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.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Glad they caught them from their professional demeanor during the attack I doubted they would. Good job France!

Now....for the interrogation.

Last i heard they hadn't caught anyone yet. They're raiding an apartment in Reims right now, but not word on prisoners yet.

These guys strike me as the type who have a plan in place beyond 'kill cartoonists'. If that was their only objective, they'ed have gone in, and then hole'd up with as many guns as they could and killed the cops as they came up or planted explosives to eliminate the first responders. I think this is 'part 1' of a larger plan. Hopefully Police put the breaks on it.

 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

Seems they hit a gas station after switching cars. If i were them I'd switch cars again

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30721677





Armed robbery is noisy. Personally, I'd have gotten a haircut, and simply paid in cash. Nobody notices that, and a shave and a haircut can be pretty effective in changing your appearance.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Seems a bit incompetent, given how meticulously planned the rest of their actions have been. Did they really just forget to plan ahead for Escape funds? Why risk an armed robbery with an extremely high profile and intense man hunt underway when they could have had bags of cash stashed somewhere?

Because now that manhunt will be focused like a laser on points between that robbery and the boarder, with police making the assumption that they're trying to evade and escape. What I'd do now would be reverse course toward the coast instead and either steal or highjack (preferably steal) a sailboat or something else small but with range. A lot of yacht clubs stow their ships in boathouses for the winter along the north coast. With luck, a theft might not be discovered right away.

They're searching south of the gas station at Longpont and Corcy now.

As far as the Légion étrangère goes, they're currently deployed in Africa, IIRC.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Have they narrowed down their location yet? Better question, did they close the border or upgrade security/inspections at the border at any point?

'Northern France'. is as far as anyone seems willing to say. UK has started tightening security at ports, so someone in the Home Office had the same thoughts I did. The problem is as more time passes, your search areas tend ot get bigger rather than smaller unless you start getting solid leads.

 Jihadin wrote:
Give the FFL a wide buffer from the civilize people

They'd have to empty France to make one big enough.

 Ahtman wrote:
Salman Rushdie on the Charlie Hebdo attack:

“Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. ‘Respect for religion’ has become a code phrase meaning ‘fear of religion.’ Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect.” –Salman Rushdie (originally posted on English Pen)

Karl Marx, on religion in general:

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."

 Mr. Burning wrote:
How far can Imams and community leaders go in condemning these attacks and others where perpetrators take an existing precept of the Islamic faith (attacking the prophet demands a harsh response etc). As reason for murder?

Is it possible to condemn the perpetrators and not the verses which they take as their shield?

Because it's easy to condone anything if you take a quote or a verse out of context. Take the ever popular

'Religion is the Opiate of the masses'.

Taken on the face, and robbed of context, it would appear a harsh condemnation of faith. In reality though, Marx wasn't saying that. In context, he's talking about how people turn to faith for the illusion of happiness when lacking it's substance.

 Medium of Death wrote:

Other way around. Those values come from Christianity. They certainly didn't burst out of nowhere.

Those values came from the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. Before that, Christianity acted then pretty much like radical Muslims now. Witch burnings, sectarian war, and all the other fun you see in the middle east now were common in Europe then.

I need to correct one thing I saw earlier.

'Militant Atheist'

 CptJake wrote:

One is celebrating death in an attempt to kill others, one is not.

I might point out that martyrdom is hardly unique to Muslims. Or do you think that dying in the name patriotism and freedom for one's brethren to be only a virtue when it's an American in the box?

Or is it perhaps that the US Public Education system has decayed so far that they no longer tell of brave Nathan Hale who faced his death with but one regret?

 His Master's Voice wrote:

I might point out that motivations differ.

Enlighten me. Because I don't see it, at least in the case of the Palestinians.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

Hale died so that others could live free.

Contrast that with a suicide bomber who often dies so that others may die with him.

Granted, it depends on the bomber, which is why I was discussing Palestine and that woman in the photo rather than AQ. There's an unfortunate trend around here to lump people together based on tactics rather than motive. A 'political' terrorist can be reasoned with and negotiated with, (which is the only historically successful way to deal with them permanently, btw). A 'revenge' or 'ideology' terrorist cannot, but is the only type CptJake seems familiar with.

 CptJake wrote:

Did Hale commit suicide? I don't remember that.

No, Hale volunteered for a suicide mission that everyone else turned down because it was for questionable gain.

 CptJake wrote:
I don't remember too many cases of the founders using suicide tactics to be honest, let alone forcing others to commit suicide.

