Holy Crap they're still on the loose. Just been mention 10 Journalist and 2 LEO's. Yelling "Allah Akbar" pump action shotguns and AK's. Report out they executed a one of the two cops who was wounded.
Fox News. Was mention while they were talking to one of their reporters station in France. Video footage of the execution. Both LEO rolled up on a bike
News reports that they lost the 2 men near a metro station. Dutch and French news have shown the video where the execution of a wounded person can be seen (up untill the last shot, of which they only play the sound). Seems a lot of people filmed from their buildings. Hopefully they can catch them fast.
Anyhow, I would like to thank all the French newspapers that refused to show the perfectly acceptable caricatures of Muhammad for singling out Charlie Hebdo and making it a target. As long as it is only one newspaper doing this, they will be target for violence. If it becomes all newspaper, everywhere, the Islamists will understand that they cannot silence caricatures of Muhammad away, and will have to learn to deal with it.
It might not be relevant here ITT, but in the Netherlands there are already politicians working that angle, just a couple of hours after the attack. To say that this is in bad taste is an understatement, but I guess thats politicians for you.
Seems the LEO's in France can choose to either carry side arms or not. Two that got opted out were not carrying. They were target of opportunity since their main target was the satirical site
Wonder if they were in France and choose to go fight for ISIS and came back or ISIS members who immigrated over. Shooters given off a major vibe of "experience"
So, imported goons with local help most likely. Training people on site makes it hard to avoid attention, it's much easier to smuggle them in. Guns only, no bombs, another good way of ditching the intel net.
This looks scary as feth to be honest. Dubrovka style scary.
I just can't believe that these loonies, with seeming experience, weapons and professionalism, use their terrifying skills to attack some satirical magazine office that insulted their prophet like 10 years ago. Its absurd.
Not only is it the calculated use of violence against civilians for a political end, but the target is so trivial that is beggars belief.
angelofvengeance wrote: On topic: Why is it whenever anyone does a doodle of Jesus, no-one bats an eyelid. But when it's Mohammed we get crackpots like this shooting up the place etc?. fething grow up guys.
Mainline Christianity is big and doesn't have to prove anything to anyone. Offshot Christianity is where most of the nutjobs crop up.
Islam is all offshot. Hence...
Blackhoof wrote: I just can't believe that these loonies, with seeming experience, weapons and professionalism, use their terrifying skills to attack some satirical magazine office that insulted their prophet like 10 years ago. Its absurd.
It appears the magazine has joked about Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS quite recently. Might be a coincidence, might be not.
Oh Gawddamn every time I see the video of them bouncing around in the intersection and the one jogging to their vehicle I keep looking at my M4 wishing I was there.
angelofvengeance wrote: Was going to say, these (politicians) are the same people who take to Twitter and come out with ridiculous opinions, then wonder why no-one votes for them. Bad enough they come out with such utter bull**** on TV and radio
Can we not go there in this thread right now?
I was responding to Disciple of Fate's post to be fair.
On topic: Why is it whenever anyone does a doodle of Jesus, no-one bats an eyelid. But when it's Mohammed we get crackpots like this shooting up the place etc?. fething grow up guys.
Islam expressly forbids any depiction of the Prophet. It stems from the founding of the religion, as an attempt to avoid descending into idolatry. Obviously, when a not insignificant minority of Muslims are radical and prepared to die defending their beliefs, it's only a matter of time before situations like this occur.
Does anyone know if they used the rocket launcher during the attack? If they didnt, I wonder if they have further plans to find a crowded area of soft targets. They sure seem to have had an escape route planned unlike the "normal" jihadists.
angelofvengeance wrote: On topic: Why is it whenever anyone does a doodle of Jesus, no-one bats an eyelid. But when it's Mohammed we get crackpots like this shooting up the place etc?.
Because everybody censors itself about drawing Muhammad, while everyone does caricatures of Jesus. But back in the days when nobody dared make a caricature of Jesus, doing so would have brought tons of hate upon you. Even not that far ago, apparently, Life of Brian got problems.
Basically you have to beat religion into submission.
Jihadin wrote: Oh Gawddamn every time I see the video of them bouncing around in the intersection and the one jogging to their vehicle I keep looking at my M4 wishing I was there.
angelofvengeance wrote: On topic: Why is it whenever anyone does a doodle of Jesus, no-one bats an eyelid. But when it's Mohammed we get crackpots like this shooting up the place etc?.
Because everybody censors itself about drawing Muhammad, while everyone does caricatures of Jesus. But back in the days when nobody dared make a caricature of Jesus, doing so would have brought tons of hate upon you. Even not that far ago, apparently, Life of Brian got problems.
Basically you have to beat religion into submission.
Which Christian organization killed a dozen or so folks over The Life of Brian? I missed that story somehow.
BBC news live coverage reports that they found their car abandoned on the outskirts of Paris.
On the topic of cartoons: There are always crazy people, sometimes the world just has to be lucky to avoid them.
Some of my Christian friends (most would say they do not have a particular faith) do take some offence to Jesus cartoons, mostly because of how many surface around Christmas, just rubs them the wrong way.
-Shrike- wrote: Islam expressly forbids any depiction of the Prophet. It stems from the founding of the religion, as an attempt to avoid descending into idolatry.
Rather, some versions of Islam forbids this. Not all of them. Same for Allah, hence this kind of cultural shock.
Disciple of Fate wrote: BBC news live coverage reports that they found their car abandoned on the outskirts of Paris.
They hijacked another vehicle at a Metro station. These guys are TRAINED for they were not Praying and Spraying/Spraying and Praying. Good thing they did not have a RPG because there's a damn good chance they would remember to pull the pin to arm the round
Edit
No idea if your pointing out the first vehicle though
Disciple of Fate wrote: BBC news live coverage reports that they found their car abandoned on the outskirts of Paris.
They hijacked another vehicle at a Metro station. These guys are TRAINED for they were not Praying and Spraying/Spraying and Praying. Good thing they did not have a RPG because there's a damn good chance they would remember to pull the pin to arm the round
Edit
No idea if your pointing out the first vehicle though
Reports are still confused, but as they are covering the story this should be the second car.
CptJake wrote: Which Christian organization killed a dozen or so folks over The Life of Brian? I missed that story somehow.
Not about Life of Brian, but we had some Christians put a movie theater on fire while people were inside because it showed The Last Temptation of Christ: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attentat_du_cin%C3%A9ma_Saint-Michel . But I think you missed the point of my message. At some point you would certainly have been put to death for crimes of heresy long before you could even dream of publishing a caricature of Jesus. Some countries in the world still live with that kind of mentality, except with Islam, and a globalized world that allows them to hear about what happens in the rest of the world.
angelofvengeance wrote: On topic: Why is it whenever anyone does a doodle of Jesus, no-one bats an eyelid. But when it's Mohammed we get crackpots like this shooting up the place etc?.
Because everybody censors itself about drawing Muhammad, while everyone does caricatures of Jesus. But back in the days when nobody dared make a caricature of Jesus, doing so would have brought tons of hate upon you. Even not that far ago, apparently, Life of Brian got problems.
Basically you have to beat religion into submission.
Can we at least try and keep the conversation civil? People have been killed, don't use this as an excuse to begin attacking religion again.
Let's keep it to the Radicalized and not involve religion as a whole being those that are radicalized who follow the Islamic faith use certain passages from the Koran/Quran same as those who are radicalized using passages from the Bible
Not many muslims actually care about depictions of the prophet, at least not inherently. Insulting pictures, yeah, but not the depiction itself. The only real controversies among the muslim communities have been when the images were insulting- benign images were only an issue when non-muslims thought it might be and kicked up a fuss.
Jihadin wrote: Let's keep it to the Radicalized and not involve religion as a whole being those that are radicalized who follow the Islamic faith use certain passages from the Koran/Quran same as those who are radicalized using passages from the Bible
I agree. Radicals will select particular (often extremely outdated) verses to try and justify their cause.
France better roll the military out to assist locking down the surrounding area to get these guys. These Shooters look capable of pulling off another attack later down the road
Nobody said anything about that. You can talk about their personal motivations, just don't assume that the way these guys practice Islam should reflect on every other Muslim.
CptJake wrote: Which Christian organization killed a dozen or so folks over The Life of Brian? I missed that story somehow.
Not about Life of Brian, but we had some Christians put a movie theater on fire while people were inside because it showed The Last Temptation of Christ: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attentat_du_cin%C3%A9ma_Saint-Michel .
But I think you missed the point of my message. At some point you would certainly have been put to death for crimes of heresy long before you could even dream of publishing a caricature of Jesus. Some countries in the world still live with that kind of mentality, except with Islam, and a globalized world that allows them to hear about what happens in the rest of the world.
Well, sure. 600 years ago.
Don't pretend the two are the same. Despite areas where people still think Christianity is "backward" or "wrong," it's a very modern religion.
Anyhow, I would like to thank all the French newspapers that refused to show the perfectly acceptable caricatures of Muhammad for singling out Charlie Hebdo and making it a target. As long as it is only one newspaper doing this, they will be target for violence. If it becomes all newspaper, everywhere, the Islamists will understand that they cannot silence caricatures of Muhammad away, and will have to learn to deal with it.
They dont translate into the west....
Otherwise I wish the US coverage of this was better
Blackhoof, explain to me why so many Tunisians were enraged when Nessma broadcasted Persepolis, then. Because they sure seemed upset at the depiction of Allah, while he certainly was not depicted in any kind of insulting way.
The movie, who was made by Iranian cartoonist Marjane Satrapi, would certainly not have shocked because of the depiction of Allah in Iran, because their brand of Shia Islam does not care. As surprising as it may be, because the movie was very critical of the revolution, it was still shown in the Islamic Republic of Iran. But even in Tunisia, which is far from the most hardline Muslim country, it caused a huge backlash.
Maybe you need to re-evaluate how representative the Muslims you know are, and realize that Muslims are way less homogeneous than you make them out to be.
Nobody said anything about that. You can talk about their personal motivations, just don't assume that the way these guys practice Islam should reflect on every other Muslim.
crowds of thousands have gathered throughout the Muslim world—burning European embassies, issuing threats, and even taking hostages—in protest over 12 cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad that were first published in a Danish newspaper last September.
Anyway, I'll excuse myself from this thread and let the usual suspects carry on with their "religion of peace" nonsense.
-Shrike- wrote: Radicals will select particular (often extremely outdated) verses to try and justify their cause.
That is a fallacy. Outdated? What does that even mean here?
-Shrike- wrote: You can talk about their personal motivations, just don't assume that the way these guys practice Islam should reflect on every other Muslim.
And that is totally not what I said. I said that unless religion is constantly under criticism and mockery, terrible things will happens. Certainly not that all Muslims are the same or anything stupid like this.
And we need to find out how we went from that position to the current one. Cue my answer just above. Life of Brian made Christianism better. Metal music made Christianism better. All of the criticism made Christianism better. Or more “modern”, as you put it.
Selective Qur'anic referencing comprises a core element of radical Islamist discourse endorsing militancy. These are often embedded in wider religious deliberations which also cite numerous Hadith and other religious sources to support a given argument. This article seeks to analyse and document the way in which specific verses of the Qur'an are used to legitimise justifications put forward for violence and targeting in a selected corpus of English- language extremist Islamist material. The article concludes that application of the teachings of the Qur'an is altered and tailored in major militant Islamist treatises to match their political narrative, thus violating strict Salafistic demands for literal application of the Qur'an's message.
Basically they use verses from the Quran/Koran to justify their action
The above is a summary and this is the conclusion.
Conclusions
From our brief analysis of thirty texts it emerges clearly that the Qur'an is taken as guidance very selectively to suit the jihadists' particular strategic and political agenda and to strengthen the accompanying narrative set forth by proponents of militant Islamism. Numerous verses and sections of the Qur'an that call for peaceful co-existence and mutual respect, counter-balancing many of the verses used to justify (terrorist) violence, are ignored and excluded from their one-sided narrative. This is typical of the tailored, politically motivated foundation upon which much of the militant jihadist discourse rests. Quoting from the Holy Book of Islam is shamelessly selective in order to serve their propaganda objectives.
The English-language output from militant Islamist figures relies heavily on the repeated use of a limited number of Qur'anic verses to justify political violence. Their arguments appear to rely on truncated rather than complete passages from the Qu'ran and are designed to fit their strategic narrative rather than being in conformity with the nuances of meanings of the Qur'an. The same 'doctored' use can be found in some of the abridged translations of medieval texts and more recent seminal works edited by jihadist publishing and distributing networks, which are also meant to serve contemporary jihadist propaganda.
When juxtaposed to the requirements set forth by Salafism for doctrinal purity and literal interpretation of the Qur'an (which includes the originally intended meaning) - values frequently invoked by the militant Islamists themselves - their peculiar selective utilization of the Qur'an appears paradoxical. Rather than being guided by the teachings of the Qur'an through the unadulterated application of its message, the narratives put forward by militant Islamists rely on a Qur'an a la carte, based on cherry-picked passages from specific verses to fit their pre-determined religio-political ideology and inform their messages to advance their group-specific ambitions.
