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.

 whembly wrote:
[
That what these terrorists did is really nothing more than Christian leaders do every day, you know.

Care to explain your comment?

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.

 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.

 Medium of Death wrote:

He considers non Muslims to be animals for living their lives in the way they wish, which of course means outwith Islam.

I understood his statement to mean that he believes Muslims who allow their beliefs to waver cease to be Muslim, not unlike non-Muslim religious people, and that people without a religion of any sort live as animals; bending the rules.

That's not a uniquely Muslim position by any stretch of the imagination.

 Orlanth wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Care to understand what and why the feth he is actually typing that instead of going off half-cocked at any perceived anti-Christian sentiment?

Also, I preferred the "wild eyed bigoted comment" version.

Well I would like to know why 'Christian leaders' are synonymous with terrorists. As for anti-Christian sentiments, they do exist here and are evidently strong and heavily discriminatory.

To add bigotry to bigotry its now apparently my fault as a Christian that I question why other Christians are to be lumped together with terrorist murderers without any explanation.

If I were to blanket link atheists, with terrorists, on a whim, atheists would take offense and rightly so.

So you're still refusing to actually read why he said it.

Well done, the blinkers are on.

For your information, he's explaining the content of a video he found ridiculous. Jesus fething Christ. Actually read the thread, thanks.

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.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 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.

You know Whembly was being sarcastic right?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 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:

 nels1031 wrote:
You know Whembly was being sarcastic right?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote:


Whats the scoop for those who don't have speakers right now?

That what these terrorists did is really nothing more than Christian leaders do every day, you know.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 08/01/2015 00:49:06

It was a reply to a comment asking for the content of the video from someone who couldn't hear the content, so it can be read as a synopsis unless there are clear indicators like [/sarcasm].

Reading reports of a new shooting in Paris 2 French cops shot.
From Telegraph:

A police officer has been seriously injured in a second shooting in Paris.
Gunmen are said to have escaped into the Metro after automatic gunfire was reported at Montrouge.
A suspect has reportedly been arrested after the shootout.
One of two municipal policemen was badly hurt, a police source told Reuters.
The source added that it was unclear if there is any link at this stage to the Charlie Hebdo attack, in which three suspected al-Qaeda gunmen targeted the offices of the French satirical magazine, killing 12 people.
ITELE television station said that two police officers were lying on the ground after the second shooting.
French police are carrying out manhunt for two brothers suspected of killing 12 people on Wednesday at Charlie Hebdo in a presumed Islamist militant strike.
On Thursday, authorities released photos of the two French nationals still at large, calling them "armed and dangerous."
Seven people have already been arrested in the ongoing investigation, Prime Minister Manuel Valls said.

So a new development today:

A massive manhunt is under way for two suspects in the terror attack on a satirical magazine.Images have been released of brothers Said Kouachi and Cherif Kouachi, both in their early 30s, who are suspected of being part of the attack that left 12 people dead.Officials have said the French nationals are linked to a Yemeni terror network.The youngest of the suspects in the shooting has handed himself in to police after he was named on social media as Hamyd Mourad, 18.

Sky sources say the man, who has been arrested, is the brother-in-law of the suspects at large.

On Wednesday night heavily armoured French police raided an apartment in the city of Reims, east of Paris, as they continued a massive manhunt to find the killers.

French officials say seven people have been detained overnight. Meanwhile, two police officers were wounded in a shoot-out in southern Paris overnight, but it is not being linked to the attack on the magazine.

Thousands of officers have reportedly been deployed in the hunt for the men behind the attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo.

It has previously been targeted over its portrayal of the Prophet Mohammed.

In Wednesday's attack, masked gunmen stormed the offices and called out their victims by name before opening fire during a morning editorial meeting.

They were armed with Kalashnikov assault rifles and a rocket-propelled grenade.

They were let inside the Charlie Hebdo building by a female employee who was threatened at gunpoint along with her daughter and forced to punch in a security code to allow them inside.

The editor and a cartoonist for the newspaper, who went by the pen names Charb and Cabu, were among those killed.

Radio France chief executive Mathieu Gilet announced that contributor Bernard Maris was also killed.

Two police officers were among the dead, including one assigned as Charb's bodyguard after he had received death threats and another who was shot in the head as he lay wounded on the ground outside the offices.

He has been named as Ahmed Merabet and is believed to be a Muslim.

French President Francois Hollande has declared today a national day of mourning and a nationwide minute of silence is planned for noon.

In a televised address on Wednesday he said: "We have to respond according to the crime, first of all by finding the authors of this infamy and we have to ensure that they are arrested, judged... and punished very severely."

With the country on maximum terror alert, more than 800 extra soldiers are helping to guard media offices, places of worship and other sensitive areas.

Tens of thousands of people have staged silent protests in France and across the world in solidarity with the victims.



Social media users have used the hashtag #jesuischarlie to show solidarity for the victims of the shooting, with the Charlie Hebdo website also using the image as its masthead.