At the time it was called a 'forlorn hope' and your job was to soak up bullets for the next wave of troops when assaulting a fortified position and try to establish a foothold. The tactic is also from whence we get the term 'Cannon Fodder', as they would be made up of less valuable troops and fed directly into the guns of the fort, so that they were reloading when the second wave came up. Washington ordered them frequently during the fighting at Yorktown, though he did not have to force anyone, there were plenty of volunteers to be martyred.

Modern suicide tactics wouldn't have been very effective at the time.

The US, in the past, has glorified men who (supposedly) committed suicide to kill large numbers of enemy combatants.



The story at the time was that Colin Kelly rammed his damaged B-17 into the battleship Haruna (or any one of several other Japanese ships). It wasn't true, Kelly's plane exploded in midair after he ordered everyone else to jump. But that didn't stop the US propaganda machine from making him a martyr. The story was quietly swept under the rug when Japan started using kamikaze's against the US.

 Hordini wrote:
I'm pretty sure most forlorn hopes were volunteer only, and they had plenty of volunteers because anyone who survived could get bonuses, promotions, and even battlefield commissions. It certainly wasn't because they wanted to be martyred.

That was common in European armies. However, and this is IIRC, the Continental Army did not follow that practice. The English and French in particular rewarded forlorn hope survivors. Contrast that with the US troops used at Vicksburg by Sherman as a forlorn hope. While almost thirty years later, they received 80 CMHs (among 150 men), the most ever for a single action, only one person (Pvt. David Day) got promoted (sort of, they made him an orderly) and no one got a raise.

Chongara wrote:I can't really recall any particular cases where america encouraged this, but american military history is hardly my strong suit either.

See propaganda poster in earlier post.

Encourage it? No. Glorify it, yes.

Hordini wrote:
That may be, but I still doubt that they would have joined a forlorn hope simply out of a desire to be martyrs.

Patriotism can make people every bit as fanatical as religion.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Forlorn Hope were traditionally prisoners IIRC. They were used as cannon fodder, and any who survived won full pardons.

Varied with the Army in question (Russia was very fond of that method, but tended to leave out the 'pardon' part). The English and French (and, by extension, the US) tended to glorify the men who carried them out. English Forlorn hope survivors, even if not promoted, received special badges to denote that they had done so.

 Jihadin wrote:
Any thing new on the female Extremist?

She may not apparently have even been in the country at the time. Lot of conflicting accounts on this so far.

 Chongara wrote:
A suicide bomber does go out with self-destruction intended as the first and primary means of engagement. That's why it at least feels different to me than some of the examples you're putting forward. The the suicides bomber's death is both means and end.

How is a forlorn hopes express purpose for being there any different? You're being sent to die, and the best you can reasonably hope for is to achieve your objective before doing so. In either case, if you live, it's a minor miracle.

 Frazzled wrote:

Yes its Israel's fault Boko Haram is killing thousands in Nigeria, Er what???

I can blame Israel for a lot, but that's really not on the list. If you want to talk crimes against humanity, and are not in parts of Europe where accusing Israel of doing said is itself a crime, regardless of it's truth, then we can talk.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Apparently America "snubbed" the Paris memorial/rally thing by not sending a senior representative like Obama, Biden etc. Its a Daily Mail story so take with a bucket of salt if you must, but considering that this is effectively France's 9/11 (as close as they've gotten anyway), is not not poor form for Obama to attend?

News Corp at it's finest, eh?

Kerry is at a summit in India right now. Obama was preoccupied with Washington, DC, but did make a personal stop at the French Embassy. The US Ambassador to France did attend. Attorney General Eric Holder, who is also currently in France did not, as he was at an Anti-terrorism Summit discussing the issue of prosecuting terrorists with his French counterpart at the time.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
ITT we have a dick measuring contest about national tragedies and who has a license to think terrorists suck more.

Based on numbers, India would win with Palestine a close second. Israel comes in a hot third, Ireland fourth, and the US around 10th. While 9/11 was big, there hasn't been the sort of continuous attacks that characterize the others.

 Bullockist wrote:
Indeed Jihadin, but running round with a 9/11" is impressive.

Let's say your 9/11" represents the normal amount of terrorism in the US. Based on this morning's sample in the Middle East, it would be a 9/11... thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Funniest part is that I am even considered Jew by, for instance, Israel's Law of Return, and all kind of anti-Semites, though I do not feel Jew at all.

