Terror attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris

[Edi]

Attacks like this always have wide consequences. To speak of Patriotland first, being an Americentric American, of course this will be used as fodder for right wing attacks on normal Muslims who are killed in far higher numbers by extremists then we pale faces. The gunners might get ahold of it, pros say this is the reason everyone and their dog should be armed so a good guy (or gal or mutt) with a gun can stop this while the antis might say this is the reason to ban guns even harder to prevent attacks like this and rely on the police for protection (unless you're black, then you're shit out of luck). Idiots will use this to say that the NSA reading every fucking thing and the TSA grabbing your grandpas balls is warranted to prevent attacks like this, the French version of the TSA clearly didn't grab enough balls to stop terrorism.

In Eurocommie land this will probably give more ammo (no pun intended) to right winger wannabe Nazi's including the wannabes in Krautland I think yesterday protesting the Islamization of Europe. Well they are going to look right in alot of peoples eyes when they can point to people getting murder death killed for speaking ill of Islam by dudes shouting Allah Ackbar. This didn't happen in downtown Kabul or the barbaric and violent Old West wasteland of America, but in Paris. This so soon after an attack in Kangerooland down under by a lone nutter who was clearly part of a larger operation, clearly, makes things even more in their favor to lay accusations at the feet of the Muslim community that will resonate with a wider audience.

Hopefully the French can just catch these cunts without making a martyr of them and without the cunts doing anymore attacks.

Right. You win the thread. Thanks for that, I needed the laugh!

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I've just seen this on the news, so far it's been confirmed as ten staff and two cops shot dead, a mobile video recorded shows one of the terrorists shooting a downed cop in the head

A security consultant looked at the footage and said that one of the killers was wearing a combat jacket with ammo pouches, while the other wore body armour.

[Elheru Aran]

A security consultant looked at the footage and said that one of the killers was wearing a combat jacket with ammo pouches, while the other wore body armour.

That doesn't mean a whole lot by itself; both are fairly easily obtainable via military-surplus or the civilian market. I get a catalogue every now and then (unsolicted) that offers both. However if the body armour was of a certain grade, that could indicate a higher-level supply, which is troubling.

[General Zod]

France has identified the gunmen. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... azine.html

Police have identified the gunmen as of Wednesday evening, and are looking for brothers Said and Chérif Kouachi, in their 30s, and an 18-year-old named Hamyd Mourad. All three are French nationals, according to Reuters. One of the brothers, Chérif, has had previous run-ins with the law: He served 18 months after a 2008 conviction on terrorism charges, for helping send fighters to Iraq.

[Crown]

I think the title should be edited back to Muslim attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris.

Why is that so important? The current title is just fine.

To echo this, I would really like to hear the reasoning as well.

Because it would be accurate.

It's pathetic, really.

No, what is really pathetic is a liberal who goes performs every single hand waiving possible to avoid even appearing to offend religion and then cast ad hominem attacks on another poster to smear their character.

Lets look at some Charlie Hebdo covers shall we source?


“Sharia Hebdo” by David Sessions, 2011. It features a cartoon of “guest editor” the prophet Muhammad threatening readers with “100 lashes if you don’t die laughing!” The publication’s offices were fire-bombed after it published this issue.

Contrast the reaction to this cover;

The Pope tells a bishop to “Go into movies, like Polanski…” A comment on sex scandals in the Catholic Church, 2010. Which resulted in ... nothing.

Fuck it, the Onion said it best; No One Murdered Because Of This Image **NOT SAFE FOR WORK IMAGE IN THAT LINK**

Look this isn't a case of some loon with a shorn off shotty taking 12 people hostage in a cafe demanding to speak to the Prime Minister live on air so he can expose Australia as being guilty of war crimes. This was an execution motivated by a deep set of religious beliefs which are clearly fucking explicitly spelled out in their holy scriptures. They asked for specific people before they started shooting.

[Enigma]

From what I understand, one suspect killed and the other two arrested. All are French nationals "brothers Said and Cherif Kouachi, 34 and 32 respectively, and Hamyd Mourad, 18".

[Darth Yan]

Because it would be accurate.

It's pathetic, really.

No, what is really pathetic is a liberal who goes performs every single hand waiving possible to avoid even appearing to offend religion and then cast ad hominem attacks on another poster to smear their character.

Lets look at some Charlie Hebdo covers shall we source?