Several authors in a previous issue of Perspectives on Terrorism [34] exploring the concept of counter-narratives and the potential for counter-terrorism efforts, have advocated measures to challenge extremist narratives given their role in recruitment and radicalisation. Such efforts rely, in part, on identifying irregularities and flaws in the extremist argument. Our investigation illustrates how the narrative of militant Islamism seeks to frame its legitimisation for violence through tapping into the authority of the Qur'an. This scrutiny of a sample of major English-language jihadist texts also indicates that propagandists of jihad violate the Salafists' own demands for doctrinal purity in terms of adherence to the Qu'ran. In other words - they tend to be dishonest and hypocritical.
And we need to find out how we went from that position to the current one. Cue my answer just above. Life of Brian made Christianism better. Metal music made Christianism better. All of the criticism made Christianism better. Or more “modern”, as you put it.
Well, no.
But you're not going to listen to anyone tell you you're wrong, so I'm not going to try.
And that is totally not what I said. I said that unless religion is constantly under criticism and mockery, terrible things will happens. Certainly not that all Muslims are the same or anything stupid like this.
.
A really ignorant, and almost insulting statement.
Disciple of Fate wrote: BBC news live coverage reports that they found their car abandoned on the outskirts of Paris.
On the topic of cartoons: There are always crazy people, sometimes the world just has to be lucky to avoid them.
Some of my Christian friends (most would say they do not have a particular faith) do take some offence to Jesus cartoons, mostly because of how many surface around Christmas, just rubs them the wrong way.
Taking offense is of course permissible. Equating that to wacking a dozewn people is borderline asinine. I take offense at anchovies on pizza. I don't go blow away the CEO of Pizza Hut.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: And we need to find out how we went from that position to the current one. Cue my answer just above. Life of Brian made Christianism better. Metal music made Christianism better. All of the criticism made Christianism better. Or more “modern”, as you put it.
I am intrigued by this statement. What tangible effect did the Life of Brian, and metal music, have on Christianity to make it "better"?
Disciple of Fate wrote: BBC news live coverage reports that they found their car abandoned on the outskirts of Paris.
On the topic of cartoons: There are always crazy people, sometimes the world just has to be lucky to avoid them. Some of my Christian friends (most would say they do not have a particular faith) do take some offence to Jesus cartoons, mostly because of how many surface around Christmas, just rubs them the wrong way.
Taking offense is of course permissible. Equating that to wacking a dozewn people is borderline asinine. I take offense at anchovies on pizza. I don't go blow away the CEO of Pizza Hut.
Agreed, just mentioning that people might be offended, but only crazy people will actually kill because of it. I wonder how much the cartoons factored into the attack, as they are from several years ago, compared with for example the amount of attention the target could generate together with the amount of security, which is quite high in Paris in some places.
French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve is currently giving a statement. He says that the authorities are hunting three attackers in connection with the shooting.
-Shrike- wrote: Radicals will select particular (often extremely outdated) verses to try and justify their cause.
That is a fallacy. Outdated? What does that even mean here?
Out of interest, what fallacy do you think I'm using here?
-Shrike- wrote: You can talk about their personal motivations, just don't assume that the way these guys practice Islam should reflect on every other Muslim.
And that is totally not what I said. I said that unless religion is constantly under criticism and mockery, terrible things will happens. Certainly not that all Muslims are the same or anything stupid like this.
No. However, saying that "Islam is stupid, because of this" is what I was referring to, and it wasn't aimed at you.
And we need to find out how we went from that position to the current one. Cue my answer just above. Life of Brian made Christianism better. Metal music made Christianism better. All of the criticism made Christianism better. Or more “modern”, as you put it.
... What? How do you define "better"? Oh, I see, "modern". Right... and mockery and criticism is a necessity, is it?
Also, you know the correct term is Christianity, don't be stupid.
And we need to find out how we went from that position to the current one. Cue my answer just above. Life of Brian made Christianism better. Metal music made Christianism better. All of the criticism made Christianism better. Or more “modern”, as you put it.
... What? How do you define "better"? Oh, I see, "modern". Right... and mockery and criticism is a necessity, is it?
Also, you know the correct term is Christianity, don't be stupid.
Hybrid is French, so he was probably using an anglicization of the French term "Christianisme". Calling him stupid for doing so is a bit much.
A few posts actually talking about a current events, with the rest of the thread already being a gak-slinging contest about "religion is bad/Islam is evil" before we even got to page 2.
Just lock this thread if it can't stay on topic, it's the same thread we locked last week and the week before.
Disciple of Fate wrote: BBC news live coverage reports that they found their car abandoned on the outskirts of Paris.
They hijacked another vehicle at a Metro station. These guys are TRAINED for they were not Praying and Spraying/Spraying and Praying. Good thing they did not have a RPG because there's a damn good chance they would remember to pull the pin to arm the round
Edit
No idea if your pointing out the first vehicle though
It's interesting watching this with commentary here from professional soldiers.
The press initially mentioned two gunmen, and amended it to three only in the last few minutes.* I can see how there are three (once those on Dakka told us how to look), and the presence of the unseen driver is also a given.
As there is another car stolen and ready can we assume the team size is actually five or six, minimum?
The police car windscreen looks a lot different from a regular spree shooting, even a layman can tell the shot grouping is fairly good.
* Does this mean two active triggermen and one in 'reserve'.
In this day and age, with all the hacktivists we have, can't they disseminate the caricatures throughout the internet where it is everywhere and cannot be curtailed or traced to a source?
Disciple of Fate wrote: BBC news live coverage reports that they found their car abandoned on the outskirts of Paris.
On the topic of cartoons: There are always crazy people, sometimes the world just has to be lucky to avoid them.
Some of my Christian friends (most would say they do not have a particular faith) do take some offence to Jesus cartoons, mostly because of how many surface around Christmas, just rubs them the wrong way.
Taking offense is of course permissible. Equating that to wacking a dozewn people is borderline asinine. I take offense at anchovies on pizza. I don't go blow away the CEO of Pizza Hut.
Agreed, just mentioning that people might be offended, but only crazy people will actually kill because of it. I wonder how much the cartoons factored into the attack, as they are from several years ago, compared with for example the amount of attention the target could generate together with the amount of security, which is quite high in Paris in some places.
Not really reserve, more like overwatch. He'll be looking for LEO or others moving in/reacting to the shooters and engaging as needed to allow the shooters to maintain freedom of maneuver.
And they may very well switch roles as needed/as their direction of movement changes.
d-usa wrote: A few posts actually talking about a current events, with the rest of the thread already being a gak-slinging contest about "religion is bad/Islam is evil" before we even got to page 2.
Just lock this thread if it can't stay on topic, it's the same thread we locked last week and the week before.
Perhaps you should relax from the censorship.
Yes there will be some who like to turn up with the all 'religion is bad' meme, but Dakka can handle them.
As for comparisons between radical Islam and western society, those comparisons are valid, and should not be redacted out of ignorance.
Part of the problem facing western society is that this type of Islam is very real, it is within western society and it isn't going away. It is also very demanding on what it considers it's own right to propagate doctrines which are mutually exclusive with some freedoms taken forgranted in a modern democratic society.
To make matters worse those who point out the differences are often labeled as agitators, even 'racists' due to a collective fear of the elephant in the room.
I posted a valid point saying there was a direct incompatibility between Western democracy and radical Islam, note the specificity to radical Islam and not Islam as a whole. This was censored in a knee jerk manner.
If this is in any way unclear as to the relevance of this issue Dakka should ask itself why this particular organisation was earmarked for a well planned and professional terrorist attack. Namely it was a Western publishing organisation in the field of satirical politics which extremists have a noted history of wishing to silence by any means necessary. These journalists died because they were unafraid to print what people in a western society are free to print. This gak happens because most people are too afraid to say NO to those who would take away our most inherent and important freedoms. These satirists continued anyway, despite the risks, and paid the price. I salute them.
How is Dakka to commemorate this? Censor the thread in case people are 'offended'. If so it will be our lasting shame.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Not really reserve, more like overwatch. He'll be looking for LEO or others moving in/reacting to the shooters and engaging as needed to allow the shooters to maintain freedom of maneuver.
And they may very well switch roles as needed/as their direction of movement changes.
More or less what I was thinking, I don't know the proper terminology. So overwatch, ok. Reserve is something else yes?
This is likely to get worse before it gets better. If the French police/army do catch up with these rats, then there's likely to be another gun battle, and more likely still, any hideout/base they have is likely to be booby-trapped. I hope I'm wrong, but there's nothing more dangerous than a cornered rat.
Out of interest, what is the French equivalent of the SAS?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: This is likely to get worse before it gets better. If the French police/army do catch up with these rats, then there's likely to be another gun battle, and more likely still, any hideout/base they have is likely to be booby-trapped. I hope I'm wrong, but there's nothing more dangerous than a cornered rat.
Out of interest, what is the French equivalent of the SAS?
GIGN, I think.
Its the special operations branch of their armed forces.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: This is likely to get worse before it gets better. If the French police/army do catch up with these rats, then there's likely to be another gun battle, and more likely still, any hideout/base they have is likely to be booby-trapped. I hope I'm wrong, but there's nothing more dangerous than a cornered rat.
Out of interest, what is the French equivalent of the SAS?
GIGN, I think.
Its the special operations branch of their armed forces.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: This is likely to get worse before it gets better. If the French police/army do catch up with these rats, then there's likely to be another gun battle, and more likely still, any hideout/base they have is likely to be booby-trapped. I hope I'm wrong, but there's nothing more dangerous than a cornered rat.
Out of interest, what is the French equivalent of the SAS?
Its very likely they will not be caught i the immediate future.
These are not mindless fanatics.
Hunting them will be like hunting the IRA, it will take a lot of work and a lot of patience. The ante has really been raised today, especially ad unlike the IRA these terrorists are still in all likelihood radical Islamics unafraid to die with their boots on. Thing is to them, in my opinion at this time, martyrdom is a fallback position.
France doesn't have any recent history of dealing with this sort of terrorist. In Europe only Spain and the UK has adequate expertise.
France doesn't have any recent history of dealing with this sort of terrorist. In Europe only Spain and the UK has adequate expertise.
I guess I would ask you to define recent. France has recent experience in parts of Africa fighting jihadists, in Afghanistan, and if you go back a few decades were dealing with this problem in some of their colonies.
Looks like the Scum have declared war.
do we need to deploy armed forces to the cities as a visable deterent and to defend the cities? there brave vs unarmed civilans, how about trained and well armed troops.
they died for the Freedom to express themselves, we should robustly defend the right not yeild to barbarians intent on enforcing there vile concept of law and oppression.
The press should be free to print what it wants with in the law and not have to fear death or attacks because of it,
The above is a summary and this is the conclusion.
So people are funding studies that tell them what they want to hear. Good. So what?
-Shrike- wrote: Out of interest, what fallacy do you think I'm using here?
It has already been told (I write my answers right away, and the read the rest of the thread), but the biggest age difference between verses in the Quran is 1406 years old versus 1383 years old. How can some of them be “extremely outdated”? Beside, in religion, how does “old” mean “irrelevant”, as the use of “outdated“ implies? Do not forget that the Quran is very different from the Bible because it is monolithic and completely canon. There is no apocryphal part of the Quran. There are lots of apocryphal/authentic/whatever debate about hadith, but none about the Quran. Everything was directly worded by God and is perfect in the Quran. And to think people actually believe this!
-Shrike- wrote: However, saying that "Islam is stupid, because of this" is what I was referring to, and it wasn't aimed at you.
You were quoting me quoting you quoting me, but you were not referring to me?
-Shrike- wrote: ... What? How do you define "better"? Oh, I see, "modern". Right... and mockery and criticism is a necessity, is it?
My use of “modern” was referencing cincydooley's message that somehow Christians did not kill people for heresy because Christianity is “modern”. See http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/630105.page#7483968 . In the message I was quoting. Any differing opinion on the use of the word modern is to be discussed with cincydooley, not with me. He will not talk to me anyway.
-Shrike- wrote: Also, you know the correct term is Christianity, don't be stupid.
Also already been told. My French is showing. That mistake comes from the fact that in French, we say Christianisme, not from some attempt at sarcasm or anything. I know that Christianity is the right word, but I do sometime absentmindedly make the mistake.
Orlanth wrote: As for comparisons between radical Islam and western society, those comparisons are valid, and should not be redacted out of ignorance.
No, they are not valid. You are comparing a religion and a society. It does not work like that. Compare two religions/belief systems, or two societies. Like for instance “societies from the Arabian peninsula” vs “societies from western European countries”, or “Radical Islam” versus “Humanism”. Those make sense.
Orlanth wrote: Namely it was a Western publishing organisation in the field of satirical politics which extremists have a noted history of wishing to silence by any means necessary.
Do you realize how much publishing organization in Muslim-majority countries are pressured and silenced? This “western” here is completely irrelevant, unless you do not care for anyone outside of the western world.
CptJake wrote: France has recent experience in parts of Africa fighting jihadists, in Afghanistan, and if you go back a few decades were dealing with this problem in some of their colonies.
You seem to be forgetting very recent operations in Mali. But those were not terrorists, though they were jihadists. Not the same methods.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I am intrigued by this statement. What tangible effect did the Life of Brian, and metal music, have on Christianity to make it "better"?
Tangible effects? Do you mean like in a direct obvious cause-consequence effect? None.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: This is likely to get worse before it gets better. If the French police/army do catch up with these rats, then there's likely to be another gun battle, and more likely still, any hideout/base they have is likely to be booby-trapped. I hope I'm wrong, but there's nothing more dangerous than a cornered rat.
