Shooting at Satirical magazine in France

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.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Sarouan wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Again - it's not a comparable situation. The NYPD officers were the TARGET of the attack. The officers in France were not the target of the attack.

That's what you are saying.

The killers went into a patrol. They went for the killing purposedly. By the way, so that you know, Charlie Hebdo, the target, was under police protection because of former threats.

For the policewoman in Paris, it was a target. By someone else. Another killer, who fled. She was killed in the back without hesitation.

So yes, it's a comparable situation. I know it disturbs you in your "guns always protect the people who hold them" credo, but that's reality. Holding a weapon doesn't prevent you from being murdered.

It is NOT a comparable situation.

NYPD: Gunman attacks OFFICERS with the intent of killing officers. Officers have no time to react.
Charlie Hebdo: Gunmen attack BUILDING with the intent of killing CARTOONISTS. Officer outside the building had time to react.

If you don't understand the above, then I encourage you to enroll in an ESL course before responding.

I know very well that holding a weapon does not prevent you from being murdered. No amount of strawmen on your part will fill the deficiencies in your logic.

**thenoobbomb**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Sarouan wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Again - it's not a comparable situation. The NYPD officers were the TARGET of the attack. The officers in France were not the target of the attack.

That's what you are saying.

The killers went into a patrol. They went for the killing purposedly. By the way, so that you know, Charlie Hebdo, the target, was under police protection because of former threats.

For the policewoman in Paris, it was a target. By someone else. Another killer, who fled. She was killed in the back without hesitation.

So yes, it's a comparable situation. I know it disturbs you in your "guns always protect the people who hold them" credo, but that's reality. Holding a weapon doesn't prevent you from being murdered.

It is NOT a comparable situation.

NYPD: Gunman attacks OFFICERS with the intent of killing officers. Officers have no time to react.
Charlie Hebdo: Gunmen attack BUILDING with the intent of killing CARTOONISTS. Officer outside the building had time to react.

If you don't understand the above, then I encourage you to enroll in an ESL course before responding.

I know very well that holding a weapon does not prevent you from being murdered. No amount of strawmen on your part will fill the deficiencies in your logic.

You realise that one of the two officers was inside, and the other was shot on the street?

Kovnik Obama wrote:
12 French-Canadian newspapers (including the biggest names) have decided to show support to the fallen and reproduced one of the most controversial depiction of Mohamet on their front page. In it, you can see the prophet of Islam shaking his head and lamenting "it's hard to be loved by morons".

I was wondering if you had heard of any similar initiatives?

All the cartoons and comics in my newspaper were replaced by "#JesuisCharlie" in white letters on a black background.

**Disciple of Fate**

To clear some things up, the unarmed officer was not killed at the location of the shooting, although the armed officer was. As the BBC overview makes clear the officer encountered them, perhaps out of accident, when they had already left. He was most likely just as surprised by them as the armed one.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30708237

The black Citroen is thought to have driven south down the Boulevard Richard Lenoir, before doubling back on the northern carriageway. The car stopped and video footage shows the gunmen got out of the vehicle and shot police officer Ahmed Merabet, 42.

One of the attackers then walked up to the officer lying injured on the pavement and killed him at close range before returning to the car and driving away with his accomplice.

**BaronIveagh**

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.

**Jihadin**

Yep. Magazine building was indeed the target
The two Paris LEO were unfortunate secondary when they rolled into it

If they had a RPG then they wouldn't need to have to gain access to the office building and call out names. They would have used more likely a thermobaric or fragmentation rounds and wreck the building and kill everyone.
I think the cop killer has a grenade launcher (GP30). Can see the protrusion of something slung under his AK as he jogs up and opted out the LEO.

No target to warrant the use of an RPG.

**stanman**

Rather than worrying about the gun situation I think that if they didn't let Islamic Terrorist into the country the situation wouldn't occur, perhaps when the gunmen left the country to act as Jihadist and returned they should have been barred from re-entry. If somebody willingly joins a known terrorist group I think that it should be grounds for revoking their rights to participate in any civilized society. Want to go join a foreign terrorist army? Go get your haj on but don't come back.