“Sharia Hebdo” by David Sessions, 2011. It features a cartoon of “guest editor” the prophet Muhammad threatening readers with “100 lashes if you don’t die laughing!” The publication’s offices were fire-bombed after it published this issue.

Contrast the reaction to this cover;

The Pope tells a bishop to “Go into movies, like Polanski…” A comment on sex scandals in the Catholic Church, 2010. Which resulted in ... nothing.

Fuck it, the Onion said it best; No One Murdered Because Of This Image **NOT SAFE FOR WORK IMAGE IN THAT LINK**

Look this isn't a case of some loon with a shorn off shotty taking 12 people hostage in a cafe demanding to speak to the Prime Minister live on air so he can expose Australia as being guilty of war crimes. This was an execution motivated by a deep set of religious beliefs which are clearly fucking explicitly spelled out in their holy scriptures. They asked for specific people before they started shooting.

Except Cosmicalstorm has made xenophobic comments in the past and there have been cases where people have knee jerkingly assumed muslims are all terrorists (case in point people assumed anders brevik was a muslim terrorist until the evidence showed he was a right wing christian. After that the right did damage control real quick.

[AniThyng]

I wonder if there is a #notallmuslims hash tag...

[Broomstick]

Sure, there are prohibitions against "graven images" in their religious texts, but the average Muslim, no matter how offended, is not gunning down people in reaction any more than the average Christian is stoning adulterers to death. Judge people by their actions, not by their label.

[AniThyng]

Sure, there are prohibitions against "graven images" in their religious texts, but the average Muslim, no matter how offended, is not gunning down people in reaction any more than the average Christian is stoning adulterers to death. Judge people by their actions, not by their label.

Judging individual people by their actions and not by their labels is easy to say, very hard to practice.

[Batman]

Then maybe we need to practice doing it a lot more.

[Joun_Lord]

Sure, there are prohibitions against "graven images" in their religious texts, but the average Muslim, no matter how offended, is not gunning down people in reaction any more than the average Christian is stoning adulterers to death. Judge people by their actions, not by their label.

Well clearly the Christians bombing clinics and murdering doctors, physically attacking gays, and slaughtering scores of children are the extreme outlier of their faith while Muslims blowing up stuff, beheading soldiers, and throwing the worlds most violent toddler temper tantrum over drawings of their bearded demi-god are representative of normal Muslims. Because they are brown people I guess.

Seriously though, anyone who believes that terrorists of any faith are the norm of that faith is any idiot and an uncouth ungentlemanly swine. The average, and the majority of, Muslims will never commit any extremism any more then the average Christian will, the average gun owner will go on a spree shooting, or the average mother will murder her children. The reason such things make the news is because they are so uncommon, most mothers don't slit their kids throats (even if it might be tempting, some spoiled little bastards make someone understand how some animals eat their young), most Christians don't murder a doctor in god's hizzouse, and most Muslims don't commit terrorism.

Its actually kind of fascinating the mental disconnect some people have. Christians whine about being persecuted because of the actions of a small few but some are more then happy to attack Muslims. Gun owners will get much maligned by the "lame stream media" and have their rights restricted because some small amount of nutters who are part of their fraternity committing horrific acts but some choose to heap the same sort of scorn upon gay people and work to ensure their rights are violated because a tiny amount of gay people might touch children or whatever the reason people call gaymosexuals violent or dangerous.

They don't seem to understand that what they do is the same thing being committed against them. The xenophobic reactions towards Christianity some more militant atheists is pretty much the same as Christians against Muslims. Gun nuts say even if you don't like guns you should respect their choice and right to own them but don't respect the choice to be gay (if its even a choice, which it isn't) and right to marry just because they don't like it.

[General Zod]

Christians like to behead people too, but it doesn't grab the headlines the way it does when a Muslim does it.

[AniThyng]

Let's not get carried away here with thinking this is primarily an attitude of white westerners/christians - most muslims don't commit terrorism themselves or condone it, but many muslims will most certainly feel that the west (and Israel, particularly), and in this case the magazine specifically, are reaping what they sow.

[Zaune]

Wow, that didn't take long.

Guy runs up to cop on ground and shoots him in the head, point blank.

Don’t worry, no blood..

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc6_1420632668

Notice, the camera pans past the police officer on the ground, still no blood..

Now, this is what happens when you shoot a watermelon from 10 ft away..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... LB36UxWD0M

You can see, a point blank shot with an AK-47 would make an awful mess..this alone is enough to call the event a false flag..there are also other problems, like they reportedly spoke perfect French with no accents, and entered the wrong building, before being told where the right building was, all while the police never responded..

