Massacre in Paris - Islamic Extremists Kill At least 12

Owned.

myk said:

Had there been relative Muslim peace in the Middle East and abroad, these two French citizens of Algerian descent would have found much less deadly means to tell everybody, in France and all the Muslim world, that they felt their religious pride was being stepped on.

And how do you know that? You are ignoring the elephant in the room which is that these whack jobs believe in a radical ideology that tells its followers that anyone who disrespects their prophet should be put to death. How do you know that they wouldn't have followed that directive if Europe or the US were not involved in the Middle East?

Go ahead and ban "insulting religion." Then you can't complain when Catholics attack birth control and abortion; or Protestants attack evolution, natural history, education, and rational thought; or Muslims promote their practices like genital mutilation and oppression of women.

Have fun in your new Dark Age, because making religion specially protected is literally moving Europe back to the 1400's.

Quasar said:

Go ahead and ban "insulting religion." Then you can't complain when Catholics attack birth control and abortion; or Protestants attack evolution, natural history, education, and rational thought; or Muslims promote their practices like genital mutilation and oppression of women.

Have fun in your new Dark Age, because making religion specially protected is literally moving Europe back to the 1400's.

Where is the like button

Captain Red said:

If only there was a good guy with a gun.

Ahmed Merabet, cop, had a gun, was outside, first victim. Frank Brinsolaro, cop, had a gun, protection officer for Charb, killed in action.

Simple-minded people think that all that's needed is to give guns to everybody and crime will disappear forever as bad guys are shot down immediately before they can do anything. But in reality, bad guys have the initiative and surprise the good guys.



Excellent article about Charlie Hebdo and its insults.
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/a-year-in-the-merde/

Gez said:

Simple-minded people think that all that's needed is to give guns to everybody and crime will disappear forever as bad guys are shot down immediately before they can do anything. But in reality, bad guys have the initiative and surprise the good guys.

So the correct must be to give every good guy guns, and to also give everybody military/police/elite bodyguard training and also keeping everybody revved up with extreme paranoia, checking on each other all the time.

Or just give every citizen basic military training at the age of eighteen. Many countries do it.

DMGUYDZ64 said:

It's called "Freedom of speech" not "Freedom of Insults"

As others have said, these are the same thing.. If you say something that happens to offend someone, that's more their problem than it is yours. Either way, it shouldn't be restricted just because someone thinks it's an insult - We come full circle to big brtoher/1984 with this kind of stuff.

dethtoll said:

No, let's not, because you don't get to denigrate an entire artistic style just because it offends your delicate nerd sensibilities or whatever.

Do you open the newspaper opinion page and go "UGH, THESE GEEKS CAN'T DRAW?" Though I'm assuming you even look at a newspaper at all, which is probably assuming too much in this day and age...

(I'm okay with the mods dragging this into another thread if it suits them)

Actually, I do get to 'denigrate an entire artistic style' (even though it was just one picture) if I want to, funnily enough, it ties right in with the freedom of speech aspect of this discussion.

Honestly though, you really got your panties in a knot over this didn't you? I guess it offended your deilcate nerd sensibilites - bit hypocritical eh?

I like simplistic art styles, but I thought this was just crudely drawn crap. It was clearly drawn with no other purpose than to offend muslims, which really doesn't bother me, but such a 2-minute sketched out turd with a tit-hat isn't even worth it is what I'm trying to say here. Forgive me for having an idea that might be different to an idea you had.

I do look at the paper from time to time - not as necessary to get your news these days what with this 'internet' thing, but we sell them at work and they're informative so why not. I never 'scoff' at the art as you implied, but it's usually not some sketched out rubbish created solely to offend, there's usually at least some style even in the most basic comic strips.

I'm very glad people are standing up for their right to do this kind of thing, as I've already said plenty of times, but my opinion is that it sucks and it's going to continue to be my opinion no matter how much it annoys you, so you may as well drop it like I said last time.

Technician said:

Or just give every citizen basic military training at the age of eighteen. Many countries do it.

Because it worked so well for Norway when Breivik attacked, right? Get real. Conscription is just wasted time and a massive loss for the economy.

Doomkid said:

Actually, I do get to 'denigrate an entire artistic style' (even though it was just one picture) if I want to, funnily enough, it ties right in with the freedom of speech aspect of this discussion.

The problem i have with a lot of cartoons is their crude badly drawn nature, just really ugly at times... There are thousands of people per country who can draw amazing things while they get kicked out of publishers their doors and rejected together with their life dream.

Outings like yours and mine are simply a normal part of the freedom of speech and in terms a part of human communication. There are just a lot of people who think their opinion is the only correct one no matter what, while 3 seconds after 'being insulted' they seem to forget everything about it when doing what they do in a days time.

People need to accept that or they are hypocrites for judging the middle east.

dew said:

Conscription is just wasted time and a massive loss for the economy.

This is positively true. The values of learning responsible firearm ownership and combat service for a country are probably outweighed by the jingoism it creates; the animosity among cultures can only increase when one is preparing for war and the other is not. As for the politicians, they see a boost in nationalism by when conscription policies are in place. Is it any wonder? When politicians can appeal to nationalistic sentiment, they have an easy deal cut out for them once their population is good and afraid. Afraid is good for a politician. It means people will follow you and be willing to look the other way while a country tramples over the rights of another group of human beings.