Don't worry, there are hard liners in Israel that will buy commercials on TV to tell you how not Jewish you are, or are at least insufficiently Jewish.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/11/netanyahu-government-suggests-israelis-avoid-marrying-american-jews/249166/

(old, I grant)


I wonder if that means that American jews cannot attend Hogwarts, or whatever the equivalent is in Israel? Hell, I wonder if it has any ties to Tanzania's recent ban on witch doctors?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30794831

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

But I already know I am not Jewish. Just like I am not Swiss either. This sure will not stop me from reaping any benefit I can from having the Swiss nationality, and the Jewish “not-nationality-but-almost”.

I would certainly do a better job at pretending to be Swiss than at pretending to be Jewish, and I do not even know the history of Switzerland .

I'm not American, but people will argue with me that I am, regardless either reality or Act of the US Congress.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Well, I do not know you, and therefore I have no idea why people will argue about this. Could you please explain ?

Because I'm actually from the Seneca Nation of Indians. No matter how many times i explain that yes, we're really a separate country, yes, the US Congress recognized us as such, we have paper to prove it, no, we're not part of New York, New York just leases Salamanca, and parts of Niagara Falls and Buffalo from us.

But because the majority of us speak English in every day life, have the right to vote in US elections (not our idea, blame Calvin Coolidge), shop at walmart and eat at McDonald's, or just because they don't show us on the big maps of the United States (we are fairly small), they assume that makes us American now. I frequently get confused responses here because of the little flag in the corner of my posts, as either this:



(Iroquois flag)

or



SNI National Flag, (which is sadly not as snappy and why most fly the Iroquois flag instead)

seem to be unavailable. (though I grant atm I'm actually down in Pittsburgh, on loan to the US Federal government [yes, really].)

Mind you, I'm not one of the hard core, .live in the woods and spurn all things American (I like armored vehicles too much) nationalist types, but it does become annoying.

 whembly wrote:

So, are you saying that by default, you have a dual-citizenship? (Seneca + USA)

It's slightly more complicated than that, but without writing a wall of text, yes. We're exempt from a lot of taxes, and sign up for selective service due to the terms of treaty rather than US law. We are not eligible for 'Obamacare' (which we mostly don't actually care, because we have our own health system, plus BIA subsidies). The Seneca are one of the few nations to have an actual treaty that recognizes us as a wholly separate national state, rather than a 'tribe' (we had our own lawyers, even though the terms still sucked).

Unfortunately, we're like Luxembourg, we're tiny. But we're growing and have almost paid off our national debt, something some other countries wish they could say. Part of our arraignment with the US is that we can buy back land we previously sold and reincorporate it into the SNI. I don't think they pictured us repurchasing big swaths of downtown Buffalo. Most of you will be horrified that our government, rather than taxing it's citizens, funds its operation through ownership or partnership in a variety of businesses, as well as the money on the various cities we lease. (how this lease payment is handled varies by location. Salamanca passes it on to the homeowners in lieu of property taxes)

Relapse wrote:
It's too bad Nigeria can't get the level of global outrage that was generated in France.

Rape and murder ten thousand native civvies, and it's Tuesday. Behead one (preferably white) American, and the airstrikes are on their way.

 Frazzled wrote:

Please show me where hate speech is illegal (oustide of colleges and other bastions of "inclusiveness"). The Nazis can freaking march through Compton is they want.

Canada (2-14 years)
Germany (5 years)
UK (varies according to the offense)
US (but only under certain circumstances)
Numerous others.

Your particular example would actually be a crime in the US. SCOTUS established a legal precedent that includes creating an 'imminent threat test' clause to determine if something is protected by freedom of speech. In the event that it would immediately lead to other violations of the law, (riot, arson, so on) then it's not protected.


Edit": damn, ninja'd

It's actually more common than you'd think, at least as far as civil action goes.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Israel has done more than any other nation ever would if faced with a similar threat to minimize civilian casualties. They are morally clean regardless of your opinion or that of the obviously biased UN.

Yes, the UN was biased when it agreed with the findings of the Israelis own Kahan Commission that Ariel Sharon was ultimately responsible for the deaths of 1500 to 3500 civilians at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

Image is nasty/NWS


Israels hands are far from clean in this matter, and were actually the first side to engage in terrorism against civilians in 1948, when Zionists killed almost 10,000 civilians in a series of terror attacks.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
This happened over 30 years ago, and was committed by Arabs against other Arabs.

Well, no,, the second example was Zionists against Arabs, but the first one it was the IDF sealing the camps and taking direct action to support the death squads. The level of slaughter achieved would have been impossible without the IDF's support.

On the second issue, the UN isn't biased, the US is. That sort of tilts things there. The UN can condemn Israel until it's blue in the face, but without the US allowing anything to be done about it, all it would be is hot air.