” –Salman Rushdie (originally posted on English Pen)
Ahtman wrote: Salman Rushdie on the Charlie Hebdo attack:
“Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. ‘Respect for religion’ has become a code phrase meaning ‘fear of religion.’ Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect.” –Salman Rushdie (originally posted on English Pen)
Karl Marx, on religion in general:
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."
I'm not sure what your point is. You are comparing somebody who didn't advocate with something to somebody who did.
Marx did advocate for an abandonment of religion.
Jesus did not advocate for the crusades.
How is this comparable?
Because abandonment of religion had nothing to do with the deaths of those millions of people.
And that both those millions of deaths by the USSR and the thousands of deaths due to the crusades were carried out based on an individuals interpretation of the teachings of somebody who was already dead and hence had no way to influence the result.
The aim of communism, as laid out in Marx's manifesto, was this:
1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3) Abolition of all right of inheritance. 4) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5) Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 5) Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 6) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 7) Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 8) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country. 9) Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production.
Where in that list does it call for the murder of millions of people?
I'm not sure what your point is. You are comparing somebody who didn't advocate with something to somebody who did.
Marx did advocate for an abandonment of religion.
Jesus did not advocate for the crusades.
How is this comparable?
Because abandonment of religion had nothing to do with the deaths of those millions of people.
And that both those millions of deaths by the USSR and the thousands of deaths due to the crusades were carried out based on an individuals interpretation of the teachings of somebody who was already dead and hence had no way to influence the result.
The aim of communism, as laid out in Marx's manifesto, was this:
1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3) Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5) Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
5) Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
6) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
7) Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
8) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
9) Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production.
Where in that list does it call for the murder of millions of people?
How do you achieve those without murdering people?
If abandonment of religion had nothing to do with the deaths of millions of people then why did so many die? What moral code were people living by? While the Marxist state was in operation millions of people were dying while in the Western countries people lived in relative peace. They weren't perfect but they were a damned sight better than what was going on in the USSR. That's not to say these societies didn't do horrible things, but the quality of life for people was better here than it was there. It was its Christian base that got it there and most Western atheists derive their morals from Christianity. They've changed them and strayed slightly in others but that's where it flows from. If you completely abandon Religion what is your moral compass? Yourself? An inherently and demonstrably selfish being. (Not a personal attack, humanity in general). That's not to say that you must adhere to it all costs, it's something to keep you tied to. An anchor. I'm not a Christian by any proper sense of the word, I'm Agnostic but I acknowledge that our societies morals derive from Christianity and we'd be a lot worse off without it.
Extend your middle finger to the extremist jihadist.
"A more important lens through which to remember Cobain and his band is a story relayed by his uncle at a public memorial service. As happened often, a neighborhood bully was beating up a young Cobain, knocking him to the ground over and over again. But rather than punching the bully back or cowering in fear, Cobain instead, after each knock down, simply extended his middle finger in defiance."
They can knock you down as many times as they want, but don’t let them silence you. Don’t ever let them silence you.
Extend your middle finger to the extremist jihadist.
"A more important lens through which to remember Cobain and his band is a story relayed by his uncle at a public memorial service. As happened often, a neighborhood bully was beating up a young Cobain, knocking him to the ground over and over again. But rather than punching the bully back or cowering in fear, Cobain instead, after each knock down, simply extended his middle finger in defiance."
They can knock you down as many times as they want, but don’t let them silence you. Don’t ever let them silence you.
When it comes to a foe who wants to behead you...it's time to...
BaronIveagh wrote: They're searching south of the gas station at Longpont and Corcy now.
As far as the Légion étrangère goes, they're currently deployed in Africa, IIRC.
There are several FFL Regiments, the whole FFL doesn't really deploy together. There probably are some in Africa right now, but there are multiple regiments based in France, and I'm guessing there are Legionaires in Paris right now (especially judging by the photo). They can be used in France for security duties, and have done so in the past.
I'll be honest, I was pretty shocked when you guys started posting that one of the French officers wasn't armed. I know that most British and Irish police officers don't carry firearms, but I was under the impression that most French officers do. I know most German and Austrian police officers carry firearms. (In fact, I can't specifically recall ever seeing a uniformed German or Austrian officer who wasn't armed.) I figured it was likely the same for the rest of the continent. It sounds like they have the option in France at least? And now it sounds like they both were armed actually? That makes more sense to me.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: There's a large amount of Legionnaires currently deployed to Mali, and some more were in Afghanistan.
Yup, that's correct. There's also 2e REP on Corsica and 13e DBLE in UAE (formerly in Djibouti), as well as an infantry regiment in French Guiana. That's all in addition to the several regiments in France.