**Grey Templar**

My guess is they only have one or two rounds for the RPG/grenade launcher and are saving them for a better target.

**Disciple of Fate**

Jihadin wrote:
Yep. Magazine building was indeed the target
The two Paris LEO were unfortunate secondary when they rolled into it

If they had a RPG then they wouldn't need to have to gain access to the office building and call out names. They would have used more likely a thermobaric or fragmentation rounds and wreck the building and kill everyone.
I think the cop killer has a grenade launcher (GP30). Can see the protrusion of something slung under his AK as he jogs up and opted out the LEO.

No target to warrant the use of an RPG.

The officers that responded escaped unharmed:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30708237
A police car blocked the gunmen's escape route down the narrow street Allee Vert and the gunmen opened fire.

Journalists and workers who had taken refuge on nearby rooftops filmed the gunmen getting out of the car, walking and shooting at the police vehicle, before driving off.

The police car's windscreen was riddled with bullets but the officers escaped unhurt.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

stanman wrote:
Rather than worrying about the gun situation I think that if they didn't let Islamic Terrorist into the country the situation wouldn't occur, perhaps when the gunmen left the country to act as Jihadist and returned they should have been barred from re-entry. If somebody willingly joins a known terrorist group I think that it should be grounds for revoking their rights to participate in any civilized society. Want to go join a foreign terrorist army? don't come back.

This has been an issue for a longer period, in the Netherlands you better not join up with jihadists in Syria, because you might lose your social benefits when you return

**Jihadin**

As experience as they are they know as soon as they fire that weapon every caliber of weapons going to pour into that position. With the launcher is more "shrouded" when fired. Also can move more freely with AK's and magazines then a RPG with multiple rounds

**Dreadclaw69**

stanman wrote:
Rather than worrying about the gun situation I think that if they didn't let Islamic Terrorist into the country the situation wouldn't occur, perhaps when the gunmen left the country to act as Jihadist and returned they should have been barred from re-entry. If somebody willingly joins a known terrorist group I think that it should be grounds for revoking their rights to participate in any civilized society. Want to go join a foreign terrorist army? Go get your haj on but don't come back.

It isn't certain that he did leave France

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/world/europe/survivors-retrace-a-scene-of-horror-at-charlie-hebdo.html?hp=&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0

He was detained in 2005 as he prepared to leave France for Syria, where he hoped to be trained to fight Americans. He has been living recently with the second suspect, his older brother Said, 34, in the home of a convert to Islam, and has worked occasionally as a pizza delivery man or a shop assistant.

It was not immediately known whether either suspect ever managed to leave France to join jihadist networks. But both men appeared to have gotten training in the use of commando tactics and firearms, and were prepared for their mission of killing the leadership of Charlie Hebdo.

Most of all, they seemed determined to kill Mr. Charbonnier, who was on a Qaeda list of “most wanted” Westerners for publishing cartoons that provoked radical Muslims with irreverent representations of the Prophet Muhammad.

**-Shrike-**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Sarouan wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Again - it's not a comparable situation. The NYPD officers were the TARGET of the attack. The officers in France were not the target of the attack.

That's what you are saying.

The killers went into a patrol. They went for the killing purposedly. By the way, so that you know, Charlie Hebdo, the target, was under police protection because of former threats.

For the policewoman in Paris, it was a target. By someone else. Another killer, who fled. She was killed in the back without hesitation.

So yes, it's a comparable situation. I know it disturbs you in your "guns always protect the people who hold them" credo, but that's reality. Holding a weapon doesn't prevent you from being murdered.

It is NOT a comparable situation.

NYPD: Gunman attacks OFFICERS with the intent of killing officers. Officers have no time to react.
Charlie Hebdo: Gunmen attack BUILDING with the intent of killing CARTOONISTS. Officer outside the building had time to react.

If you don't understand the above, then I encourage you to enroll in an ESL course before responding.

I know very well that holding a weapon does not prevent you from being murdered. No amount of strawmen on your part will fill the deficiencies in your logic.