Out of interest, what is the French equivalent of the SAS?
Its very likely they will not be caught i the immediate future.
These are not mindless fanatics.
Hunting them will be like hunting the IRA, it will take a lot of work and a lot of patience. The ante has really been raised today, especially ad unlike the IRA these terrorists are still in all likelihood radical Islamics unafraid to die with their boots on. Thing is to them, in my opinion at this time, martyrdom is a fallback position.
France doesn't have any recent history of dealing with this sort of terrorist. In Europe only Spain and the UK has adequate expertise.
I'm no IRA fan, but at least they had a clear objective - a united Ireland free from British rule, and as such, at least you could negotiate with them.
Radical Islam is a different kettle of fish - it's nihilism, pure and simple. Violence is the be all and end all. It's difficult to see how you can combat this.
So, djones520, what exactly should I be doing? Going out of my workplace, taking the RER to Paris, and try to go hunt those terrorists without any better weapon than a Swiss army knife and a switchcomb? Go crawl into a corner and cry?
d-usa wrote: A few posts actually talking about a current events, with the rest of the thread already being a gak-slinging contest about "religion is bad/Islam is evil" before we even got to page 2.
Just lock this thread if it can't stay on topic, it's the same thread we locked last week and the week before.
Perhaps you should relax from the censorship.
I don't think I have singled you out, but if you feel personally attacked then that is on you.
I also have no problem with people talking about what motivated "these" guys to do "this" thing. Idiots take up idiotic causes for idiotic reasons. If these guys are motivated by some religious cause and/or were hired by idiots who were motivated by some religious cause then by all means it is perfectly valid to talk about those things. My beef is with the blanket statements about religions and blanket statements about people who follow different religions.
And if you think "stay on topic" is censorship then why did you join a forum where that is a requirement for the privilege of posting?
Edit: This is a horrific attack, and I hope these guys are caught and more importantly if there is a connection higher up the chain, which is probably very likely, we catch them alive so that they can track that.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, djones520, what exactly should I be doing? Going out of my workplace, taking the RER to Paris, and try to go hunt those terrorists without any better weapon than a Swiss army knife and a switchcomb? Go crawl into a corner and cry?
Of course not. But maybe do something other then attack others who have expressed sympathy for your nations loss.
All you've done it tell us what we can and can't talk about. You do realize that falls in line with what these people are doing, right?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm no IRA fan, but at least they had a clear objective - a united Ireland free from British rule, and as such, at least you could negotiate with them.
Radical Islam is a different kettle of fish - it's nihilism, pure and simple. Violence is the be all and end all. It's difficult to see how you can combat this.
No. Radical Islam usually have a goal too. Most of the time along the line of a worldwide caliphate where everyone is forced to abide to Sharia law. But no violence, of course, because Sharia law is perfect and everyone will be happy when it is put in place and you will get the most perfect society ever.
Does that seem ridiculous to you? Certainly. Does that mean some people do not actually, genuinely believe this? I would not be surprised if more evil was done by people mistakenly thinking they were working for some higher cause to improve the life of everyone in the end than by genuinely evil people.
djones520 wrote: You know what kills me Hyrbid? Your country has been attacked. Your countrymen have been killed.
These people are still on the lose and free to cause more death and mayhem.
And you're in here attacking everyone else.
Europeans don't have the same notions of Nationalism that you guys have. Most French won't consider these to be acts of war committed against France and that will require some sort of unified national response and solidarity but rather as more normal crimes whose perpetrators need to be apprehended and brought to justice.
France doesn't have any recent history of dealing with this sort of terrorist. In Europe only Spain and the UK has adequate expertise.
I guess I would ask you to define recent. France has recent experience in parts of Africa fighting jihadists, in Afghanistan, and if you go back a few decades were dealing with this problem in some of their colonies.
Algeriam as Frazzie mentioned, and French Indo-China were long ago, and things were different in the 60's and those serving then are retired now.
As for African jihadists, they are fairly similar to most other jihadists, with limited training mostly concentrated on religious indoctrination to bolster them to commit to an attack. The perpetrators here were far more professional, it is not unlikely that they served a term in a professional army, possibly even the French army.
France like most western countries practices equal opportunities, and does allow Frenchmen of middle eastern origin to serve, I will also assume that the clear majority of those who do so are loyal to France. Also due to the nature of radicalisation one or more of the gunmen involved today may have been a genuine loyal soldier, who was radicalised, or even converted after e left the service.
Then again none of the terrorists were necessarily French at all. With an opertion this professional, they could be radicals from anywhere in Europe, or even outside Europe.
d-usa wrote: A few posts actually talking about a current events, with the rest of the thread already being a gak-slinging contest about "religion is bad/Islam is evil" before we even got to page 2.
Just lock this thread if it can't stay on topic, it's the same thread we locked last week and the week before.
Perhaps you should relax from the censorship.
I don't think I have singled you out, but if you feel personally attacked then that is on you.
I also have no problem with people talking about what motivated "these" guys to do "this" thing. Idiots take up idiotic causes for idiotic reasons. If these guys are motivated by some religious cause and/or were hired by idiots who were motivated by some religious cause then by all means it is perfectly valid to talk about those things. My beef is with the blanket statements about religions and blanket statements about people who follow different religions.
And if you think "stay on topic" is censorship then why did you join a forum where that is a requirement for the privilege of posting?
Edit: This is a horrific attack, and I hope these guys are caught and more importantly if there is a connection higher up the chain, which is probably very likely, we catch them alive so that they can track that.
France doesn't have any recent history of dealing with this sort of terrorist. In Europe only Spain and the UK has adequate expertise.
I guess I would ask you to define recent. France has recent experience in parts of Africa fighting jihadists, in Afghanistan, and if you go back a few decades were dealing with this problem in some of their colonies.
Algeriam as Frazzie mentioned, and French Indo-China were long ago, and things were different in the 60's and those serving then are retired now.
As for African jihadists, they are fairly similar to most other jihadists, with limited training mostly concentrated on religious indoctrination to bolster them to commit to an attack. The perpetrators here were far more professional, it is not unlikely that they served a term in a professional army, possibly even the French army.
France like most western countries practices equal opportunities, and does allow Frenchmen of middle eastern origin to serve, I will also assume that the clear majority of those who do so are loyal to France. Also due to the nature of radicalisation one or more of the gunmen involved today may have been a genuine loyal soldier, who was radicalised, or even converted after e left the service.
Then again none of the terrorists were necessarily French at all. With an opertion this professional, they could be radicals from anywhere in Europe, or even outside Europe.
Mali, as recent as within the last couple of years.
CptJake wrote: France has recent experience in parts of Africa fighting jihadists, in Afghanistan, and if you go back a few decades were dealing with this problem in some of their colonies.
You seem to be forgetting very recent operations in Mali. But those were not terrorists, though they were jihadists. Not the same methods.
Sorry, I was under the impression Mali was in Africa. And I would really like to see where the methods used between what we are seeing now and what groups like Ansar Dine , MUJWA, an AQIP are using.
I submit the scale may be different (in some cases) but the methods are pretty damned similar.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: This is likely to get worse before it gets better. If the French police/army do catch up with these rats, then there's likely to be another gun battle, and more likely still, any hideout/base they have is likely to be booby-trapped. I hope I'm wrong, but there's nothing more dangerous than a cornered rat.
Out of interest, what is the French equivalent of the SAS?
Its very likely they will not be caught i the immediate future.
These are not mindless fanatics.
Hunting them will be like hunting the IRA, it will take a lot of work and a lot of patience. The ante has really been raised today, especially ad unlike the IRA these terrorists are still in all likelihood radical Islamics unafraid to die with their boots on. Thing is to them, in my opinion at this time, martyrdom is a fallback position.
France doesn't have any recent history of dealing with this sort of terrorist. In Europe only Spain and the UK has adequate expertise.
The IRA are fethwits people who shoot other people are ffethwits. I;m not sure what point you are making but i;m sure it involves fethwits somewhere. I'm sure for the IRA martyrdom was a fallback position as well.
djones520 wrote: All you've done it tell us what we can and can't talk about. You do realize that falls in line with what these people are doing, right?
Are you equating debate, “you should not say this because of this reason and that reason”, and censorship, “if you say that we are going to kill you”?
Am I trying to convince people? Sure, I am. Other people should do the same with me. We will discuss, debate, and maybe in the end one of us is going to convince the other. Or both of us are going to partly convince the other. Or anything in between. How is that in any way comparable to killing people? I have no clue.
Europeans don't have the same notions of Nationalism that you guys have. Most French won't consider these to be acts of war committed against France and that will require some sort of unified national response and solidarity but rather as more normal crimes whose perpetrators need to be apprehended and brought to justice.
This. It's a harsh blow, and I'm actually remotely related to one of the killed caricaturists, but our nation and way of life aren't at stake. If you ask me though, I think we should contract the interrogations to the Mossad, I'm sure they'll welcome the practice.
Europeans don't have the same notions of Nationalism that you guys have. Most French won't consider these to be acts of war committed against France and that will require some sort of unified national response and solidarity but rather as more normal crimes whose perpetrators need to be apprehended and brought to justice.
This. It's a harsh blow, and I'm actually remotely related to one of the killed caricaturists, but our nation and way of life aren't at stake. If you ask me though, I think we should contract the interrogations to the Mossad, I'm sure they'll welcome the practice.
djones520 wrote: All you've done it tell us what we can and can't talk about. You do realize that falls in line with what these people are doing, right?
Are you equating debate, “you should not say this because of this reason and that reason”, and censorship, “if you say that we are going to kill you”?
Am I trying to convince people? Sure, I am. Other people should do the same with me. We will discuss, debate, and maybe in the end one of us is going to convince the other. Or both of us are going to partly convince the other. Or anything in between. How is that in any way comparable to killing people? I have no clue.
No, I'm saying that censorship is wrong no matter the means meant to achieve it.
The people who killed those folks today, want people to stop talking about Radical Islam.
No. Lets talk about it. Lets get it out in the open, and get the whole fething world talking about it. We need to stop making excuses for these people, and cut them off from EVERYONE.
That is the only way we are going to win this, when these donkey-caves have no where else to run, no where else to hide.
d-usa wrote: A few posts actually talking about a current events, with the rest of the thread already being a gak-slinging contest about "religion is bad/Islam is evil" before we even got to page 2.
Just lock this thread if it can't stay on topic, it's the same thread we locked last week and the week before.
Perhaps you should relax from the censorship.
I don't think I have singled you out, but if you feel personally attacked then that is on you..
I dont think I was singled out, I noticed a lot of threads were removed. Dont make personal assumptions, not if you want to also hog the delete button
I My beef is with the blanket statements about religions and blanket statements about people who follow different religions..
Then you should read what you censor before panicking and pressing the delete button. Blanket statement about religion, or even Islam were not posted in those posts that I got to read that are no longer here, If they were red as such, its in your own head. There may be other posts that fit that category, but i didnt read those, and you ought to be able to discern between the two.
And if you think "stay on topic" is censorship then why did you join a forum where that is a requirement for the privilege of posting?
Modding is also a privilege.
Also it was on topic. You do know this thread is about the shooting of satirical magazine, and the magazine was linked to death threads from Islamic fanatics who didnt like the magazines cartoons.
If the why, the motive of a topical action is off topic, then you aren't leaving much to talk about.
Its also bad form to start deleting posts about the motive on an attack where people evidently died because they refused to allow death threats to void their freedom of speech. it's a very bad case of irony.
Europeans don't have the same notions of Nationalism that you guys have. Most French won't consider these to be acts of war committed against France and that will require some sort of unified national response and solidarity but rather as more normal crimes whose perpetrators need to be apprehended and brought to justice.
This. It's a harsh blow, and I'm actually remotely related to one of the killed caricaturists, but our nation and way of life aren't at stake. If you ask me though, I think we should contract the interrogations to the Mossad, I'm sure they'll welcome the practice.
PhantomViper wrote: Europeans don't have the same notions of Nationalism that you guys have. Most French won't consider these to be acts of war committed against France and that will require some sort of unified national response and solidarity but rather as more normal crimes whose perpetrators need to be apprehended and brought to justice.
That is quite spot on. Well, not really normal crimes, though.
Orlanth wrote: France like most western countries practices equal opportunities, and does allow Frenchmen of middle eastern origin to serve, I will also assume that the clear majority of those who do so are loyal to France.
If you remember of that guy that went on a killing spree on a Jewish school, he had killed a bunch of French army members of North African origin. We do not have many people of middle eastern origin in France (we do have a bunch of people from Lebanon, which is nice because Lebanese cuisine is good and includes lots of vegetarian dishes), but we have many people of North African descent.
CptJake wrote: Sorry, I was under the impression Mali was in Africa.
My bad, I read too fast. I am not familiar enough with the methods used by Islamists in Mali, but I do not expect the use of tanks or artillery in Paris, for instance, while I think they were used in Mali. Not sure though. I might be wrong on the “used in Mali” front.
The IRA just wanted a different leadership. The culture and society would similar, and the only changes would be the people at the top. A few laws would be shifted, but that's about it.
Islamic fundamentalists want a total change, with human rights being revoked, laws being ripped up and replaced, and so on.
