Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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'.
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 message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/07 15:01:02
2015/01/07 15:09:16
Subject: Re:Shooting at Satirical magazine in France
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.
2015/01/07 15:31:56
Subject: Re:Shooting at Satirical magazine in France
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 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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/07 15:43:29
2015/01/07 15:56:42
Subject: Re:Shooting at Satirical magazine in France
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.
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.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/07 16:31:53
2015/01/07 16:35:44
Subject: Re:Shooting at Satirical magazine in France
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.
2015/01/07 16:46:09
Subject: Re:Shooting at Satirical magazine in France
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 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.
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.
2015/01/07 20:01:38
Subject: Re:Shooting at Satirical magazine in France
MrDwhitey wrote: Care to understand what and why the feth he is actually typing that instead of going off half-cocked at any perceived anti-Christian sentiment?
Also, I preferred the "wild eyed bigoted comment" version.
Well I would like to know why 'Christian leaders' are synonymous with terrorists. As for anti-Christian sentiments, they do exist here and are evidently strong and heavily discriminatory.
To add bigotry to bigotry its now apparently my fault as a Christian that I question why other Christians are to be lumped together with terrorist murderers without any explanation.
If I were to blanket link atheists, with terrorists, on a whim, atheists would take offense and rightly so.
MrDwhitey wrote: Care to understand what and why the feth he is actually typing that instead of going off half-cocked at any perceived anti-Christian sentiment?
Also, I preferred the "wild eyed bigoted comment" version.
Well I would like to know why 'Christian leaders' are synonymous with terrorists. As for anti-Christian sentiments, they do exist here and are evidently strong and heavily discriminatory.
To add bigotry to bigotry its now apparently my fault as a Christian that I question why other Christians are to be lumped together with terrorist murderers without any explanation.
If I were to blanket link atheists, with terrorists, on a whim, atheists would take offense and rightly so.
So you're still refusing to actually read why he said it.
Well done, the blinkers are on.
For your information, he's explaining the content of a video he found ridiculous. Actually read the thread, thanks.
The video does nothing to equate the 'Christian leaders' with terrorists. One opening a lawsuit is not in any as comparable than walking in with a machine gun, it's a lawful act for a start and some cases are actually upheld in some western courts. Though the case of the lawsuit vs Hustler is not one of them.
It's a very poor interpretation to fail to distinguish between a litigious act and a violent act, when the source was clear to do so.
Edit: And on a second look after your above post o make sure I hadn't missed anything..... It's clear that the commentators actually agreed with the interview host that there was a distinct difference between previous cases of litigious religious leaders and the events of yesterday.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/08 08:18:17
Grey Templar wrote: I'm seeing multiple sources saying 2 in custody and 1 dead.
BBC is carrying one surrendered. Nothing on the other two. Hamyd Mourad is the youngest of the three, and apparently turned himself in around 1:22 GMT
I am very surprised that after what was a well coordinated attack the suspects were identified so quickly. I wonder if the got caught on low angle CCTV somewhere.
Almost as surprised as to hear of one man turning himself in.
Torga_DW wrote: Do we know if the guy who turned himself in is actually involved in all of this? Other than being related to the shooters, that is.
Possible. I don't see a jihadist turning himself in, it doesn't sit with the profile. However if one of the gunmen is identified and the ID of the other two is extrapolated from a single identification, then it may be that an innocent party who is related to the suspects is misidentified as one of he attackers, and if he had nothing to do with the atrocity, he could decided to had to the nearest police station as quickly as possible.
It makes sense that the attackers are brothers it also makes sense that not all the brothers in a family were actually involved. One might have refused to be radicalised and if so likely had no idea what his siblings, and third accomplice, were doing.
I would wager that the man who turned himself in was misidentified, which is easy to do if you are trying computer identification through ski masks and/or grainy footage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote:
Whats the scoop for those who don't have speakers right now?
That what these terrorists did is really nothing more than Christian leaders do every day, you know.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 08/01/2015 00:49:06
It was a reply to a comment asking for the content of the video from someone who couldn't hear the content, so it can be read as a synopsis unless there are clear indicators like [/sarcasm].
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/08 08:34:32
Torga_DW wrote: Well i'm glad somebody is holding a meeting about this, it's kind of a big deal imo. These arrests so far just sound like guessing.
The kid they arrested handed himself in. Hardly guesswork. Also from the way it was organised there had to have been other people involved to get that sort of firepower into their hands.