Yes, and in Paris the armed officer was killed inside the building. As soon as they exit that building, every police officer is now a threat, as is obvious from the fact they killed and attempted to kill the next three that they encountered. Don't pretend that they had no intention of killing police officers, they were prepared to do so, and the facts speak for themselves.

**Disciple of Fate**

Did some digging around, this perhaps changes the views of the weapon debate, the officer that was executed had been armed according to the BBC. So both officers killed had been armed.

Arriving at the scene of the attack, the 42-year-old opened fire on the gunmen but was injured in the exchange, Le Figaro writes.

Then, as he lay on the ground, a gunman shot him in the head from close range, in an act captured on amateur video.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30724678

**-Shrike-**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Did some digging around, this perhaps changes the views of the weapon debate, the officer that was executed had been armed according to the BBC. So both officers killed had been armed.

Arriving at the scene of the attack, the 42-year-old opened fire on the gunmen but was injured in the exchange, Le Figaro writes.

Then, as he lay on the ground, a gunman shot him in the head from close range, in an act captured on amateur video.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30724678

That is interesting. It certainly speaks volumes as to the quality of training that these guys must have had.

**djones520**

If he was, still changes nothing that I've said.

I was not aware that French police have the option to carry, so that is good.

Maybe if anything now, more will use the option. *shrugs*

**NuggzTheNinja**

-Shrike- wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Sarouan wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Again - it's not a comparable situation. The NYPD officers were the TARGET of the attack. The officers in France were not the target of the attack.

That's what you are saying.

The killers went into a patrol. They went for the killing purposedly. By the way, so that you know, Charlie Hebdo, the target, was under police protection because of former threats.

For the policewoman in Paris, it was a target. By someone else. Another killer, who fled. She was killed in the back without hesitation.

So yes, it's a comparable situation. I know it disturbs you in your "guns always protect the people who hold them" credo, but that's reality. Holding a weapon doesn't prevent you from being murdered.

It is NOT a comparable situation.

NYPD: Gunman attacks OFFICERS with the intent of killing officers. Officers have no time to react.
Charlie Hebdo: Gunmen attack BUILDING with the intent of killing CARTOONISTS. Officer outside the building had time to react.

If you don't understand the above, then I encourage you to enroll in an ESL course before responding.

I know very well that holding a weapon does not prevent you from being murdered. No amount of strawmen on your part will fill the deficiencies in your logic.

Yes, and in Paris the armed officer was killed inside the building. As soon as they exit that building, every police officer is now a threat, as is obvious from the fact they killed and attempted to kill the next three that they encountered. Don't pretend that they had no intention of killing police officers, they were prepared to do so, and the facts speak for themselves.

Again: Strawman.

Who was the target of the attack in NY? NYPD officers.

Who was the target of this attack? Not French officers.

Being prepared to shoot French LEOs != targeting French LEOs.

**Disciple of Fate**

I guess the unarmed comments must have been aimed at the two officers that first arrived at the scene but escaped unharmed. Regardless, it is still sad that in this case being armed for the two killed officers did not help.

**Jihadin**

Retz Forest in France is the concentrated search for the brothers

Edit

They believe they are in the forest and the forest is bigger then Paris.

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:
Retz Forest in France is the concentrated search for the brothers

Edit

They believe they are in the forest and the forest is bigger then Paris.

Sounds like Alfred has a simple solution. Burn down the forest.

**Jihadin**

I highly doubt they are going to surrender. Better get an rotary wing aircraft in there with a FLIR and basically run them to the ground with exhaustion. France would really want to know how they manage to get the weapons into country and the network (human) in play to make that happen.

Since the French Foreign Legion is use to dealing with Insurgents they should be the one's sweeping the forest. They're use to a RoE.

Edit

The intel came from one witness who seem to have seen the individuals leave a silver vehicle and enter into the woods...

**Frazzled**

If found via FlIR could you hit 'em with knock out gas? I think I've seen too many movies but hey they did it on ET.

**djones520**

Frazzled wrote:
If found via FlIR could you hit 'em with knock out gas? I think I've seen too many movies but hey they did it on ET.