So, without the population being replaced, there's little a fundamentalist can do to make their goals happen.
d-usa wrote: A few posts actually talking about a current events, with the rest of the thread already being a gak-slinging contest about "religion is bad/Islam is evil" before we even got to page 2.
Just lock this thread if it can't stay on topic, it's the same thread we locked last week and the week before.
Perhaps you should relax from the censorship.
I don't think I have singled you out, but if you feel personally attacked then that is on you..
I dont think I was singled out, I noticed a lot of threads were removed. Dont make personal assumptions, not if you want to also hog the delete button
I My beef is with the blanket statements about religions and blanket statements about people who follow different religions..
Then you should read what you censor before panicking and pressing the delete button. Blanket statement about relgion, or ev Islam were not posted in thoseposts that I got to see theat are no longer here, If they were red as such, its in your own head.
And if you think "stay on topic" is censorship then why did you join a forum where that is a requirement for the privilege of posting?
Modding is also a privilege.
You realize that I am not a MOD...right?
Also it was on topic. You do know this thread is about the shooting of satirical magazine, and the magazine was linked to death threads from Islamic fanatics who didnt like the magazines cartoons.
If the why, the motive of a topical action is off topic, then you aren't leaving much to talk about.
It's almost like I covered that in the reply you quoted even though you left that out...
I also have no problem with people talking about what motivated "these" guys to do "this" thing. Idiots take up idiotic causes for idiotic reasons. If these guys are motivated by some religious cause and/or were hired by idiots who were motivated by some religious cause then by all means it is perfectly valid to talk about those things. My beef is with the blanket statements about religions and blanket statements about people who follow different religions.
djones520 wrote: The people who killed those folks today, want people to stop talking about Radical Islam.
And do you believe that I am telling anyone to stop talking about radical Islam?
With all I said on the Quran, and religions, and what they believe, and what are sensible comparisons to be made, and all that?
I am all for talking about radical Islam. I am just trying to convince people of my views on radical Islam.
Surely you noticed that this sentence was a sarcastic retort to people telling me to stop talking about religion?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So what evidence to you have that 'The Life of Brian' and metal music made Christianity "better"?
I have none.
d-usa wrote: I also have no problem with people talking about what motivated "these" guys to do "this" thing. Idiots take up idiotic causes for idiotic reasons.
That is the worse way to look at it. Stop that, stop dismissing them as idiotic, and try to understand why they took those causes, if you want to fight that phenomenon. I am pretty sure very intelligent people have been taking arms for what turned out to be very, very bad causes.
djones520 wrote: The people who killed those folks today, want people to stop talking about Radical Islam.
And do you believe that I am telling anyone to stop talking about radical Islam?
With all I said on the Quran, and religions, and what they believe, and what are sensible comparisons to be made, and all that?
I am all for talking about radical Islam. I am just trying to convince people of my views on radical Islam.
Surely you noticed that this sentence was a sarcastic retort to people telling me to stop talking about religion?
Honestly no, given your past attacks on people discussing similar topics, it did not at all come across to me as sarcasm. If it truly was, then I offer my apologies for the mistake.
d-usa wrote: I also have no problem with people talking about what motivated "these" guys to do "this" thing. Idiots take up idiotic causes for idiotic reasons.
That is the worse way to look at it. Stop that, stop dismissing them as idiotic, and try to understand why they took those causes, if you want to fight that phenomenon. I am pretty sure very intelligent people have been taking arms for what turned out to be very, very bad causes.
And here I am thinking that one could do both, silly me...
If you look closer at my attacks, you will see that what I am saying them is to discuss (and condemn) radical Islam in a different way, through a different viewpoint. Not to stop talking about it. Because I do believe the way they are framing the debate is hurtful to, well, a lot of people that are not radical Muslims, or even Muslims for that matter.
Skinnereal wrote: The IRA just wanted a different leadership. The culture and society would similar, and the only changes would be the people at the top. A few laws would be shifted, but that's about it.
Islamic fundamentalists want a total change, with human rights being revoked, laws being ripped up and replaced, and so on.
So, without the population being replaced, there's little a fundamentalist can do to make their goals happen.
I'm always fascinated by the comparisons between the IRA and Islamic fundamentalists. While both used terror as a way of achieving their stated objectives their actual modus operandi and goals were/are completely different. The IRA have always been driven by political concerns rather than religious (some of the IRA's founders and earliest sponsors were Protestant), with the unification of Ireland and the removal of British rule from the island of Ireland. Every incarnation of the IRA has had this goal, and every incarnation has been geographically limited in their operations to the UK and Ireland. Radical Islamists by comparison are not so geographically limited, are not a unified body, there is often a very fractious relationship between groups, and one of their primary motivations is religion.
Orlanth wrote: As for comparisons between radical Islam and western society, those comparisons are valid, and should not be redacted out of ignorance.
No, they are not valid. You are comparing a religion and a society. It does not work like that. Compare two religions/belief systems, or two societies. Like for instance “societies from the Arabian peninsula” vs “societies from western European countries”, or “Radical Islam” versus “Humanism”. Those make sense.
The comparisons are valid because the radical Islamics make them valid. This isn't a contest between two cultural groups or two reilgious groups.
It is a contest of wills between a radical religious group, which demands that their holy law be enforced upon all, including the penalty of death for blasphemy.
This is directly contrary to a societal point of view, established in the traditions of western democracy that freedom of expression and freedom of the Press are important and are to be defended
The commonality is that both groups have doctrines that a sacrosanct, yet mutually exclusive, in these cases Sharia law vs the western tradition of free speech.
Orlanth wrote: Namely it was a Western publishing organisation in the field of satirical politics which extremists have a noted history of wishing to silence by any means necessary.
Do you realize how much publishing organization in Muslim-majority countries are pressured and silenced? This “western” here is completely irrelevant, unless you do not care for anyone outside of the western world.
Yes things are bad in may parts of the world, and generally there is nothing we can do about it. After all we cant realistically armtwist Iran and Saudi Arabia and force upon their society a freedom of the press as seen in western society. Also the Islamic world does have a right to Islamic culture.
Western society is different, western Europe is NOT based on Islamic culture or Sharia law, and our societal values favour freedoms of expression absent in many places in the world. Some people don't like those values and want to take them away, of which radical Islam is just one faction.
Those who live in Europe and other western democratic zones have every reason to want to prolifigate and preserve their/our culture and freedoms, even if they are incompatible with Sharia law, and even if tose who prefer Sharia law, will attempt to enforce Sharia at gunpoint.
d-usa wrote: And here I am thinking that one could do both, silly me...
I do not think basing yourself on the assumption those people are stupid is going to help. But, well, that is great, we are launching the subject. Why do you believe they take up those causes, other than them being idiotic?
Skinnereal wrote: The IRA just wanted a different leadership. The culture and society would similar, and the only changes would be the people at the top. A few laws would be shifted, but that's about it.
Islamic fundamentalists want a total change, with human rights being revoked, laws being ripped up and replaced, and so on.
So, without the population being replaced, there's little a fundamentalist can do to make their goals happen.
I'm always fascinated by the comparisons between the IRA and Islamic fundamentalists. While both used terror as a way of achieving their stated objectives their actual modus operandi and goals were/are completely different. The IRA have always been driven by political concerns rather than religious (some of the IRA's founders and earliest sponsors were Protestant), with the unification of Ireland and the removal of British rule from the island of Ireland. Every incarnation of the IRA has had this goal, and every incarnation has been geographically limited in their operations to the UK and Ireland. Radical Islamists by comparison are not so geographically limited, are not a unified body, there is often a very fractious relationship between groups, and one of their primary motivations is religion.
Terrorism comes in many forms, and the reasons can be wildly different.
As the UK is, and other countries are, finding out, treating all terrorists the same does not work.
The IRA didn't want to be martyrs, but lots of the Islamic radicals do. That's a huge step, and makes their attacks so much harder to stop.
Skinnereal wrote: The IRA didn't want to be martyrs, but lots of the Islamic radicals do. That's a huge step, and makes their attacks so much harder to stop.
Which is exactly why I was highlights some salient differences between the two groups.
Orlanth wrote: The comparisons are valid because the radical Islamics make them valid.
The comparison is valid to you because you want to make it.
Orlanth wrote: It is a contest of wills between a radical religious group, which demands that their holy law be enforced upon all, including the penalty of death for blasphemy.
This is directly contrary to a societal point of view, established in the traditions of western democracy that freedom of expression and freedom of the Press are important and are to be defended
So this is a contest between the view that holy laws should be enforced upon all against the view that they should not. Believe me, Western democracy is not the only place where people disagree with the idea that holy laws should be enforced upon all.
And you ought to know that in France we do have some laws, that I agree with, that puts limits on freedom of speech. Like those forbidding calling to the murder of someone, or inviting to hate crimes. We even have laws that forbid to deny the Nazi atrocities, and those are a bit controversial. Our relation to freedom of speech is a bit different from the US version. Which also have, or had some exception in the past. Some South Korean friend of mine told me recently about how she feared some McCarthyism coming up in her country. My own grand-father, which certainly was not a communist by any rate, was denied entry to the US. I am pretty sure freedom of speech is not all that sacrosanct in every way in the US either.
Orlanth wrote: Yes things are bad in may parts of the world, and generally there is nothing we can do about it. After all we cant realistically armtwist Iran and Saudi Arabia and force upon their society a freedom of the press as seen in western society.
You are talking about the French and US government forcing the Iranian and Saudi government to change their laws. I am talking about people that care about secularism and the criticism of religion in France and the US and Iran and Saudi Arabia being united in an effort to convince the rest of the people that religious laws should not be enforced and that religions should be criticized. We are on totally different level.
Orlanth wrote: Also the Islamic world does have a right to Islamic culture.
No. That is completely false. Islamic culture does not mean anything. Have we lost our right to Christian culture now that one can declare publicly that God does not exist without fearing any kind of consequences? I agree that people should be allowed to, say, celebrate the end of the Ramadan. The way they do it in Albania seemed perfect: loud music, and drinking alcohol. That is Islamic culture, in the sense that this is some cultural celebration that comes from Islam. Sharia law? No, that is something bad that should not be implemented anywhere, and I will try to convince everyone I can about it. No “but they are different” bs will prevent me from doing so.
Orlanth wrote: Western society is different, western Europe is NOT based on Islamic culture or Sharia law, and our societal values favour freedoms of expression absent in many places in the world.
And you just told the people that want to bring those values into their country that is currently under Sharia law “No, you keep up with your Islamic culture”. Whoah. That seems a pretty bad thing to do to me.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Every incarnation of the IRA has had this goal, and every incarnation has been geographically limited in their operations to the UK and Ireland.
That is not what Punisher comics told me, but I am not sure I trust them as a valid source of information on… anything, really .
Because I do not need direct evidence, just enough cues and thinking to make up my mind. Let us call that faith, please .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
stanman wrote: Aren't strict European gun laws supposed to completely prevent this type of stuff?
They are supposed to make them much harder to pull of and therefore less frequent. Are there less frequent? I do not know the numbers. But, like I suspect the huge majority of French people, would not buy a gun even without gun laws, so it would not make much of a difference, I believe.
Skinnereal wrote: The IRA just wanted a different leadership. The culture and society would similar, and the only changes would be the people at the top. A few laws would be shifted, but that's about it.
Islamic fundamentalists want a total change, with human rights being revoked, laws being ripped up and replaced, and so on.
So, without the population being replaced, there's little a fundamentalist can do to make their goals happen.
I'm always fascinated by the comparisons between the IRA and Islamic fundamentalists. While both used terror as a way of achieving their stated objectives their actual modus operandi and goals were/are completely different. The IRA have always been driven by political concerns rather than religious (some of the IRA's founders and earliest sponsors were Protestant), with the unification of Ireland and the removal of British rule from the island of Ireland. Every incarnation of the IRA has had this goal, and every incarnation has been geographically limited in their operations to the UK and Ireland. Radical Islamists by comparison are not so geographically limited, are not a unified body, there is often a very fractious relationship between groups, and one of their primary motivations is religion.
Weren't the two sides divided on the religious line of Protestant and Catholic? I know that religion wasn't a motivating factor in The Troubles, but I think I remember something along that line and it being a result of historical events. A weird "Protestant vs Catholic" thing even though it wasn't because they were Protestant or Catholics.
stanman wrote: Aren't strict European gun laws supposed to completely prevent this type of stuff?
No, they're supposed to make killing people harder, and to make it unable for two year olds to kill their mom in the supermarket.
How nice of you to bring this up, though. I'm sure you're very sorry for the victims, and are currently thanking them for the ability of giving you a bad pro-gun argument!
Orlanth wrote: It is a contest of wills between a radical religious group, which demands that their holy law be enforced upon all, including the penalty of death for blasphemy.
This is directly contrary to a societal point of view, established in the traditions of western democracy that freedom of expression and freedom of the Press are important and are to be defended
So this is a contest between the view that holy laws should be enforced upon all against the view that they should not.
So you do recognise that there are two opposed viewpoints; one societal, one is religious. Both are connected even if doctrinally separate in nature.
Orlanth wrote: Also the Islamic world does have a right to Islamic culture.
No. That is completely false. Islamic culture does not mean anything.
Clearly you have a strong detachment from reality if you dismiss the existence of Islamic culture as a major cultural factor, especially in areas where Islam is the predominant religion.