With seven arrests so far and the police only claiming to look for three active participants (though they wont necessarily tell us everything) it s evident they are hunting the wider support network.
That being said, arrest doesn't mean guilty, or even suspicion of involvement. There will be a lot of fundamentalist Islamists on the files, many of whom are sympathetic to the attackers beleifs , and known to them but not necessarily in actuality involved. Police may well arrest some of these people and bring them in for routine questioning, most will likely be released without charge.
Yet again the police might turn up a whole rats nest of active jihadists, including weapons suppliers and end up finding charges to place on large numbers of people. Even then the men who supplied the AKs might not have known about the target, but that wont be entirely relevant except to the severity of sentecing.
2015/01/08 16:46:05
Subject: Re:Shooting at Satirical magazine in France
This supports the theory that the named suspect was only assumed to possibly be the third gunman because he was closely related to the other two, and turned himself in because he is not responsible.
No problems with the police coming to the conclusions they did, as it was evidently handled in a manner that allowed the suspect to clear his own name safely.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/08 16:46:46
Agreed wit Dreadclaw except for point one. Te european way with armed police is to present two extremes.
Most police don't carry guns, but those that do are very heavily armed and armoured.
In the UK each local force has an armed response unit ready at all times. they have a van, and in the van are assault rifles and other toys. The van moves around like any other and the police deploy unarmed, but in the event of armed responce request they drop what they are doing, go to the van tool up and move out.
European police move from unarmed to SWAT level policing directly, immediately and very rapidly. And if there is anything really serious it gets passed directly to Special Forces, with no pissing about in between. UK police don't have SWAT teams, ordinary armed police respond to armed reponce requests, and anything that would normally require a full SWAT response is likely to go straight to the SAS, though as armed incidents are relatively rare in Europe armed policing can be pooled as an alternative.
Its a better system as it doesn't level police having to handle armed people with only sidearms, police either bring it, or they don't try. Its a no half measures attitude that works exceptionally well.
IIRC France has a similar methodology to handling armed policing, as do the Germans.
Nothing really needs to change, and with the impressive speed the French have got their act together on this one, it sounds like they are doing fine as they are.
After all increasing armed policing will not stop attacks like these, you cant be everywhere.
2015/01/09 19:49:26
Subject: Re:Shooting at Satirical magazine in France
The police moved into the factory, with impact rounds. If they kill, they kill, but perhaps they wont. With proper trauma care its easy to survive gunshot wounds nowadays, if you targets isn't finished off on the ground.
Hostage safe, thats the main thing, two terrorists down, with sucking chest wounds.
Officially dead.
Trauma team is on site, first they attend to the hostage and any care needed for the assault team, but that is unlikely, as they chose the timing of when to assault the factory.
Then they see if they can patch up one or more of the scum for interrogation, and if the Elysee palace decides, a trial.
Go easy on the anaesthetic.
[/Wishful thinking]
2015/01/09 20:01:39
Subject: Re:Shooting at Satirical magazine in France
Well, as much as "Islamist" is, I guess. I mean, they both seem to be used to describe the same mindset.
In all fairness the sort of 'Christian' who murders people at abortion clinics is a lone nutcase.
There is no camp to train at, no underground priest abroad mounting a crusade on abortionists, no dodgy denomination.
Even Westboro Baptists don't support them.
It's just individual fethwits with guns and there are plenty of those about in America.
Westboro Baptists require a response, but there is a valid denial of reponsibility from Christianity in general for the abortion clinic murderers.
In a way the cartoon is unfair, the Militant Islamists can be seen as a subfaction, the militant Christians image should have been replaced by a WBC supporter. Otherwise the atheist in the third image replaced by the lone wolf atheist nut who kills religious people. Sure no atheist group accepts them, but they do exist.
2015/01/09 20:07:14
Subject: Re:Shooting at Satirical magazine in France
The police moved into the factory, with impact rounds. If they kill, they kill, but perhaps they wont. With proper trauma care its easy to survive gunshot wounds nowadays, if you targets isn't finished off on the ground.
Hostage safe, thats the main thing, two terrorists down, with sucking chest wounds.
Officially dead.
Trauma team is on site, first they attend to the hostage and any care needed for the assault team, but that is unlikely, as they chose the timing of when to assault the factory.
Then they see if they can patch up one or more of the scum for interrogation, and if the Elysee palace decides, a trial.
Go easy on the anaesthetic.