Hard to get solid recognition with FLIR. Would feel real silly if you launched a bunch of gas at two hikers.

**Jihadin**

Frazzled wrote:
If found via FlIR could you hit 'em with knock out gas? I think I've seen too many movies but hey they did it on ET.

Give an eight digit grid and fire a "Smurf" round in the area (practice round that makes blue smoke and a small pop). Do not give them time to rest.

Edit

I'm sure they cleared them out of the forest (hikers and campers). So birds, couple million racoons, deer, and other wild life pretty much left

**Frazzled**

Alternatively, sit tight. Have Australia fly in some of its more cuddly native life. They'll be out in no time. Of course you'll have to nuke the forest after. Its hard to kill those drop bear nests.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Spoiler:

-Shrike- wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Sarouan wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Again - it's not a comparable situation. The NYPD officers were the TARGET of the attack. The officers in France were not the target of the attack.

That's what you are saying.

The killers went into a patrol. They went for the killing purposedly. By the way, so that you know, Charlie Hebdo, the target, was under police protection because of former threats.

For the policewoman in Paris, it was a target. By someone else. Another killer, who fled. She was killed in the back without hesitation.

So yes, it's a comparable situation. I know it disturbs you in your "guns always protect the people who hold them" credo, but that's reality. Holding a weapon doesn't prevent you from being murdered.

It is NOT a comparable situation.

NYPD: Gunman attacks OFFICERS with the intent of killing officers. Officers have no time to react.
Charlie Hebdo: Gunmen attack BUILDING with the intent of killing CARTOONISTS. Officer outside the building had time to react.

If you don't understand the above, then I encourage you to enroll in an ESL course before responding.

I know very well that holding a weapon does not prevent you from being murdered. No amount of strawmen on your part will fill the deficiencies in your logic.

Yes, and in Paris the armed officer was killed inside the building. As soon as they exit that building, every police officer is now a threat, as is obvious from the fact they killed and attempted to kill the next three that they encountered. Don't pretend that they had no intention of killing police officers, they were prepared to do so, and the facts speak for themselves.

Again: Strawman.

Who was the target of the attack in NY? NYPD officers.

Who was the target of this attack? Not French officers.

Being prepared to shoot French LEOs != targeting French LEOs.

No, but they clearly had every intention of killing Police officers that got in their way. Hell, they even went out of their way to finish off a wounded officer instead of immediately escaping and leaving him writhing on the ground.

**Jihadin**

How about you two get off the comparison kick.

Edit

The 18 year old it seems was not involve? Alibi of being in class at the time of the shooting backed by other students. So where is the third guy?

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Jihadin wrote:
How about you two get off the comparison kick.

Edit

The 18 year old it seems was not involve? Alibi of being in class at the time of the shooting backed by other students. So where is the third guy?

Me? I'm not Shrike.

**Disciple of Fate**

Jihadin wrote:
The 18 year old it seems was not involve? Alibi of being in class at the time of the shooting backed by other students. So where is the third guy?

Has it been confirmed? So far Ive only seen the news referencing a trending twitter topic.

**Jihadin**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
How about you two get off the comparison kick.

Edit

The 18 year old it seems was not involve? Alibi of being in class at the time of the shooting backed by other students. So where is the third guy?

Me? I'm not Shrike.

Damn the Shadow Captain rank and Shrike name....damn you all...

So we have the brothers loose and the France LEO can hold the kid for 72 hours for questioning. Hoping to see a third picture get thrown up soon

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
The 18 year old it seems was not involve? Alibi of being in class at the time of the shooting backed by other students. So where is the third guy?

Has it been confirmed? So far Ive only seen the news referencing a trending twitter topic.

Shepard Smith on Fox went over it. The kid it seems knows the brothers but was in class. Like "Guilty by Association" came into play

**BaronIveagh**

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.

**CptJake**

BaronIveagh wrote:
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.

There were at least a couple at the Eiffel Tower yesterday.

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/french-soldiers-patrol-near-eiffel-tower-paris-part-photo-153718453.html

(at least the beret color and flash look like FFL to me).