We are done here, there is no logical point in continuing this part of the conversation.
They are supposed to make them much harder to pull of and therefore less frequent. Are there less frequent? I do not know the numbers. But, like I suspect the huge majority of French people, would not buy a gun even without gun laws, so it would not make much of a difference, I believe.
Would you make an exception for this gun?
Spoiler:
In other news; the reports are saying the car explosion was a "mechanical failure." I don't know if I buy that, especially that it's just far enough and in the opposite direction from the shooting to be a great diversion to pull partial police attention to it.
Sure, but the mod who is removing the posts isn't speaking, but you are vocalising support for the thread deletions.
Example quited earlier:
d-usa wrote: A few posts actually talking about a current events, with the rest of the thread already being a gak-slinging contest about "religion is bad/Islam is evil" before we even got to page 2.
Just lock this thread if it can't stay on topic, it's the same thread we locked last week and the week before.
stanman wrote: Aren't strict European gun laws supposed to completely prevent this type of stuff?
No, they're supposed to make killing people harder, and to make it unable for two year olds to kill their mom in the supermarket.
How nice of you to bring this up, though. I'm sure you're very sorry for the victims, and are currently thanking them for the ability of giving you a bad pro-gun argument!
Also gun laws will not be a deterrent to terrorists, it will in all fairness make it harder to source firearms. However there are enough illegal guns in Europe already, fanatics and criminals have easy (enough) access to them, in the UK gun crime has actually increased since the blanket handgun ban in 1997.
Sure, but the mod who is removing the posts isn't speaking, but you are vocalising support for the thread deletions.
Example quited earlier:
d-usa wrote: A few posts actually talking about a current events, with the rest of the thread already being a gak-slinging contest about "religion is bad/Islam is evil" before we even got to page 2.
Just lock this thread if it can't stay on topic, it's the same thread we locked last week and the week before.
If the deleted posts were off-topic then I guess my "stay on-topic" message was in support of these deletions.
Of course this whole topic is now off-topic as well...
Orlanth wrote: So you do recognise that there are two opposed viewpoints; one societal, one is religious. Both are connected even if doctrinally separate in nature.
Did you notice how I removed every reference to “western” stuff ? Because that is the big deal. Really. Think about it.
stanman wrote: Aren't strict European gun laws supposed to completely prevent this type of stuff?
No, they're supposed to make killing people harder, and to make it unable for two year olds to kill their mom in the supermarket.
How nice of you to bring this up, though. I'm sure you're very sorry for the victims, and are currently thanking them for the ability of giving you a bad pro-gun argument!
Also gun laws will not be a deterrent to terrorists, it will in all fairness make it harder to source firearms. However there are enough illegal guns in Europe already, fanatics and criminals have easy (enough) access to them, in the UK gun crime has actually increased since the blanket handgun ban in 1997.
And these guys were not amateurs. Whatever group was able to plan this and train these guys wouldn't have any problems getting their hands on weapons no matter what the laws are.
And these guys were not amateurs. Whatever group was able to plan this and train these guys wouldn't have any problems getting their hands on weapons no matter what the laws are.
Isn't that the truth.
This gak looks like the movie Heat, but in real life.
And these guys were not amateurs. Whatever group was able to plan this and train these guys wouldn't have any problems getting their hands on weapons no matter what the laws are.
Agreed.
The public reaction is gathering momentum, its called Je suis Charlie (I am Charlie)
This is an online campaign starting, a bit like the massed Draw Mohammed Day protest a few years back, more restrained, but not less defiant.
I agree with its aims, our democratic right to free speech is not for sale, and that needs to be understood and boldly stated in large numbers, and have modded my siggie to include it.
Isn't it awesome how the Administration can't get their people on the same page before opening their mouths to reporters? Josh Earnest's phrasing says a lot about who he is and how he views the world. I guess he was still trying to figure out if there was some youtube video to blame.
Daniel Halper wrote:WH Unsure Whether Murderous Rampage in France Is 'Terrorism'
White House press secretary Josh Earnest refrained from calling the attack on a French magazine "terrorism" in an interview this morning on CNN:
The CNN host asked, "Josh, when you talk about countering the message, you keep using the word violence. I mean, this is an act of terrorism, that's what the president of France called it -- an act of terrorism. You're referring to ISIS and other bad actors, it doesn't really matter who it is at the end of the day. You know you're fighting a very large group of people of somewhat similar concern. Do you see this as an act of terrorism, and is this something that has to be condemned on that level?"
"Based on what we know right now it does seem that's what we're confronting here. And this is an act of violence that we certainly do condemn, and if based on this investigation it turns out to be an act of terrorism, then we would condemn that in the strongest possible terms, too," said Earnest.
"I mean, look, this is again based on the very preliminary information that we have, this isn't just an attack as you point out, Chris, on the people of France and on innocent civilians. This is an attack on some of the basic values that we hold dear here in this country and basic values of freedom of speech and freedom of expression and the free press that is also held dear by our allies in France. So this is something we take seriously and that we condemn, like I said, in the strongest possible terms."
UPDATE: A few minutes later, President Obama released a statement calling it a "terrorist act."
this is exactly what I needed to learn at 3am.
I just...I just hate that nothing can be done. humanity, we can't even stop each other from killing each other.
my condolences to the families of the deceased, I hope that they...I hope they...I dunno.
I want these bastards cought, and if they want to meet their god, good, they would get a formal introduction in the form of a bullet to the head.
death to death tho...it doesn't work. I'm sitting here, feeling crappy typing, while these donkey-caves are out there. damn it, this is just...
Personally, I hope these guys get caught alive, and get put in an isolation cell for the rest of their life (hopefully they grow to be like a hundred years old inside prison).
Personally, I hope those guys get caught alive, and go to prison, and manage to get out of their current crazy worldview, and repent, and make as much good as they can from inside prison, until they finish serving their time, or are too old to be kept in prison.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Personally, I hope those guys get caught alive, and go to prison, and manage to get out of their current crazy worldview, and repent, and make as much good as they can from inside prison, until they finish serving their time, or are too old to be kept in prison.
I hope they get either shoot in the guts and bleed out or get caught, go to prison and then get stabbed in a bathroom.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Personally, I hope those guys get caught alive, and go to prison, and manage to get out of their current crazy worldview, and repent, and make as much good as they can from inside prison, until they finish serving their time, or are too old to be kept in prison.
I don't know what the laws are like in France, but with more than ten people dead, would they actually ever finish serving their time?
Sigvatr wrote: I hope they get either shoot in the guts and bleed out or get caught, go to prison and then get stabbed in a bathroom.
How would they give out information about the people that were helping them to allow to prevent more case like this if they die before getting caught? And how is them getting stabbed in a bathroom better for anyone than them repenting and trying to attune by doing good things?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
-Shrike- wrote: I don't know what the laws are like in France, but with more than ten people dead, would they actually ever finish serving their time?
I have no idea, I do not need to know because they will never catch me, and they have no proof beside.
Uh, I mean, I have no idea because I never did kill 10 peoples so of course I never had any reason to check out, of course!
Sigvatr wrote: I hope they get either shoot in the guts and bleed out or get caught, go to prison and then get stabbed in a bathroom.
How would they give out information about the people that were helping them to allow to prevent more case like this if they die before getting caught? And how is them getting stabbed in a bathroom better for anyone than them repenting and trying to attune by doing good things?
Because this is Dakka OT, and some people here just want to watch the world burn.
And these guys were not amateurs. Whatever group was able to plan this and train these guys wouldn't have any problems getting their hands on weapons no matter what the laws are.
Agreed.
The public reaction is gathering momentum, its called Je suis Charlie (I am Charlie)
This is an online campaign starting, a bit like the massed Draw Mohammed Day protest a few years back, more restrained, but not less defiant.
I agree with its aims, our democratic right to free speech is not for sale, and that needs to be understood and boldly stated in large numbers, and have modded my siggie to include it.
What would be good was if every newspaper in Europe reprinted these cartoons as their front pages tomorrow. THAT would send a message that our right to free speech cannot be stopped by terrorist actions.
This online campaign means less than nothing and accomplishes the same.
Sigvatr wrote: I hope they get either shoot in the guts and bleed out or get caught, go to prison and then get stabbed in a bathroom.
How would they give out information about the people that were helping them to allow to prevent more case like this if they die before getting caught? And how is them getting stabbed in a bathroom better for anyone than them repenting and trying to attune by doing good things?
There are many who are just waiting for an excuse enjoy the suffering of humans. Tragedies like these provide them a relatively rare affordance to express these feelings publicly with little or no objection from others.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Personally, I hope those guys get caught alive, and go to prison, and manage to get out of their current crazy worldview, and repent, and make as much good as they can from inside prison, until they finish serving their time, or are too old to be kept in prison.
Your view is measured, reasonable, pragmatic and empathetic. I applaud it.
How would they give out information about the people that were helping them to allow to prevent more case like this if they die before getting caught? And how is them getting stabbed in a bathroom better for anyone than them repenting and trying to attune by doing good things?
Oh please. Do you really think these guys, with as organized and professional as they are, are giving up any information?
cincydooley wrote: I think I've decided that I hate "online campaigns" and "online petitions" pretty much more than anything else.
Its because of pessimism like this that #bringbackourgirls and #konynow2012 didn't work.
If only a few people had helped keep those hashtags trending, the pressure on the terrorist groups would have led to them returning Nigeria's girls and turning themselves in to face justice.
Shame on you. You could have made a difference with just a few keystrokes, and you couldn't be bothered to do it. Shame, sir.
FYI, I looked up the French laws on murder and it carries a maximum sentence of 30 years or life (depending on whether it was premeditated). Of course, there's very little chance they'll take these bastards alive, if they catch them at all.
Its because of pessimism like this that #bringbackourgirls and #konynow2012 didn't work.
If only a few people had helped keep those hashtags trending, the pressure on the terrorist groups would have led to them returning Nigeria's girls and turning themselves in to face justice.
Shame on you. You could have made a difference with just a few keystrokes, and you couldn't be bothered to do it. Shame, sir.
Um. No.
It's because hashtag campaigns are fething useless.
d-usa wrote: Weren't the two sides divided on the religious line of Protestant and Catholic? I know that religion wasn't a motivating factor in The Troubles, but I think I remember something along that line and it being a result of historical events. A weird "Protestant vs Catholic" thing even though it wasn't because they were Protestant or Catholics.
Edit: damn butterfingers on a mobile phone...
Even though the two sides ended up divided largely on religious lines for a variety of historical, political, and economic reasons the conflict was never really fueled by a religious element.
Its because of pessimism like this that #bringbackourgirls and #konynow2012 didn't work.
If only a few people had helped keep those hashtags trending, the pressure on the terrorist groups would have led to them returning Nigeria's girls and turning themselves in to face justice.
Shame on you. You could have made a difference with just a few keystrokes, and you couldn't be bothered to do it. Shame, sir.
Um. No.
It's because hashtag campaigns are fething useless.
I wasn't serious, I should've added the disclaimer.
Obviously and primarily, it's terrible because people got killed.
It's terrible because it's going to worsen relations and harden sentiment.
It's terrible because it plays into the hands of France's xenophobic right wing, who were on the upswing anyway.
Its because of pessimism like this that #bringbackourgirls and #konynow2012 didn't work.
If only a few people had helped keep those hashtags trending, the pressure on the terrorist groups would have led to them returning Nigeria's girls and turning themselves in to face justice.
Shame on you. You could have made a difference with just a few keystrokes, and you couldn't be bothered to do it. Shame, sir.
Um. No.
It's because hashtag campaigns are fething useless.
I wasn't serious, I should've added the disclaimer.
No, no. I got it after I read it the second time. We've got too many people that would actually post that legitimately that it didn't give me pause to think it was for real
So, since it's been over 5 hours and they haven't been apprehended yet, these guys can be almost anywhere in Western Europe, hell, with that time table they could be driving past where I live right about now. Fun.
Hope they get caught alive and they wring every scrap of information out of these degenerates. At this point I would not give two gaks about their treatment in captivity. But like others said, I very much doubt these guys will be caught alive and I wouldn't be surprised if they go out with an actual bang if cornered.
Da Boss wrote: What a terrible day for some many reasons.
Obviously and primarily, it's terrible because people got killed.
It's terrible because it's going to worsen relations and harden sentiment.
It's terrible because it plays into the hands of France's xenophobic right wing, who were on the upswing anyway.
Sigvatr wrote: That's how you take care of a garden. You exterminate the weeds to improve the garden as a whole.
Do you think of human beings as plants in a garden, where you just keep the pretty one and destroy the other, and cut them to make them look exactly how you want them?
Sigvatr wrote: But agree with the compromise. Get them alive if possible, interrogate them, then sent them to prison, then let them suffer an inhuman death.
But we do not have the death penalty in France anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, no, I do not believe in Le Pen becoming president.
Sigvatr wrote: That's how you take care of a garden. You exterminate the weeds to improve the garden as a whole.
Do you think of human beings as plants in a garden, where you just keep the pretty one and destroy the other, and cut them to make them look exactly how you want them?
If those weeds are killing the plants...absolutely.
Sigvatr wrote: But agree with the compromise. Get them alive if possible, interrogate them, then sent them to prison, then let them suffer an inhuman death.
But we do not have the death penalty in France anyway.