Yeah, of course the government conspiracy that just murdered a bunch of civilians in cold blood for the sake of not getting their budget slashed or something would have a sudden attack of conscience and refuse to kill some hapless beat-cop who got in the way. That's much more likely than the gunman being a lousy shot!

I'm not even going to dignify the rest with a rebuttal.

[AniThyng]

Wow, that didn't take long.

Guy runs up to cop on ground and shoots him in the head, point blank.

Don’t worry, no blood..

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc6_1420632668

Notice, the camera pans past the police officer on the ground, still no blood..

Now, this is what happens when you shoot a watermelon from 10 ft away..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... LB36UxWD0M

You can see, a point blank shot with an AK-47 would make an awful mess..this alone is enough to call the event a false flag..there are also other problems, like they reportedly spoke perfect French with no accents, and entered the wrong building, before being told where the right building was, all while the police never responded..

Yeah, of course the government conspiracy that just murdered a bunch of civilians in cold blood for the sake of not getting their budget slashed or something would have a sudden attack of conscience and refuse to kill some hapless beat-cop who got in the way. That's much more likely than the gunman being a lousy shot!

I'm not even going to dignify the rest with a rebuttal.

Hah, wait till you see the ones that ask if the cop (who apparently was named Ahmed) was a collaborator in the attack who was shot to silence loose ends.

[cosmicalstorm]

I think the title should read Muslims. In the ME this attack has a large support-base, in the eyes of many people those guys are literally Han Solo saying fuck you to Darth Vader. To be honest I have started to believe that Muslims and Islam will not play with European culture at all. We already spent centuries under the wet blanket of Christ and his nuts. I do not want to see a repeat of that. The demographics of Islam is looking like it will make it a major player in European politics soon unless I have been deceived by Nazi propaganda.
I also believe that Islam is getting a special treatment that it would not have enjoyed if the core base was made up of white people praising Christ doing virtually the same thing.
Dawkins got bashed in the head when he tried to subject Islam to the same rules as Christianity.

This does not make me get a hard on for such mass fail/murders as the Iraq war or the occupation of Afghanistan Eastern Europe. I'm a techno-optimist and I fear the effects of religion on the continued development of technology. I fear that parts of Europe will soon share many similarities with Syria and Iraq.

I wonder if I have been deceived by some kind of Right Wing propaganda here. This feeling has been coming for years.

[Edi]

To echo this, I would really like to hear the reasoning as well.

Because it would be accurate.

It's pathetic, really.

No, what is really pathetic is a liberal who goes performs every single hand waiving possible to avoid even appearing to offend religion and then cast ad hominem attacks on another poster to smear their character.

Lets look at some Charlie Hebdo covers shall we source?

[snip image]
“Sharia Hebdo” by David Sessions, 2011. It features a cartoon of “guest editor” the prophet Muhammad threatening readers with “100 lashes if you don’t die laughing!” The publication’s offices were fire-bombed after it published this issue.

Contrast the reaction to this cover;
[snip image]
The Pope tells a bishop to “Go into movies, like Polanski…” A comment on sex scandals in the Catholic Church, 2010. Which resulted in ... nothing.

Fuck it, the Onion said it best; No One Murdered Because Of This Image **NOT SAFE FOR WORK IMAGE IN THAT LINK**

Look this isn't a case of some loon with a shorn off shotty taking 12 people hostage in a cafe demanding to speak to the Prime Minister live on air so he can expose Australia as being guilty of war crimes. This was an execution motivated by a deep set of religious beliefs which are clearly fucking explicitly spelled out in their holy scriptures. They asked for specific people before they started shooting.

You miss my point, Crown. I don't give a shit about offending Muslims, cartoons or not, anymore than I give a fuck about offending Christians. Or calling Muslim terrorists that, but the thing is, the thread started out titled as Terror attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris, which was accurate, and we're supposed to change it retroactively to emphasize the religion of the culprits just because some people have their panties in a bunch about Islam? That's the bullshit bit there. The thread itself does a good job of discussing that aspect of the case.

With regard to attitudes toward Muslims in general, I have nothing but contempt for the pants-pissing hysterical Chicken Little fuckwits (like cosmicalstorm) who start screaming about the sky falling every time some Muslim extremist somewhere in the world does something, and I'm not going to back down from that comment. I refuse to bow down to religious terrorism, but I also refuse to bow down to pointless scaremongering born from the fevered imaginations of paranoid xenophobic cowards. And I've no problem tarring and feathering cosmicalstorm with that moniker, especially after his latest post. If you're confusing that for apologism for terror acts or religious sensitivity, you need to take a remedial reading comprehension course post-haste.