Who was the target of the attack in NY? NYPD officers.
Who was the target of this attack? Not French officers.
Being prepared to shoot French LEOs != targeting French LEOs.
You only read what you want to read, apparently. So I will say it again;
There was another attack in South of Paris the same day, by another killer who was wearing a bulletproof vest and armed with apparently two guns and who fled. This attack was clearly aimed at police agents, who were busy in a traffic accident. The policewoman was mortally wounded and died shortly after.
By the way, in that affair (they still don't know if it is related or not), the suspect has been recently identified. Two related people to him are being interrogated. The killer himself is still running....
About Charlie Hebdo suspects, they are now cornered in a small building of a company in Seine-et-Marne (seems like North-East of Paris). It seems they hold a hostage. Police snipers are posted outside and heavy armed elite forces are deployed. Looks like they're trying to get the hostage out of this gak alive.
Will stop talking about weapons. I understand there are big cultural differences between America and Europa. Still don't agree with this, but at the very least I can understand the reasons behind. Just hope you will at least try to understand our own, even if you don't agree as well.
The Paris terror suspects are holed up at an industrial building near Charles de Gaulle airport with a hostage, and have told police they are ready to "die as martyrs".
One of the Kouachi brothers turned up at the printing factory wearing black combat gear and a bulletproof vest and was initially mistaken for a police officer. He then told a worker: "Get out of here, we don't kill civilians."
Helicopters are hovering overhead and armed police officers are flooding the area.
Local residents are being told to stay at home, switch off the lights, and stay away from their windows. Hundreds of people are sealed inside some local office buildings.
There have been reports that two people have been killed, but Paris prosecutors insist there have been no deaths.
Police are now negotiating with the two suspects, Said and Cherif Kouachi. Their hostage is understood to be a woman.
At least two planes have aborted landing attempts at the airport as the situation unfolds.
It follows a car chase on the N2 motorway in which gunshots were fired between the men and police as their stolen car headed towards Paris.
Three helicopters have been hovering near the building in Dammartin-en-Goele, close to the country's busiest airport.At least two planes have aborted landing attempts at the airport as the situation unfolds.
It follows a car chase on the N2 motorway in which gunshots were fired between the men and police as their stolen car headed towards Paris.
Three helicopters have been hovering near the building in Dammartin-en-Goele, close to the country's busiest airport.
A close-up image of one of the helicopters shows armed police sitting at the vehicle's open door with heavy weaponry ready.
France's interior minister has confirmed that an operation to detain the suspects is under way.
In a televised statement Bernard Cazeneuve said: "An operation is under way which is set to neutralise the perpetrators of the cowardly attack carried out two days ago."
Sky's Crime Correspondent Martin Brunt said: "Police seem to have the situation under control and appear to be in contact - or trying to get into contact - with the two men."
Armed police are ordering members of the media to leave the area, saying the situation is too dangerous.
The brothers' grey Peugot 206 was hijacked from a woman in the town of Montagny Sainte Felicite this morning between Crepy-en-Valois and Nanteuil-le-Haudoin.
Almost 90,000 terror police across France are involved in the hunt for the men, believed to be behind Wednesday's terror attack on the headquarters of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in which 12 people died.
They then fled the city and are believed to have hid overnight in an area to the northeast of the capital.
The extreme right wing parties all over Europe are already taking advantage of these attacks, with calls to the banishment of Islam in European territory and the closing of borders against outside immigration...
The problem is, these parties were already gaining growing amounts of support and that support will only tend to grow even more as a result of these attacks (annalists now consider it a very real possibility that Le Pen might actually win the next French Presidential elections), making the peaceful Islamic communities of Europe the true end victims of these terror attacks.
The terrorists killed a proof editor of the newspaper who's name was Mustapha Ourrad and the name of the cop that was executed outside was Ahmed Merabet, both of them were Muslim.
It would be a real shame if their killings and those of the rest of the journalists are used as a pretext to advance the cause of the people that they probably despised the most.
PhantomViper wrote: The extreme right wing parties all over Europe are already taking advantage of these attacks, with calls to the banishment of Islam in European territory and the closing of borders against outside immigration...
The problem is, these parties were already gaining growing amounts of support and that support will only tend to grow even more as a result of these attacks (annalists now consider it a very real possibility that Le Pen might actually win the next French Presidential elections), making the peaceful Islamic communities of Europe the true end victims of these terror attacks.
The terrorists killed a proof editor of the newspaper who's name was Mustapha Ourrad and the name of the cop that was executed outside was Ahmed Merabet, both of them were Muslim.