In the wake of the attack, the British Government is holding an emergency Cobra meeting chaired by the Home Secretary this morning.

Source:
http://news.sky.com/story/1403975/paris-terror-attack-two-brothers-on-the-run

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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Just saying they must have some issues in a post WW2 world.

Lolno.

 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.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
Well i'm glad somebody is holding a meeting about this, it's kind of a big deal imo. These arrests so far just sound like guessing.

The kid they arrested handed himself in. Hardly guesswork. Also from the way it was organised there had to have been other people involved to get that sort of firepower into their hands.

With seven arrests so far and the police only claiming to look for three active participants (though they wont necessarily tell us everything) it s evident they are hunting the wider support network.

That being said, arrest doesn't mean guilty, or even suspicion of involvement. There will be a lot of fundamentalist Islamists on the files, many of whom are sympathetic to the attackers beleifs , and known to them but not necessarily in actuality involved. Police may well arrest some of these people and bring them in for routine questioning, most will likely be released without charge.
Yet again the police might turn up a whole rats nest of active jihadists, including weapons suppliers and end up finding charges to place on large numbers of people. Even then the men who supplied the AKs might not have known about the target, but that wont be entirely relevant except to the severity of sentecing.

I was referring to the other arrests that have been made, they just seem too 'obvious' for me compared to how professionally the attack seemed to have been executed (no pun intended). This seems really well planned, surely they would have anticipated that their friends would be investigated.

edit: do we know exactly where the AKs were supplied? If border travel is that easy, they could have been smuggled in from quite some distance away.

New attack, may not be linked but Paris getting it hard at the moment.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2901670/Gunman-arrested-Paris-police-officers-seriously-wounded.html

‘North African wielding assault rifle and wearing bullet-proof vest'. If not directly related i'd imagine it inspired by our favourite religion of peace.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-30722098

Journalist with RFI-Radio France, Carrie Nooten, says the police officer who died after being shot in Montrouge had been in the area to assist in the aftermath of a traffic accident.

Stay classy. He's also on the run.

Seems there's been an explosion at a Kebab shop across from a Mosque in the East of France.

On the BBC just there - Suspects spotted in North of France in a vehicle carrying weapons. Apparently they have a rocket launcher. Not sure where that source is from but it was Lyse Doucet that said it.

I have to say, I've looked through the Charlie Hebdo 'satires' and I must admit that whilst I fully support their right to draw the satires and carticatures, as is their right, they aren't, IMO, clever satire.I must clarify before I continue that I don't in anyway at all think that they 'got what they deserved' or 'reaped what they sowed' - these atrocities are incredibly out of scale as a reaction to the simple publishing of an 'offensive' image and are deeply saddening, but my only point is that I think there was a lack of intelligence to the brand of satire, which has unfortunately provoked this response.

I think the problem with the Charlie Hebdo brand of satire is that it's not true satire. Rather than clever suggestion or euphemism it's merely crude exhibition. Anybody can draw a picture of Mohammed engaging in dubious acts (As Charlie Hebdo have done previously) and call it 'Satire' but in reality it isn't clever satire, just an image to cause offence. It doesn't carry any particular meaning, point or attempt to enlighten the viewer. I say it isn't clever satire as I don't think it cause the viewer to consider his or others moral or political values - it's just a cheap laugh. Clever satire should seek not to push a point by outrage or shock, but by quietly mocking core values of the subject, implying things rather than crudely displaying them and by systematic deconstruction of the fallacies constructed by the subject (Be it political, religious or social). In doing so, the point of the satire remains the same, but the message is conveyed much more effectively and crucially it serves a purpose in that, by having a specific point, it actively fights back against these savages by persuading people to the cause. By doing this it can change the way people think, negate the influence of vile people like these terrorists and all in a manner that does not provoke them.

At this point, you'll be thinking 'What has any of this got to do with Charlie Hebdo?'. My point is, if the satire had been 'clever' as I outlined above, rather than the crude images that Charlie Hebdo has published in the past, it would not be as provocative. The reason being is that it requires a certain amount of intelligence to decipher the meaning behind indirect 'clever' satire - intellect that educated Western society (And, I suppose those civilised countries of Asia and Northern Africa) possesses, but fundamentalist extremists do not. As a result we can appreciate the satire, but to extremists with blinkered vision - they simply do not understand it enough to regard it. However when the satire is crude, as IMO it was, then we as educated minds can laugh it off or ignore it, agree with it or be offended by it, but ultimately we are balanced enough to know what the appropriate response is and allow people their basic right to express it. Unfortunately, we aren't dealing with balanced people and these extremists are too ignorant and moral-less to know how to do the above - so their only recourse is violence, which tragically we have seen yesterday and this morning.