[Dominus Atheos]

Uh...Edi? It's not that I particularly like correcting you or anything, but...

When this thread was started by Comicalstorm the title was "Muslim attack on satiresite. 11 dead". He just wants it changed back to what it was before supermod Lagmonster changed it.

[Crown]

Uh...Edi? It's not that I particularly like correcting you or anything, but...

When this thread was started by Comicalstorm the title was "Muslim attack on satiresite. 11 dead". He just wants it changed back to what it was before supermod Lagmonster changed it.

you need to take a remedial reading comprehension course post-haste.

I 'd

[Edi]

Sadly, I do not have that excellent picture of a crow on a plate with fork and knife on the side available for linking anymore after my ISP terminated consumer website services.

Else I'd be posting it right about now...

[Crown]

Sure, there are prohibitions against "graven images" in their religious texts, but the average Muslim, no matter how offended, is not gunning down people in reaction any more than the average Christian is stoning adulterers to death. Judge people by their actions, not by their label.

And yet;

"Seventy-eight percent [of British Muslims] support punishment for the people who earlier this year published cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed. Sixty-eight percent support the arrest and prosecution of those British people who "insult Islam." When asked if free speech should be protected, even if it offends religious groups, 62 percent of British Muslims say No, it should not."

Stop pretending that there is somehow any equivalency between what the 'average' Christian thinks and what the 'average' Muslim thinks, because there simply isn't.

Sam Harris has written a great piece on this, on how there is a direct line between the teachings of the Muslim faith and the atrocities committed in its name. A claim that cannot be made anywhere near as accurately about the other (monotheistic) faiths. Are there parts of the Judaism and Christian faiths that espouse beliefs that are far, and I mean far, more abhorrent than Islamic teachings? You betcha. Can you draw a straight line from those teachings? No.

This is not true over the act which just happened. This was entirely based on their faith. Not some absurd interpretation of their faith, but their actual faith as written down.

EDIT :: Typo, changed 'expose beliefs...' to 'espouse beliefs... '

[Crown]

Sadly, I do not have that excellent picture of a crow on a plate with fork and knife on the side available for linking anymore after my ISP terminated consumer website services.

Else I'd be posting it right about now...

We need a thumbs up emoticon for when people do the honourable thing even if they don't need to.

By the way, you were correct I did miss your point, however I'm getting fed up with the PC actions of not stating the actual truth for fear of looking like a racist.

Islamophobia is a ridiculous word, that is code for 'doesn't like brown people', and I would be a fool if I didn't think that it wasn't sadly very accurate on a vast majority of cases (very sadly indeed). However, actively denying this was an act that was 100% motivated by the perpetrators religious beliefs is galling to me.

[Broomstick]

Stop pretending that there is somehow any equivalency between what the 'average' Christian thinks and what the 'average' Muslim thinks, because there simply isn't.

When the Muslims in those polls say "punish" what do they mean? Fines? Forced apologies/retractions? Jail time? "Punishment" does not automatically translate to "shoot in the head".

It's not like non-Muslims don't have similar attitudes. Every damn winter the US is subjected to Christians with delusions of persecution demanding protections from the "war on Christmas" and other such nonsense. We've had Christian terrorists kill doctors. Roll things back a few centuries and you had executions for heresy and all manner of abuses. If Christians are relatively non-confrontational today their ideology still retains that capacity.

[AniThyng]

Stop pretending that there is somehow any equivalency between what the 'average' Christian thinks and what the 'average' Muslim thinks, because there simply isn't.

When the Muslims in those polls say "punish" what do they mean? Fines? Forced apologies/retractions? Jail time? "Punishment" does not automatically translate to "shoot in the head".

It's not like non-Muslims don't have similar attitudes. Every damn winter the US is subjected to Christians with delusions of persecution demanding protections from the "war on Christmas" and other such nonsense. We've had Christian terrorists kill doctors. Roll things back a few centuries and you had executions for heresy and all manner of abuses. If Christians are relatively non-confrontational today their ideology still retains that capacity.

At minimum certainly the censoring of the material and jail + a hefty fine. With a dose of "don't provoke or this kind of thing will happen even if I personally think it's extreme"