It would be a real shame if their killings and those of the rest of the journalists are used as a pretext to advance the cause of the people that they probably despised the most.
It is unavoidable...extremes feed each other. They are perfect enemies - in fact, they need each other to exist, so that they can exploit the fear of people for their own objectives.
Some say what's happening in France is similar to 11 september about consequences. It has nothing to do with the number of killed people, of course, but it's more about the symbolism; terrorist managed to hit at the very heart of France its freedom of expression. I don't think we can really compare these two events (I am as well disgusted by the attacks on the Twin Towers), but it is true France is very shocked by these attacks. In Belgium as well, since we are very close to our neighbours, the disbelief is everywhere.
There will be changes, that's sure. Whatever the ending...I have the very bad feeling terrorist have already won there.
PhantomViper wrote: The extreme right wing parties all over Europe are already taking advantage of these attacks, with calls to the banishment of Islam in European territory and the closing of borders against outside immigration...
I guess the outlawing of Islam in Europe is worth a facepalm, but stricter immigration policies? What's wrong with that? Multiple countries across the globe have strict visa regulations in place right now.
I guess the outlawing of Islam in Europe is worth a facepalm, but stricter immigration policies? What's wrong with that? Multiple countries across the globe have strict visa regulations in place right now.
No, you didn't understand. In Europa, there is freedom of move for its citizens - and that means between all the member countries. Some parties would like to close their inside borders again and will use that event to fuel their case.
PhantomViper wrote: The extreme right wing parties all over Europe are already taking advantage of these attacks, with calls to the banishment of Islam in European territory and the closing of borders against outside immigration...
I guess the outlawing of Islam in Europe is worth a facepalm, but stricter immigration policies? What's wrong with that? Multiple countries across the globe have strict visa regulations in place right now.
But they aren't talking about stricter policies, they are talking about outright shutting down the borders for immigration, hence the facepalm.
I'm not against stricter immigration policies, that would depend on what those policies would be, but that is a talk for another thread especially because all the terrorists involved in these incidents are French Nationals so those policies wouldn't help one bit in preventing these incidents.
Oh, you mean Schengen. Well, that would be less convenient for sure, but I don't think we're in position to tell sovereign states what to do, especially when the regulations are not truly unified. We regulate the movement of population within EU borders, but each state retains it's own rules as to who they let in and on what terms. It's not exactly hard to find a weak spot.
This is the first succsess for the terrorists. The US media are too afraid to show the mohamed cartoons.
Shame on you.
This is from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung:
There is only one possible answer to this terroristic attack: Print the mohamed cartoons on EVERY frontpage of every magazin, newspaper and homepage. Show those as****** that we will NOT retreat.
This is the first succsess for the terrorists. The US media are too afraid to show the mohamed cartoons.
Shame on you.
This is from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung:
I'm glad you can deduce that because the New York Daily News blurred out the cartoon that "The US Media" as a whole is afraid and self censoring.
It is especially asinine coming form a guy in Germany, where I can't post a picture of a WW2 model with accurate markings because it is against the law...
As far as I know only the "The Daily Beast", the "Washington Post" and the "Slate" published the cartoons.
All other mayor newspapers did, what the terrorists want them to do: Shut up.
And come on, the ban to glamorize the nazis (you are of course allowed to show a swastika for teaching purposes) has nothing to do with being affraid of some terrorists. You arn't allowed to show the IS flag in public in germany as well.
von Hohenstein wrote: As far as I know only the "The Daily Beast", the "Washington Post" and the "Slate" published the cartoons.
All other mayor newspapers did, what the terrorists want them to do: Shut up.
And come on the ban to glamorize the nazis (you are of course allowed to show a swastika for teaching purposes) has nothing to do with being affraid of some terrorists. You arn't allowed to show the IS flag in public in germany as well.
Putting accurate markings on a model airplane or battleship is not glamorizing anyone. Face it, your country has laws that force censorship. Why are you scared of a Da'Ish flag?
And again, I'm glad you have monitored all US media outlets for us.
Good article on this, even if it has a liberal slant to it:
The journalists at Charlie Hebdo are now rightly being celebrated as martyrs on behalf of freedom of expression, but let’s face it: If they had tried to publish their satirical newspaper on any American university campus over the last two decades it wouldn’t have lasted 30 seconds. Student and faculty groups would have accused them of hate speech. The administration would have cut financing and shut them down.
Public reaction to the attack in Paris has revealed that there are a lot of people who are quick to lionize those who offend the views of Islamist terrorists in France but who are a lot less tolerant toward those who offend their own views at home.