To sum it up, I'm simply saying that in my own opinion, whilst I support Charlie Hebdo's right to publish their satire, indeed encourage it, I don't think it's the best way to go about satire, especially in the current world. IMO, it needs to be more intelligent and less crude to better get the point across and avoid provocation. Of course, I needn't say that the response to their satire is wildly out of proportion and horrific.

Why should we "avoid provocation"? Why should western democracies curb their freedom of speech in any way to try and avoid offending the fragile sensibilities of barbarians that commit acts that are extremely repulsive to our way of life every single day?

Exactly. It's insipid nonsense to stifle freedom of expression in the face of barbarism. It suggests that might makes right which is anathema to civil society.

If a government can't defend its citizens and suggests it remain silent in the face of disgusting evil it has no authority to govern and the people should be allowed to have arms to defend themselves. We should be allowed to defend ourselves anyway.

PhantomViper wrote:
Why should we "avoid provocation"? Why should western democracies curb their freedom of speech in any way to try and avoid offending the fragile sensibilities of barbarians that commit acts that are extremely repulsive to our way of life every single day?

Why be an ass about it though? Satire has it's place, but being confrontational for the sake of being confrontational doesn't really achieve anything.

Why not?

If the "why not" is "because people will shoot you", then feth those people.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Why not?

If the "why not" is "because people will shoot you", then feth those people.

Exactly.

Warpig - sharper, more precisely aimed satire might seem less provocative to you or me, but to the perpetrators of this atrocity it would have made no difference whatsoever. These two guys may well have never seen the cartoons, the nature of the cartoons isn't the issue for them, it's the fact they exist at all that they are willing to commit mass-murder over.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Why should we "avoid provocation"? Why should western democracies curb their freedom of speech in any way to try and avoid offending the fragile sensibilities of barbarians that commit acts that are extremely repulsive to our way of life every single day?

Why be an ass about it though? Satire has it's place, but being confrontational for the sake of being confrontational doesn't really achieve anything.

It achieves the goal of showing those people that they cannot make us change our values no matter what terrorist actions they take.

Ah, my only point was not that we shouldn't poke fun at the terrorists, it just that in an uncertain world such as this - look what happens when we use 'crude' satire. If we were to poke fun at them using 'clever' satire it may be more effective and cause less of a backlash. I still support the mocking and degrade of the terrorists, but people need to be more intelligent about it. That was all really.

EDIT:

PhantomViper wrote:It achieves the goal of showing those people that they cannot make us change our values no matter what terrorist actions they take.

You're right of course, they will not grind us down with such base acts - but how many senseless deaths will occur first, which could be avoid through the application of more intelligent methods of mocking, confounding and destroying them?

EDIT2:

Darkjim wrote:Warpig - sharper, more precisely aimed satire might seem less provocative to you or me, but to the perpetrators of this atrocity it would have made no difference whatsoever. These two guys may well have never seen the cartoons, the nature of the cartoons isn't the issue for them, it's the fact they exist at all that they are willing to commit mass-murder over.

Granted, I see your point. I suppose I'm talking more from an ideal point of view. Sorry.

The problem there is that you're suggesting people do change in response to terrorism.

"more clever satire to avoid violent reprisals"

Idealistically, fethwits wouldn't be going around murdering others for having different opinions/beliefs.

 Warpig1815 wrote:
Ah, my only point was not that we shouldn't poke fun at the terrorists, it just that in an uncertain world such as this - look what happens when we use 'crude' satire. If we were to poke fun at them using 'clever' satire it may be more effective and cause less of a backlash. I still support the mocking and degrade of the terrorists, but people need to be more intelligent about it. That was all really.

Then you are curbing our society to their desires.

It isn't defiance if the persons that you are supposed to be defying don't know about it.

 Warpig1815 wrote:
Ah, my only point was not that we shouldn't poke fun at the terrorists, it just that in an uncertain world such as this - look what happens when we use 'crude' satire. If we were to poke fun at them using 'clever' satire it may be more effective and cause less of a backlash. I still support the mocking and degrade of the terrorists, but people need to be more intelligent about it. That was all really.

EDIT:

PhantomViper wrote:It achieves the goal of showing those people that they cannot make us change our values no matter what terrorist actions they take.

You're right of course, they will not grind us down with such base acts - but how many senseless deaths will occur first, which could be avoid through the application of more intelligent methods of mocking, confounding and destroying them?

EDIT2:

Darkjim wrote:Warpig - sharper, more precisely aimed satire might seem less provocative to you or me, but to the perpetrators of this atrocity it would have made no difference whatsoever. These two guys may well have never seen the cartoons, the nature of the cartoons isn't the issue for them, it's the fact they exist at all that they are willing to commit mass-murder over.

Granted, I see your point. I suppose I'm talking more from an ideal point of view. Sorry.

Dude, I agree entirely re the cartoons, as someone who has read Private Eye for 25 years (which itself has some pretty bad cartoonists, and some great ones), Charlie Hebdo just seem childish. Just nowhere near as infantile as killing over pictures.