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.
Grey Templar wrote: Aren't there a few african countries which speak french?
Yes, but usually with accent. If Swiss and Belgian people have a distinguishable accent, certainly Algerians or Senegalese do too.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
2015/01/07 18:27:46
Subject: Re:Shooting at Satirical magazine in France
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.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
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.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
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.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/01/07 18:40:18
2015/01/07 18:38:30
Subject: Re:Shooting at Satirical magazine in France
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.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
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.
"Fear is freedom! Subjugation is liberation! Contradiction is truth! These are the truths of this world! Surrender to these truths, you pigs in human clothing!" - Satsuki Kiryuin, Kill la Kill
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.
yep.
*Insert witty and/or interesting statement here*
2015/01/07 18:44:37
Subject: Re:Shooting at Satirical magazine in France
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.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
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.
until you start chopping pieces off.
Nothing like a good flaying. Just ask Mr Greyjoy.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/07 18:48:32
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?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
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?
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
2015/01/07 18:53:09
Subject: Re:Shooting at Satirical magazine in France
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.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2015/01/07 18:55:00
Subject: Re:Shooting at Satirical magazine in France
the shrouded lord wrote: no bamboo under nails. just clean cuts. one here...one here...one here. *mimics chopping off fingers*
Lets move away from the torture porn fantasies shall we.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
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.