Tell that to the French prison population.
Who knows...maybe when caught, these killers will be cell mates with French Ultra Nationalists...
Disgusting attack from the religion that fails to accept criticism or understand freedom of speech.
I hope the publication can continue to go on after this devastating blow to their staff. It would be even worse if it couldn't as they will have won essentially.
Le Pen for President. (Haven't polls shown she was in the lead already?)
PEGIDA support will rise.
Lurch to the right for Europe.
Seeing them wandering about the streets makes me wish we had an American style attitude to guns.
It's all well and good saying we don't need them until we need them.
The ease in which this was carried out is just mind boggling. I bet there was very little online communication done and it was all done face to face. These people are almost impossible to keep track off as they are in tight night circles.
The gunmen in Paris attacked more than a Muslim-baiting magazine
François Hollande, France's president, called it “an act of exceptional barbarity . . . against freedom of expression”.
But the murder on Wednesday of 12 people at the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine, will not surprise anyone familiar with the rising tensions among France's 5m or more Muslim citizens and the poisonous legacy of French colonialism in north Africa.
It must be stressed that, for the moment, the perpetrators are unidentified. No one can at this moment be certain that the murders are connected to the firebombing of Charlie Hebdo's offices in 2011, an attack that followed the magazine's publication of an image of the Prophet Mohammed, its “guest editor”, on its cover.
Two years ago it published a 65-page strip cartoon book portraying the Prophet's life. And this week it gave special coverage to Soumission (“Submission”), a new novel by Michel Houellebecq, the idiosyncratic author, which depicts France in the grip of an Islamic regime led by a Muslim president.
In other words, Charlie Hebdo has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims. If the magazine stops just short of outright insults, it is nevertheless not the most convincing champion of the principle of freedom of speech. France is the land of Voltaire, but too often editorial foolishness has prevailed at Charlie Hebdo.
This is not in the slightest to condone the murderers, who must be caught and punished, or to suggest that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion. It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark's Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims, but are actually just being stupid.
In France the next question is what impact Wednesday's murders will have on the political climate, and in particular the fortunes of Marine Le Pen and her far-right National Front. Anti-Islamism forms part of the electoral appeal of a party that topped the polls in May in France's European Parliament elections. Ms Le Pen once compared Muslims praying in the streets to the 1940-44 Nazi occupation of France.
The English author Andrew Hussey, who lives in Paris, published a book last year called The French Intifada , in which he described France as “the world capital of liberty, equality and fraternity . . . under attack from the angry and dispossessed heirs to the French colonial project”. The murders in Paris throw down a challenge to French politicians and citizens to stand up for the republic's core values and defeat political violence without succumbing to the siren songs of the far right.
But we do not have the death penalty in France anyway.
I wasn't talking about the government. It's always better to let the government do their thing while others take care of the problem. Get all the info you get from them. At this point, they have outlived their usefulness. They have already given up their rights, so do the best you can do with them and then...handle things.
That is not how it works in a garden. At least a French garden. You kill all the plants you do not want there, and you cute the one you wants to make them how you want them to look.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Who knows...maybe when caught, these killers will be cell mates with French Ultra Nationalists...
But we do not have the death penalty in France anyway.
I wasn't talking about the government. It's always better to let the government do their thing while others take care of the problem. Get all the info you get from them. At this point, they have outlived their usefulness. They have already given up their rights, so do the best you can do with them and then...handle things.
I'm sure theres at least a few patriots in the French prison population...
That is not how it works in a garden. At least a French garden. You kill all the plants you do not want there, and you cute the one you wants to make them how you want them to look.
Probably not a good idea to piss of the gardener then. Or whatever. This analogy is getting weird.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Who knows...maybe when caught, these killers will be cell mates with French Ultra Nationalists...
Not if the prison staff has a hint of sense.
Maybe they'll all have simultaneous "lapses in judgement"...
What does it have to do with patriotism? And Charlie Hebdo mocks nationalism a LOT, and they are hated by the far right, so…
Everything. This could easily be interpreted as an attack on French society and values (e.g. freedom of speech). "Insult Islam and face the consequences!" The people who are most likely to take matters into their own hands and lynch them would probably be far right wing nationalists, especially the ones that are already violent and serving prison sentences. And I'm sure they'll overlook the fact that Charlie Hebdo is a left wing critic of nationalism.
Seeing them wandering about the streets makes me wish we had an American style attitude to guns.
It's all well and good saying we don't need them until we need them.
They killed two armed cops in the process, I don't think that armed civilians would have had any effect other than adding themselves to the body count.
Da Boss wrote: What a terrible day for some many reasons.
Obviously and primarily, it's terrible because people got killed.
It's terrible because it's going to worsen relations and harden sentiment.
It's terrible because it plays into the hands of France's xenophobic right wing, who were on the upswing anyway.
Le Pen for president?
This seems, unfortunately, very likely now.
Seeing that stuff like this (and many more problems with immigrants) happens in France, maybe that wouldn't be so bad?
I know she would get my vote after this if I were French and could vote.
This whole attack is too sad for words. Those islamists are disgusting. We should be glad something like Beslan or Nord-Ost has not yet happened in the West.
Seeing them wandering about the streets makes me wish we had an American style attitude to guns.
It's all well and good saying we don't need them until we need them.
They killed two armed cops in the process, I don't think that armed civilians would have had any effect other than adding themselves to the body count.
The cops were unarmed.
I won't speak for everyone, but I can honestly state if I was in the middle of this type of event, I would 100% want to be armed if for no other reason than to have a chance to defend myself/others I was with.
Maybe an armed person would have made 0 difference, maybe an armed person could have helped save a life or two. We don't know. I will go out on a limb and guess if/when these guys are caught, it won't be by unarmed people.
What they did was terrible, they should not be allowed to do it again, they should not get away without consequences, but what good would their death bring?
Do you mean in a “we completely despise the concept of état de droit (which apparently translate into English as “Rechtsstaat”. What the hell?) and will go all vigilante even though we swore an oath of office to the state?” fashion?
I am sure they will find a way to push your buttons .
Also, many of their drawings will be borderline here and might get me a ban.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: This could easily be interpreted as an attack on French society and values (e.g. freedom of speech).
You have no idea how many French people tried to silence Charlie Hebdo. They did so by attacking them through the judicial system, of course, so this was perfectly legal and moral. But still.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The people who are most likely to take matters into their own hands and lynch them would probably be far right wing nationalists, especially the ones that are already violent and serving prison sentences. And I'm sure they'll overlook the fact that Charlie Hebdo is a left wing critic of nationalism.
Actually, those people would likely clash with Muslims irregardless of Charlie Hebdo. They certainly would not care for a second about “defending Charlie Hebdo right to free speech”, since they do believe that Charlie Hebdo should be closed by force.
I guess what you would actually like is for the prison staff to put them in the same cell as Charles Bronson.
Seeing them wandering about the streets makes me wish we had an American style attitude to guns.
It's all well and good saying we don't need them until we need them.
They killed two armed cops in the process, I don't think that armed civilians would have had any effect other than adding themselves to the body count.
The cops were unarmed.
I won't speak for everyone, but I can honestly state if I was in the middle of this type of event, I would 100% want to be armed if for no other reason than to have a chance to defend myself/others I was with.
Maybe an armed person would have made 0 difference, maybe an armed person could have helped save a life or two. We don't know. I will go out on a limb and guess if/when these guys are caught, it won't be by unarmed people.
Indeed.
General thread advice. If you want to induce some serious levels of rage go on Liveleak and there's uncensored footage of the policeman being shot.
I honestly think people need to see it. It shows the mentality of the people we are dealing with.
There is no remorse, no pity or mercy. It's kill or be killed with these people. They will not see reason.
What does it have to do with patriotism? And Charlie Hebdo mocks nationalism a LOT, and they are hated by the far right, so…
Everything. This could easily be interpreted as an attack on French society and values (e.g. freedom of speech). "Insult Islam and face the consequences!" The people who are most likely to take matters into their own hands and lynch them would probably be far right wing nationalists, especially the ones that are already violent and serving prison sentences. And I'm sure they'll overlook the fact that Charlie Hebdo is a left wing critic of nationalism.
Surely we can agree on this at least?
We can, or at least I can.
I had not heard of Charlie Hebro before today, understandably as I don't speak French, and also not exactly left wing, in fact there is little in what I have seen of Charlie Hebro that I do agree with. I also agree that one of the images of Mohammed (but not the others) went too far.
However despite all this when it comes to free speech rights, and their willingness to challenge Islamic extremism I find myself in full agreement with them, and recognise that their continued refusal to bow to threats as a brave and necessary act.
What they did was terrible, they should not be allowed to do it again, they should not get away without consequences, but what good would their death bring?
Do you mean in a “we completely despise the concept of état de droit (which apparently translate into English as “Rechtsstaat”. What the hell?) and will go all vigilante even though we swore an oath of office to the state?” fashion?
No, I mean turning a blind eye. Why do you find this so difficult to believe?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: This could easily be interpreted as an attack on French society and values (e.g. freedom of speech).
You have no idea how many French people tried to silence Charlie Hebdo. They did so by attacking them through the judicial system, of course, so this was perfectly legal and moral. But still.
I don't see how thats relevant.
Right wing nationalists hate Muslims. > A group of extremist Muslims murder and wound almost two dozen French people. > Right wing nationalists take revenge against said Muslims.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The people who are most likely to take matters into their own hands and lynch them would probably be far right wing nationalists, especially the ones that are already violent and serving prison sentences. And I'm sure they'll overlook the fact that Charlie Hebdo is a left wing critic of nationalism.
Actually, those people would likely clash with Muslims irregardless of Charlie Hebdo. They certainly would not care for a second about “defending Charlie Hebdo right to free speech”, since they do believe that Charlie Hebdo should be closed by force.
I didn't say they'd be defending Freedom of Speech. They'd do it to "defend France" against Islam. They'd perceive this attack as an attack on France itself.
I guess what you would actually like is for the prison staff to put them in the same cell as Charles Bronson.
No, actually. I wouldn't like it to happen. But I think they'd deserve it. And I think its a distinct possibility, because really - who would want to protect a mass murderer?. But as much as I might want it to happen to them, I still think its a bad idea. Revenge, and turning a blind eye to violence in prisons undermines Justice.
Which is exactly what I describe. This is not their job and not their decision to kill, directly or indirectly, those guys.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: No, actually. I wouldn't like it to happen. But I think they'd deserve it. And I think its a distinct possibility. But as much as I might want it to happen to them, I still think its a bad idea. Revenge, and turning a blind eye to violence in prisons undermines Justice.
I do not think it is a possibility, because high-profile case.
What they did was terrible, they should not be allowed to do it again, they should not get away without consequences, but what good would their death bring?
4 less mass murderers in French society.
Agreed. No excuses. Keep them long enough to spill the beans.
What they did was terrible, they should not be allowed to do it again, they should not get away without consequences, but what good would their death bring?
4 less mass murderers in French society.
Agreed. No excuses. Keep them long enough to spill the beans.
Seeing them wandering about the streets makes me wish we had an American style attitude to guns.
It's all well and good saying we don't need them until we need them.
They killed two armed cops in the process, I don't think that armed civilians would have had any effect other than adding themselves to the body count.
The cops were unarmed.
I won't speak for everyone, but I can honestly state if I was in the middle of this type of event, I would 100% want to be armed if for no other reason than to have a chance to defend myself/others I was with.
Maybe an armed person would have made 0 difference, maybe an armed person could have helped save a life or two. We don't know. I will go out on a limb and guess if/when these guys are caught, it won't be by unarmed people.
Fair point, but the earlier poster was making the simplistic claim that an unarmed populace = less safety, whilst armed populace = more safety.
Not having a go at you, but there's another thread about a shooting in Texas, a very pro gun state, and yet, despite the armed populace, this shooting still happened.
It's a little charming to me that you think a group like this would be "spilling any beans." Maybe I"m too cynical, but again, a group this organized and well armed isn't your average conscripted jihadist. They're the real true believers.
cincydooley wrote: It's a little charming to me that you think a group like this would be "spilling any beans." Maybe I"m too cynical, but again, a group this organized and well armed isn't your average conscripted jihadist. They're the real true believers.
What they did was terrible, they should not be allowed to do it again, they should not get away without consequences, but what good would their death bring?
4 less mass murderers in French society.
Agreed. No excuses. Keep them long enough to spill the beans.
I don't think they have any beans to spill. Doesn't Al Qaeda work in isolated cells? I doubt they have much information on other cells.
cincydooley wrote: It's a little charming to me that you think a group like this would be "spilling any beans." Maybe I"m too cynical, but again, a group this organized and well armed isn't your average conscripted jihadist. They're the real true believers.
I mean, I guess... I don't think that makes it "disgusting" by any stretch, and it certainly doesn't remove the morsel of truth it contains.
When we talk about free speech, and I think it's very important, we seemingly do so with the notion that free speech is free of consequence. It's not.
I'm certainly free to go to Ferguson and yell at the top of my lungs insensitive things about Mike Brown. That doesn't mean I'm exempt from getting my ass beat for doing so.
cincydooley wrote: It's a little charming to me that you think a group like this would be "spilling any beans." Maybe I"m too cynical, but again, a group this organized and well armed isn't your average conscripted jihadist. They're the real true believers.