[/Wishful thinking]
How far an interrogation are they willing to go is the question. If they catch one alive.
I am generally up with the whole human rights thing, but if you catch an officially dead terrorist shooter, as opposed to sympathiser, I have zero problems with holding him for questioning for as long as it takes.
2015/01/09 20:12:55
Subject: Re:Shooting at Satirical magazine in France
In all fairness the sort of 'Christian' who murders people at abortion clinics is a lone nutcase.
There is no camp to train at, no underground priest abroad mounting a crusade on abortionists, no dodgy denomination.
I don't buy this. Hell, I've seen clips on youtube of preachers telling congregations stuff like "if the law won't bring justice to these baby murderers, maybe its about time we tyake things into our own hands".
And I have little doubt that fringe right-wing militia groups, who do train, have Christianity mixed up into the equation.
Can you post links to a few of those videos?
Army of God, for one:
Spoiler:
Please note, I am not saying this stuff is mainstream.
Disappointed really, the local churches should have been the first to get on their feet and help shut these freaks down. I wonder if they were (not seen the full video).
One of my biggest beefs with Islamic fundamentalism is how it can hide in moderate Islamic communities, who have a moral duty to expose these people to law enforcement.
Not happy at all to have to retract the comment that there is no such thing as a jihadist equivalent Christian(esque) denomination. But it looks like redneck territory, should I really be so surprised.
2015/01/09 20:48:17
Subject: Re:Shooting at Satirical magazine in France
In all fairness the sort of 'Christian' who murders people at abortion clinics is a lone nutcase.
There is no camp to train at, no underground priest abroad mounting a crusade on abortionists, no dodgy denomination.
I don't buy this. Hell, I've seen clips on youtube of preachers telling congregations stuff like "if the law won't bring justice to these baby murderers, maybe its about time we tyake things into our own hands".
And I have little doubt that fringe right-wing militia groups, who do train, have Christianity mixed up into the equation.
The IRA used to go to training camps in Libya, if I remember correctly.
IRA and other terror groups involved in the Troubles were never really about religion. There is a supposed Catholic and Protestant thing, but the real root is racial sectarianism.
AFAIK the IRA didn't kill anyone for being Protestant, they did kill people for being part of the Unionist faction, or English. There are extremist clerics on both sides but again its a racial divide. The denominational differences dont come into it, though they did in history, and the historical consequences are what are remembered.
2015/01/09 21:40:58
Subject: Re:Shooting at Satirical magazine in France
In all fairness the sort of 'Christian' who murders people at abortion clinics is a lone nutcase.
There is no camp to train at, no underground priest abroad mounting a crusade on abortionists, no dodgy denomination.
I don't buy this. Hell, I've seen clips on youtube of preachers telling congregations stuff like "if the law won't bring justice to these baby murderers, maybe its about time we tyake things into our own hands".
And I have little doubt that fringe right-wing militia groups, who do train, have Christianity mixed up into the equation.
The IRA used to go to training camps in Libya, if I remember correctly.
Gadaffi funded the IRA didn't he?
Yup. And supplied them.
The IRA needed Libyan supplied weaponry, especially access to quality explosives, and training camp opportunities; but didn't really need Libyan funding, though it helped.
They got plenty from those arch-terrorist financiers of the 80's.
How ironic how the USA now likes going after those nations who harbour citizens who fund terrorism with such gusto.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/09 21:43:02
Compel wrote: One of the things that has only been mentioned in a couple of news sources and only took the headline of one (The Daily Star of all papers) was:
One of the two policemen killed on the first day was a Muslim.
I also read a report that said one of the people killed in the newspaper office was as well.
I tend to like to avoid the political threads but it seems to me that if the media were to highlight this more, that perhaps they can help show that these guys were attacking Islam as well, that perhaps, some kids mentioned in Litcheur's fascinating post may choose against starting down that path.
It's also quite possible, perhaps likely, that extremist Muslims view Westernized Muslims as traitors of the worst degree.
In fairness it is possible the gunmen didn't have time to notice, and didnt care anyway.
They did have a twisted 'honour', in that they had a target list. Killed cops and soldiers if seen, earmarked specific people at Charlie Hebdo for murder but released others, and todaty when they took hostages freed what they considered a 'civilian' according to some press reports.
From what I can tell from this the uniform was the target, not the beliefs of the man in the uniform. The policeman represented French authority, and so was murdered even after he was incapacitated.