Just look at all the people who have overreacted to campus micro-aggressions. The University of Illinois fired a professor who taught the Roman Catholic view on homosexuality. The University of Kansas suspended a professor for writing a harsh tweet against the N.R.A. Vanderbilt University derecognized a Christian group that insisted that it be led by Christians.
Americans may laud Charlie Hebdo for being brave enough to publish cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad, but, if Ayaan Hirsi Ali is invited to campus, there are often calls to deny her a podium.
So this might be a teachable moment. As we are mortified by the slaughter of those writers and editors in Paris, it’s a good time to come up with a less hypocritical approach to our own controversial figures, provocateurs and satirists.
The first thing to say, I suppose, is that whatever you might have put on your Facebook page yesterday, it is inaccurate for most of us to claim, Je Suis Charlie Hebdo, or I Am Charlie Hebdo. Most of us don’t actually engage in the sort of deliberately offensive humor that that newspaper specializes in.
We might have started out that way. When you are 13, it seems daring and provocative to “épater la bourgeoisie,” to stick a finger in the eye of authority, to ridicule other people’s religious beliefs.
But after a while that seems puerile. Most of us move toward more complicated views of reality and more forgiving views of others. (Ridicule becomes less fun as you become more aware of your own frequent ridiculousness.) Most of us do try to show a modicum of respect for people of different creeds and faiths. We do try to open conversations with listening rather than insult.
Yet, at the same time, most of us know that provocateurs and other outlandish figures serve useful public roles. Satirists and ridiculers expose our weakness and vanity when we are feeling proud. They puncture the self-puffery of the successful. They level social inequality by bringing the mighty low. When they are effective they help us address our foibles communally, since laughter is one of the ultimate bonding experiences.
Moreover, provocateurs and ridiculers expose the stupidity of the fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are people who take everything literally. They are incapable of multiple viewpoints. They are incapable of seeing that while their religion may be worthy of the deepest reverence, it is also true that most religions are kind of weird. Satirists expose those who are incapable of laughing at themselves and teach the rest of us that we probably should.
In short, in thinking about provocateurs and insulters, we want to maintain standards of civility and respect while at the same time allowing room for those creative and challenging folks who are uninhibited by good manners and taste.
If you try to pull off this delicate balance with law, speech codes and banned speakers, you’ll end up with crude censorship and a strangled conversation. It’s almost always wrong to try to suppress speech, erect speech codes and disinvite speakers.
Fortunately, social manners are more malleable and supple than laws and codes. Most societies have successfully maintained standards of civility and respect while keeping open avenues for those who are funny, uncivil and offensive.
In most societies, there’s the adults’ table and there’s the kids’ table. The people who read Le Monde or the establishment organs are at the adults’ table. The jesters, the holy fools and people like Ann Coulter and Bill Maher are at the kids’ table. They’re not granted complete respectability, but they are heard because in their unguided missile manner, they sometimes say necessary things that no one else is saying.
Healthy societies, in other words, don’t suppress speech, but they do grant different standing to different sorts of people. Wise and considerate scholars are heard with high respect. Satirists are heard with bemused semirespect. Racists and anti-Semites are heard through a filter of opprobrium and disrespect. People who want to be heard attentively have to earn it through their conduct.
The massacre at Charlie Hebdo should be an occasion to end speech codes. And it should remind us to be legally tolerant toward offensive voices, even as we are socially discriminating.
Ahtman wrote: Salman Rushdie on the Charlie Hebdo attack:
“Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. ‘Respect for religion’ has become a code phrase meaning ‘fear of religion.’ Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect.” –Salman Rushdie (originally posted on English Pen)
Karl Marx, on religion in general:
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."
Jesus on Karl Marx: " that guy. He's a pretentious prick."
How do you achieve those without murdering people?
If abandonment of religion had nothing to do with the deaths of millions of people then why did so many die? What moral code were people living by? While the Marxist state was in operation millions of people were dying while in the Western countries people lived in relative peace. They weren't perfect but they were a damned sight better than what was going on in the USSR. That's not to say these societies didn't do horrible things, but the quality of life for people was better here than it was there. It was its Christian base that got it there and most Western atheists derive their morals from Christianity. They've changed them and strayed slightly in others but that's where it flows from. If you completely abandon Religion what is your moral compass? Yourself? An inherently and demonstrably selfish being. (Not a personal attack, humanity in general). That's not to say that you must adhere to it all costs, it's something to keep you tied to. An anchor. I'm not a Christian by any proper sense of the word, I'm Agnostic but I acknowledge that our societies morals derive from Christianity and we'd be a lot worse off without it.