What they did was terrible, they should not be allowed to do it again, they should not get away without consequences, but what good would their death bring?
4 dead pieces of meat. 100% safe they'll never do it again.
Do you mean in a “we completely despise the concept of état de droit (which apparently translate into English as “Rechtsstaat”. What the hell?) and will go all vigilante even though we swore an oath of office to the state?” fashion?
I lost the idea of the state being on top of all things a long, long time ago. Money and power rule the state, not the other way around. And yes, if a state can look like having clean hands to the public while still doing the right thing, then that's the perfect solution for everyone. There is something inherently wrong with people wanting tax payers to PAYfor mass murderers. Do you want to pay for the living of mass murderers? I certainly wouldn't.
cincydooley wrote: It's a little charming to me that you think a group like this would be "spilling any beans." Maybe I"m too cynical, but again, a group this organized and well armed isn't your average conscripted jihadist. They're the real true believers.
until you start chopping pieces off.
Riiiiight.
When all of Europe is screaming at the top of their lungs about water boarding and sleep deprivation at GitMo, they're going to be suddenly fine with putting bamboo shoots in fingernails in France.
cincydooley wrote: It's a little charming to me that you think a group like this would be "spilling any beans." Maybe I"m too cynical, but again, a group this organized and well armed isn't your average conscripted jihadist. They're the real true believers.
until you start chopping pieces off.
But Americans are history's greatest villain because they waterboarded a few right?
What they did was terrible, they should not be allowed to do it again, they should not get away without consequences, but what good would their death bring?
What good will their lives bring? Can you guarantee that they will not kill again?
I mean, I guess... I don't think that makes it "disgusting" by any stretch, and it certainly doesn't remove the morsel of truth it contains.
When we talk about free speech, and I think it's very important, we seemingly do so with the notion that free speech is free of consequence. It's not.
I'm certainly free to go to Ferguson and yell at the top of my lungs insensitive things about Mike Brown. That doesn't mean I'm exempt from getting my ass beat for doing so.
It depends on what is meant by "be against insulting religious tradition".
If it means you think its rude and spiteful to insult religious beliefs and therefore not a good thing to do, then yes its a valid point.
But if you think you can be pro-Freedom of speech, but want to ban/criminalise offending religious sensitivities, then you have profoundly misunderstood the concept of Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of Speech includes the freedom to ridicule, mock and insult religion.
I don't think they have any beans to spill. Doesn't Al Qaeda work in isolated cells? I doubt they have much information on other cells.
They have info.
Where were they trained? By who? How did they travel there and back? Who facilitated the travel? Where did the weapons come from? How were they transported and stored? How did they pay for their lodging and vehicles? Who did they live with? How did they choose the target (was it assigned? By who?) Who did the recon for the strike? When? What means did they use to do it? Where did they learn those skills? Who taught them?
And more.
Even tiny bits of info may fit a piece in a puzzle some analyst is working on, and/or provide info which can be used to preempt similar attacks, or help focus ongoing and future collection efforts.
It depends on what is meant by "be against insulting religious tradition".
If it means you think its rude and spiteful to insult religious beliefs and therefore not a good thing to do, then yes its a valid point.
But if you think you can be pro-Freedom of speech, but want to ban/criminalise offending religious sensitivities, then you have profoundly misunderstood the concept of Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of Speech includes the freedom to ridicule, mock and insult religion.
In simplest terms:
Freedom of speech grants you the leeway to be a dick. It doesn't mean you have to be a dick.
I don't want to ban/criminalize anything. But I think people need to understand that just because you can legally do something doesn't mean it's free of consequences.
I mean, I guess... I don't think that makes it "disgusting" by any stretch, and it certainly doesn't remove the morsel of truth it contains.
When we talk about free speech, and I think it's very important, we seemingly do so with the notion that free speech is free of consequence. It's not.
I'm certainly free to go to Ferguson and yell at the top of my lungs insensitive things about Mike Brown. That doesn't mean I'm exempt from getting my ass beat for doing so.
It depends on what is meant by "be against insulting religious tradition".
If it means you think its rude and spiteful to insult religious beliefs and therefore not a good thing to do, then yes its a valid point.
But if you think you can be pro-Freedom of speech, but want to ban/criminalise offending religious sensitivities, then you have profoundly misunderstood the concept of Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of Speech includes the freedom to ridicule, mock and insult religion.
I don't want to put words in cincy's mouth but I generally get the feeling he is totally for free speech.
He's talking about consequences of that free speech.
Certainly there will be consequences but we shouldn't let those consequences stifle that speech.
When people start to say "It's not worth the risk" then we have a problem.
Video somewhat related. Christopher Hitchens talking about the protests over Rushdie in Pakistan re "Insulting" Islam.
There's only one thing to do in this situation. Continue the work. If you are an artist, of any kind, pick up your tools and do as C.H.'s staff would. Mock any and all who will stand before you without fear, for if we become silenced in any way, shape or form, then these scum shall have completed their objective.
You've seen pictures of my dream house eh? Strong enough to take on a tornado, complete with dry moats filled with herds of angry wiener dogs. Have at you!
You've seen pictures of my dream house eh? Strong enough to take on a tornado, complete with dry moats filled with herds of angry wiener dogs. Have at you!
Wiener dog's form herds?
Dear god. Its like a canine version of The Walking Dead.
It is not inconsistent to believe in free speech AND be against insulting other people’s faith traditions. #CharlieHedbo
— Sally Kohn (@sallykohn) January 7, 2015
O.o
Maybe I'm missing it. What's the problem with this tweet, aside that it could be perceived as slightly victim blamey?
That's probably the main point for some I would imagine.
I get the whole "freedom of speech" thing, but I also get the "don't be an ass" thing.
It's a balancing act between the three issues:
1) I support the freedom of speech issue that they should be able to be asses.
2) I also understand why people think that they were being asses and I also agree that it's not nice to be an ass..
3) It's also not justified to be bigger asses by assaulting them (at any level, not just murder) for being asses.
It depends on what is meant by "be against insulting religious tradition".
If it means you think its rude and spiteful to insult religious beliefs and therefore not a good thing to do, then yes its a valid point.
But if you think you can be pro-Freedom of speech, but want to ban/criminalise offending religious sensitivities, then you have profoundly misunderstood the concept of Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of Speech includes the freedom to ridicule, mock and insult religion.
In simplest terms:
Freedom of speech grants you the leeway to be a dick. It doesn't mean you have to be a dick.
I don't want to ban/criminalize anything. But I think people need to understand that just because you can legally do something doesn't mean it's free of consequences.
Consequences of having people not buy your news paper, sure. No use of speech is worthy of these consequences .
Consequences of having people not buy your news paper, sure. No use of speech is worthy of these consequences .
Please don't misunderstand. I'm not saying it's right. But as this painfully prophetic article details, it shouldn't be terribly unexpected when in regards to militant Islam.
From the article, from 2013:
With a bit of luck people will either ignore Charlie Hebdo’s comic book or respond with decent criticisms and dignified protest. What I fear is a repeat of so many previous instances where political opportunists use its publication to whip up further hostility to the West and portray us as all inherently Islamaophobic. The vicious circle then continues as attacks on Islam in the West become more deliberately provocative.
Whatever happens, one thing is above all else is worth repeating. Responsibility for any violence meted out against Charlie Hebdo or its staff rests solely on the shoulders of those carrying out the violence. If there is a violent reaction against the French satirical magazine, whether you agree with what they have published or not, they will not deserve it.
You've seen pictures of my dream house eh? Strong enough to take on a tornado, complete with dry moats filled with herds of angry wiener dogs. Have at you!
Wiener dog's form herds?
Dear god. Its like a canine version of The Walking Dead.
Indeed. Once there are 100 wiener dogs burrowed under blankets on a sofa they are no longer a pack, they are a herd. They are an army. They are Legion!
During the Ashura. They do not flay themselves though, they more cut themselves and/or flail themselves.
cincydooley wrote: When we talk about free speech, and I think it's very important, we seemingly do so with the notion that free speech is free of consequence. It's not.
Oh, no, it is not. Charlie Hebdo loosing revenue because people stopped buying them would be a completely normal consequence that would have nothing to do with free speech. This, however, is something entirely different where, yes, it was completely a case about free speech. If you are targeted by anything illegal for something you said, this is a case of free speech, you should be protected from that kind of things.
Sigvatr wrote: And yes, if a state can look like having clean hands to the public while still doing the right thing, then that's the perfect solution for everyone.
That totally mean that the state can do terrible, terrible things while looking like having clean hand in public. And that seems a very, very bad thing to me.
Sigvatr wrote: There is something inherently wrong with people wanting tax payers to PAYfor mass murderers. Do you want to pay for the living of mass murderers? I certainly wouldn't.
When all of Europe is screaming at the top of their lungs about water boarding and sleep deprivation at GitMo, they're going to be suddenly fine with putting bamboo shoots in fingernails in France.
Maybe nothing. Maybe something if they repent and try to attune.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: If it means you think its rude and spiteful to insult religious beliefs and therefore not a good thing to do, then yes its a valid point.
Uhh.. am I the only one around here that thinks keeping 'em locked up all alone in some isolation cell for the rest of their lives is a worse punishment than just killing them?
On the "freedom of speech" argument, I would suggest that yes, freedom of speech means that you can say whatever you want, but no, you are not absolved from the consequences.
HOWEVER, nothing justifies this kind of barbarism. I cannot imagine the mindset that demands death in retribution for an insulting cartoon.
I hope that the French military/police/whoever catches up to them and stops them before they can do any more damage - and I can't say I'd be upset by the idea of these terrorists being killed in the process of stopping them.
Dark Apostle 666 wrote: On the "freedom of speech" argument, I would suggest that yes, freedom of speech means that you can say whatever you want, but no, you are not absolved from the consequences.
Which kind of illegal acts would be consequences they should not be “absolved” from?
thenoobbomb wrote: Uhh.. am I the only one around here that thinks keeping 'em locked up all alone in some isolation cell for the rest of their lives is a worse punishment than just killing them?
because then they cost money. other wise you're right.
thenoobbomb wrote: Uhh.. am I the only one around here that thinks keeping 'em locked up all alone in some isolation cell for the rest of their lives is a worse punishment than just killing them?
because then they cost money. other wise you're right.
On the other hand, maybe the worst thing you can do to someone that is ready to be a martyr is refusing to martyr him.
cincydooley wrote: When we talk about free speech, and I think it's very important, we seemingly do so with the notion that free speech is free of consequence. It's not.
Oh, no, it is not. Charlie Hebdo loosing revenue because people stopped buying them would be a completely normal consequence that would have nothing to do with free speech. This, however, is something entirely different where, yes, it was completely a case about free speech. If you are targeted by anything illegal for something you said, this is a case of free speech, you should be protected from that kind of things.
For once we're in agreement. Exalted.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: If it means you think its rude and spiteful to insult religious beliefs and therefore not a good thing to do, then yes its a valid point.
Uh what?
Its not complicated.
We were discussing a quote from twitter. "You can be for freedom of speech, and against insulting religion".
The key part I think, is what do you mean by "be against".
If you mean you think its rude and spiteful, then yes the statement is valid.
But if you think that Freedom of Speech does not apply to "insulting religion", then you [the Twitter user who made the comment] have profoundly misunderstood what Freedom of Speech is.
Freedom of Speech is not the freedom to only say things that meet the prevailing standards of Political Correctness.
Video somewhat related. Christopher Hitchens talking about the protests over Rushdie in Pakistan re "Insulting" Islam.
Very relevant, the fatwa on Salman Rushie in the 80's was a foreshadowing of these events and similar attacks.
It as eventually repealed, but Rushdie spent many years in hiding.
thenoobbomb wrote: Uhh.. am I the only one around here that thinks keeping 'em locked up all alone in some isolation cell for the rest of their lives is a worse punishment than just killing them?
Frankly I just hope they are found. If taken alive, however the justice system in France handles them is fine by me. If this happened stateside I would hope the prosecutor would go for the death penalty, but understand not all countries have it or approve of it. France has their laws and procedures, let them use these as they see fit.
I think getting them alive will prove an interesting undertaking. These seem to be the type (based on the video and other analysis) that are gonna prefer to go down fighting and I suspect the French agency doing the take down is not going to be particularly interested in live capture at the cost of additional casualties on their part.
It depends on what is meant by "be against insulting religious tradition".
If it means you think its rude and spiteful to insult religious beliefs and therefore not a good thing to do, then yes its a valid point.
But if you think you can be pro-Freedom of speech, but want to ban/criminalise offending religious sensitivities, then you have profoundly misunderstood the concept of Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of Speech includes the freedom to ridicule, mock and insult religion.
In simplest terms:
Freedom of speech grants you the leeway to be a dick. It doesn't mean you have to be a dick.
I don't want to ban/criminalize anything. But I think people need to understand that just because you can legally do something doesn't mean it's free of consequences.
I'm not advocating that we're free from the consequences.
Write, call, or shout back for all I care. That's fair game.
But when lives are lost over a fething cartoon... don't say anything near "be against insulting religious tradition" because that's an attempt to deflect the conversation.
It's that mindset that's awfully close to blaming the victim.
(that's why I had a fit over Obama/Hillary's initial stance to "get that YouTube" director over Benghazi)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: There's only one thing to do in this situation. Continue the work. If you are an artist, of any kind, pick up your tools and do as C.H.'s staff would. Mock any and all who will stand before you without fear, for if we become silenced in any way, shape or form, then these scum shall have completed their objective.
Video somewhat related. Christopher Hitchens talking about the protests over Rushdie in Pakistan re "Insulting" Islam.
Very relevant, the fatwa on Salman Rushie in the 80's was a foreshadowing of these events and similar attacks.
It as eventually repealed, but Rushdie spent many years in hiding.
But when lives are lost over a fething cartoon... don't say anything near "be against insulting religious tradition" because that's an attempt to deflect the conversation.
Meanwhile, in a discussion about Freedom of Speech(tm) you are criticizing people for what people said when they criticized other people for what they said. Maybe we just need to go deeper.
(that's why I had a fit over Obama/Hillary's initial stance to "get that YouTube" director over Benghazi)
Congratulations about making another "reason #233,523,522 why I don't like Obama" post in a thread that has feth all to do with him...
But when lives are lost over a fething cartoon... don't say anything near "be against insulting religious tradition" because that's an attempt to deflect the conversation.
Meanwhile, in a discussion about Freedom of Speech(tm) you are criticizing people for what people said when they criticized other people for what they said. Maybe we just need to go deeper.
(that's why I had a fit over Obama/Hillary's initial stance to "get that YouTube" director over Benghazi)
Congratulations about making another "reason #233,523,522 why I don't like Obama" post in a thread that has feth all to do with him...
Congrats on post #13873 of you telling someone how their wrong!
Medium of Death wrote: So will this be GIGN and French Commandos dealing with this from now on? (like how the deal with Somali pirates) or will it fall to armed police?
Video somewhat related. Christopher Hitchens talking about the protests over Rushdie in Pakistan re "Insulting" Islam.
Very relevant, the fatwa on Salman Rushie in the 80's was a foreshadowing of these events and similar attacks.
It as eventually repealed, but Rushdie spent many years in hiding.
I'd imagine he's still a target.
Ordinary LEO was cordon off the area and let a Elite unit that trained to a "T" handle a "DoorKicker" situation
thenoobbomb wrote: Uhh.. am I the only one around here that thinks keeping 'em locked up all alone in some isolation cell for the rest of their lives is a worse punishment than just killing them?
because then they cost money. other wise you're right.
On the other hand, maybe the worst thing you can do to someone that is ready to be a martyr is refusing to martyr him.
Seriously, if they're captured alive, put 'em in the slammer. Then, don't respect their religion in prison. No prayers and plenty of pork products. They'll be denied martydom.
But when lives are lost over a fething cartoon... don't say anything near "be against insulting religious tradition" because that's an attempt to deflect the conversation.
Meanwhile, in a discussion about Freedom of Speech(tm) you are criticizing people for what people said when they criticized other people for what they said. Maybe we just need to go deeper.
(that's why I had a fit over Obama/Hillary's initial stance to "get that YouTube" director over Benghazi)
Congratulations about making another "reason #233,523,522 why I don't like Obama" post in a thread that has feth all to do with him...
Congrats on post #13873 of you telling someone how their wrong!
It's okay to tell people that you think what they are doing is wrong, you can even do it without telling them that they shouldn't say it to begin with.
But when lives are lost over a fething cartoon... don't say anything near "be against insulting religious tradition" because that's an attempt to deflect the conversation.
Meanwhile, in a discussion about Freedom of Speech(tm) you are criticizing people for what people said when they criticized other people for what they said. Maybe we just need to go deeper.
How deep?
(that's why I had a fit over Obama/Hillary's initial stance to "get that YouTube" director over Benghazi)
Congratulations about making another "reason #233,523,522 why I don't like Obama" post in a thread that has feth all to do with him...
That totally mean that the state can do terrible, terrible things while looking like having clean hand in public. And that seems a very, very bad thing to me
That's precisely what's happening right now and has been happening for the longest time. The state's power is highly limited by its own limits and it therefore needs external means. The most famous one being Blackwater. People got angry, Blackwater "shut down" aka rebranded. It's necessary for such services to exist.
They can make people work in prison.
Check the average cost of an inmate. Prisons are a giant factor a state's economoy and while they are good solutions for some problems and prevent making permanent mistakes, for clearly guilty people, they are a waste of tax money.
It's really simple. If you choose to break a society's law, then you lose all of its protection as well. Can't have both!
News reports that police have searched two appartments in Paris in connection to this. Further information is that the three man are 18, 32 and 34 of French-Algerian descent, with the last two known to be of French nationality. Two have been to Syria as jihadists, with one having connection to jihadists in Iraq in 2005.
I have no news access as my family is sleeping and I do not wish to wake them up with trying to find out more about this. best they don't know I've even heard of it.
Disciple of Fate wrote: News reports that police have searched two appartments in Paris in connection to this. Further information is that the three man are 18, 32 and 34 of French-Algerian descent, with the last two known to be of French nationality. Two have been to Syria as jihadists, with one having connection to jihadists in Iraq in 2005.
As I suspected. Local Jihadis returning to wreck havoc.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I think the investigation and man hunt may draw parallels to America's hunt for Bin Laden, if the fethers escape justice in the long term.
Much closer to the Boston Marathon bombing than the hunt for Bin Laden.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I think the investigation and man hunt may draw parallels to America's hunt for Bin Laden, if the fethers escape justice in the long term.
Much closer to the Boston Marathon bombing than the hunt for Bin Laden.
He is considered a moderate muslim and is a prominent journalist in the UK.
He considers non Muslims to be animals for living their lives in the way they wish, which of course means outwith Islam.
Daily reminder that this guy is one of the ones holding the "Religion of peace" message.
He might be decrying Nuclear Weapons but at least we know how he truly feels.
In response to criticism over the use of the term "cattle" to describe non-believers, Hasan wrote in his New Statesman blog: "The Quranic phrase 'people of no intelligence' simply and narrowly refers to the fact that Muslims regard their views on God as the only intellectually tenable position, just as atheists (like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris) regard believers as fundamentally irrational and, even, mentally deficient."
Hasan, a Shia Muslim,[18][19] has written articles about Islam and Muslims for the New Statesman and newspapers. He has written in favour of secularism, writing that a "religiously neutral model of governance" is the only way for a country like India to "prosper".[20] "My Islamic faith is based on the principles of peace, moderation and mercy", he wrote in September 2012. While Muslims "have every right to be angry", such "anger, however, is not an excuse for extremism."[21]
In April 2009, Hasan argued against the concept and idea of an Islamic state.[22] He argues that "Today it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify a Muslim-majority nation that could plausibly be identified as a modern, viable and legitimate "Islamic state" and that "contrary to popular Muslim opinion, there is not a shred of theological, historical or empirical evidence to support the existence of such an entity."
Well citizens of France, I know my country and yours haven't seen eye-to-eye over the millenia, but I'm proud to stand with you now. My condolences to the bereaved.
To be honest, I was going to expand upon why I feel the caricatures aren't funny and why it wasn't too clever to print them, but at this moment my thoughts are entirely irrelevant. The sooner this barbaric group of backward thinking totalitarian scum are hunted down and systematically destroyed, the sooner the world will be a better place.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I think the investigation and man hunt may draw parallels to America's hunt for Bin Laden, if the fethers escape justice in the long term.
Much closer to the Boston Marathon bombing than the hunt for Bin Laden.
If the fethers escape in the long term.
I'm not changing my point. Bin Laden was the Big Wig Head Honcho. These were three foot soldiers. Bin Laden was overseas, these guys are in France.
You could always increase the font size further and perhaps even use a brighter color, but these guys are NOT gonna ever take on Bin Laden type status.
Ouze wrote: Having never been to France - it's pretty easy to get out of the country, isn't it? So far as blockading them in.
Assuming they even left, of course.
As a member of the EU, France has no border control for its neighbouring EU members, so theoretically speaking the attackers could be in Spain, Italy, Germany, the Benelux etc without them being noticed crossing the border.
There is an ongoing anti-terror operation in Reims, where one of the attackers is from, not much more news about it atm.
Ouze wrote: Having never been to France - it's pretty easy to get out of the country, isn't it? So far as blockading them in.
Assuming they even left, of course.
As a member of the EU, France has no border control for its neighbouring EU members, so theoretically speaking the attackers could be in Spain, Italy, Germany, the Benelux etc without them being noticed crossing the border.
There is an ongoing anti-terror operation in Reims, where one of the attackers is from, not much more news about it atm.
Not exactly, any EU member can restablish border controls if needed under a certain conditions. For example high risk football matches or terrorist attacks. Having said that I don't think the French government will do it as the gunmen are probably hidding in their "home" turf.
Ouze wrote: Having never been to France - it's pretty easy to get out of the country, isn't it? So far as blockading them in.
Assuming they even left, of course.
As a member of the EU, France has no border control for its neighbouring EU members, so theoretically speaking the attackers could be in Spain, Italy, Germany, the Benelux etc without them being noticed crossing the border.
There is an ongoing anti-terror operation in Reims, where one of the attackers is from, not much more news about it atm.
Not exactly, any EU member can restablish border controls if needed under a certain conditions. For example high risk football matches or terrorist attacks. Having said that I don't think the French government will do it as the gunmen are probably hidding in their "home" turf.
M.
Their guys who most likely have jihadist connections in middle eastern nations. Their a very high flight risk IMO.
Ouze wrote: Having never been to France - it's pretty easy to get out of the country, isn't it? So far as blockading them in.
Assuming they even left, of course.
As a member of the EU, France has no border control for its neighbouring EU members, so theoretically speaking the attackers could be in Spain, Italy, Germany, the Benelux etc without them being noticed crossing the border.
There is an ongoing anti-terror operation in Reims, where one of the attackers is from, not much more news about it atm.
Not exactly, any EU member can restablish border controls if needed under a certain conditions. For example high risk football matches or terrorist attacks. Having said that I don't think the French government will do it as the gunmen are probably hidding in their "home" turf.
M.
Of course, but in these cases its likely that border crossings could not be secured quickly enough to prevent them escaping if they intended to do so.
Ouze wrote: Having never been to France - it's pretty easy to get out of the country, isn't it? So far as blockading them in.
Assuming they even left, of course.
As a member of the EU, France has no border control for its neighbouring EU members, so theoretically speaking the attackers could be in Spain, Italy, Germany, the Benelux etc without them being noticed crossing the border.
There is an ongoing anti-terror operation in Reims, where one of the attackers is from, not much more news about it atm.
Not exactly, any EU member can restablish border controls if needed under a certain conditions. For example high risk football matches or terrorist attacks. Having said that I don't think the French government will do it as the gunmen are probably hidding in their "home" turf.
M.
Their guys who most likely have jihadist connections in middle eastern nations. Their a very high flight risk IMO.
If the manage to hide long enough they will try to flee to Libia or Syria of course. But currently they would be safer laying low among the numerous franco-argelian comunity that trying to cross the border to Germany or Spain that are also in high alert and where probably they won't have the same level of support.
Ouze wrote: Having never been to France - it's pretty easy to get out of the country, isn't it? So far as blockading them in.
Assuming they even left, of course.
As a member of the EU, France has no border control for its neighbouring EU members, so theoretically speaking the attackers could be in Spain, Italy, Germany, the Benelux etc without them being noticed crossing the border.
There is an ongoing anti-terror operation in Reims, where one of the attackers is from, not much more news about it atm.
Not exactly, any EU member can restablish border controls if needed under a certain conditions. For example high risk football matches or terrorist attacks. Having said that I don't think the French government will do it as the gunmen are probably hidding in their "home" turf.
M.
Of course, but in these cases its likely that border crossings could not be secured quickly enough to prevent them escaping if they intended to do so.
We are in agreement, I just was pointing out that Schengen considers the closing of borders in some cases.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: We were discussing a quote from twitter. "You can be for freedom of speech, and against insulting religion".
The key part I think, is what do you mean by "be against".
If you mean you think its rude and spiteful, then yes the statement is valid.
But if you think that Freedom of Speech does not apply to "insulting religion", then you [the Twitter user who made the comment] have profoundly misunderstood what Freedom of Speech is.
Freedom of Speech is not the freedom to only say things that meet the prevailing standards of Political Correctness.
I think the caricatures are reasonable and neccesary in society
Self reflection and self criticism are neccesary to grow as people and as a society
I also think it's also especially necessary for a particular religion in which they feel the need to brutally opress or kill anyone that disagrees with them.
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.
Pandering to these types of people isn't going to solve anything.
I mean what progress will the religion ever have if it refuses to look at itself and change with time.
And personally I've never believed that 'religion' more or less the big 4 (budism,christianity,islam,judaism) has ever really been peaceful anyway. It really annoys me when these religionists claim this. When have they ever be peaceful?
mitch_rifle wrote: And personally I've never believed that 'religion' more or less the big 4 (budism,christianity,islam,judaism) has ever really been peaceful anyway. It really annoys me when these religionists claim this. When have they ever be peaceful?
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.
mitch_rifle wrote: And personally I've never believed that 'religion' more or less the big 4 (budism,christianity,islam,judaism) has ever really been peaceful anyway. It really annoys me when these religionists claim this. When have they ever be peaceful?
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.
Some dude called Jesus preached peace and love thy enemy/turn the other cheek and so on as well. It would seem the early church went along with that.
.