Again, did Marx kill those people? Or was it Stalin?
Who is surprised here? Remember when South Park was censored by spineless Comedy Channel despite the will of Trey Parker and Matt Stones, and without even their knowledge iirc?
And that is not just in the US, that is everywhere sadly!
Again, did Marx kill those people? Or was it Stalin?
One line response. Obviously not reading the reply. You've still not answered how you apply Marxist theory in reality without it turning to mass murder.
Again, did Marx kill those people? Or was it Stalin?
One line response. Obviously not reading the reply. You've still not answered how you apply Marxist theory in reality without it turning to mass murder.
Did Jesus kill anybody?
How is Marxism better than Christianity?
It isn't better. I never claimed it was. My first point was that you shouldn't disregard the entire body of work that Marx did (that covered a lot more than communism, such as basically creating the study of sociology) based on what totalitarian governments have chosen to do based on their interpretation of one of his works.
As to how you apply Marxist theory without turning to mass murder? I don't have a concrete answer to that. Ideally, it would need the entire working (and possibly middle) class to be united in that one goal, which would allow the transfer to be a democratic process rather than a violent revolution.
Again, did Marx kill those people? Or was it Stalin?
One line response. Obviously not reading the reply. You've still not answered how you apply Marxist theory in reality without it turning to mass murder.
How do you apply it? In exactly the same way you apply any other government policy. Believe it or not, governments do manage to nationalise businesses, issue compulsory purchase orders and suchlike all the time without the need to resort to the deaths of millions.
If I write a political/economical manifesto saying that the state should nationalise the railways, and a hundred years later some nutter does just that but hangs, draws and quarters every single railway owner, I'm not really responsible for his action. Yes, he might not had have done it if I hadn't existed, but you could argue if my parents hadn't given birth to me, it also wouldn't have happened, etc. Those sorts of causative arguments are not a good way to read history.
At least six people, including children, have been taken hostage at a kosher supermarket in Paris after a shootout, reports say.
SWAT teams, dozens of police vans and emergency services rushed to the scene in the eastern part of the French capital, as helicopters hovered above.
It is thought that two hostage takers might be inside the shop and that two hostages might be dead.
A police officer told Sky News that a gunman went in the supermarket and started shooting immediately.
"Sadly there are two dead and according to police sources they are confirmed," he said.
According to the AP news agency, which quoted a police source, the gunman said "You know who I am" as he opened fire.
Kosher restaurants were closing across Paris while schools in the Porte de Vincennes area were on lockdown and two subway stops were closed.
Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve rushed to the scene.
Those involved in the current hostage-taking were believed to be the suspects who killed a policewoman in Montrouge, southern Paris, on Thursday.
French police released mug shots of a man and a woman linked to policewoman killing, saying they are armed and dangerous.
The suspects are believed to have ties to brothers Said and Cherif Kouachi, who stormed satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo a day earlier, killing 12 people.
he brothers are holed up in a factory in a separate hostage situations unfolding near Charles de Gaulle airport.
In Thursday's attack, a gunman was wearing a bullet-proof vest and was carrying a pistol and an automatic rifle.
He opened fire and killed the trainee policewoman, named as Clarissa Jean-Philippe, 25. A street sweeper was seriously injured in the incident.
This is really mental, two more dead in another hostage crisis. Hopefully this will be the last victim in these events.
Dutch media are reporting that tanks and attack helikopters are being deployed in the Charlie attacker siege. Dutch government is also increasing security, cant imagine that this will be the last measure.
If its true that the attackers in the second siege are connected tothe first, then its crazy that they didnt receive a knock on their door over the last two days. Would be an amazing screwup.
Disciple of Fate wrote: If its true that the attackers in the second siege are connected tothe first, then its crazy that they didnt receive a knock on their door over the last two days. Would be an amazing screwup.
They seem to be the same that shot the policewoman yesterday not connected to the newspaper attack.
Also, no one died yet at the supermarket. Latest reports talk about 1 person badly injured.
Disciple of Fate wrote: If its true that the attackers in the second siege are connected tothe first, then its crazy that they didnt receive a knock on their door over the last two days. Would be an amazing screwup.
They seem to be the same that shot the policewoman yesterday not connected to the newspaper attack.
Also, no one died yet at the supermarket. Latest reports talk about 1 person badly injured.
However apparently they've issued demands that the newspaper attackers be allowed to walk from their hostage situation.
" moment right before the bad guy just walks up and empties a bunch of 7.62 into you because you were both unarmed and unarmored.
.