"They offended our Prophet Mohammad, that's what we didn't like," said Amadou Abdoul Ouahab, who took part in the demonstrations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/17/niger-charlie-hebdo_n_6492054.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000014

So let me see if I get this right: An Atheist satirical organization pokes fun at Mohammad, and as a result people in Niger retaliate by burning down/ looting churches and homes..... Heh, just heh.

I'll let Jim Norton sum my thoughts on this violent childish mentality:

dew said:

Because it worked so well for Norway when Breivik attacked, right? Get real. Conscription is just wasted time and a massive loss for the economy.

When someone is going to take down people, they are prepared as best as possible. You cannot anticipate these attacks, when someone works "normally" in society, and especially, in society that is stable. No one is never prepared enough for slaughtering innocents, except the madman.

TheCupboard said:

This is positively true. The values of learning responsible firearm ownership and combat service for a country are probably outweighed by the jingoism it creates; the animosity among cultures can only increase when one is preparing for war and the other is not. As for the politicians, they see a boost in nationalism by when conscription policies are in place. Is it any wonder? When politicians can appeal to nationalistic sentiment, they have an easy deal cut out for them once their population is good and afraid. Afraid is good for a politician. It means people will follow you and be willing to look the other way while a country tramples over the rights of another group of human beings.

And that depends on where you live.


And while I am it, more stuff about shooters...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/world/europe/paris-terrorism-brothers-said-cherif-kouachi-charlie-hebdo.html?_r=0

CorSair said:

When someone is going to take down people, they are prepared as best as possible. You cannot anticipate these attacks, when someone works "normally" in society, and especially, in society that is stable. No one is never prepared enough for slaughtering innocents, except the madman.

You're contradicting yourself. On one hand it prepares citizens as best as possible, on the other hand it cannot help in a terrorist attack. What worth is conscription then and why bring it up? Spell it out for me, don't hide behind cowardly, vague, hypocritical rightwinger slogans - conscription is meant for wars and buildups to wars. It's entirely useless and economically harmful in the peacetime.

The way that "simulation" was organized was a complete joke. The only thing it proves, is that you cannot expect a bunch of untrained and uncoordinated amateurs (even if armed and expecting an attack) vs a militarily trained, organized and determined assailant.

What next? Setting up a simulated raid by CT special forces/SWAT/SEAL in a "kill house" where the civilian volunteers play the part of barricated terrorists, with no special training, battle plans or tactics whatsoever? The only possible outcome is that they'll get their collective asses handed to them by the pros, QED in the "simulation".

dew said:

Conscription is just wasted time and a massive loss for the economy.

Sadly true. The way conscription is implemented (at least in the few remaining NATO countries that still maintain it) has little to to do with combat service in most cases, and is more like a uniformed civil service/corvée. In fact, conscripts are usually barred from participating in military operations outside of their national borders, and most of them receive nowhere near the training received by even a support corps soldier in a fully professional army's, e.g. the US Army.

To have a chance to tackle a surprise attack by a terrorist, whether you're armed or unarmed, you'd need nothing less than police/special forces/Israeli IDF/Counterterrorism training, or the very least a competition-level martial arts background. A "military training" that consists mostly of "spit'n polish" won't help you against a determined aggressor.

Consider this: do you feel like you could emerge victorious and with only minor injuries from a surprise attack by ONE or TWO, unarmed muggers in a dark alley at night, barehanded? If so then maybe you could react promptly enough against a "Charlie Hebdo" scenario, if you also were armed and/or could mount a surprise counterattack (aka you were NOT the first guy they shot).

Follow up link

Captain Red said:

Follow up link

Their final advice is the most important one for Technician's and CorSair's theory. Even more advanced "IDF-level" conscript training won't help you, because you'd need to retrain yourself all your life to not lose your awesome gun reflexes. You'd need to spend a large amount of your life just practicing and retraining gun handling (and hand to hand?) in stressful situations. Just realize what that means when everyone has to do it, because we're talking about conscripted service for every able body. Robert Heinlein's corpse just got a massive boner. Democracy through fascism, peace through paranoia.

dew said:

Just realize what that means when everyone has to do it, because we're talking about conscripted service for every able body. Robert Heinlein's corpse just got a massive boner. Democracy through fascism, peace through paranoia.

The greek work for "citizen" (πολίτης) was only slightly different than the one for "hoplite" (οπλίτης), and in fact a full-fledged citizen ("polites") was required to be a "hoplites", a soldier for HIS city, when the need came. You could say that Israel (due to practical need) and Switzerland (more due to tradition) are the closest there's today to this concent, while the USA's way is basically a bunch of rag-tag gunmen each defending his own ranch from his front porch. The rest of the world's regimes seems to find the idea abhorrent for some reason.

But yeah, today we can't expect everyone to be as competent, trained, and sworn-in as the elite members of forces like SWAT, SAS or the SEAL. For one, the selection process is very hard, training is expensive and highly technical, and the ones paying for your training (the State) will have other uses for you, than being the next Charles Bronson in your neighborhood.

dew said:

You're contradicting yourself. On one hand it prepares citizens as best as possible, on the other hand it cannot help in a terrorist attack. What worth is conscription then and why bring it up? Spell it out for me, don't hide behind cowardly, vague, hypocritical rightwinger slogans - conscription is meant for wars and buildups to wars. It's entirely useless and economically harmful in the peacetime.

Dew, did I say somewhere "conscription helps prevent mass killings" or "conscription helps to prepare for surprise attacks?"

No.

I stated that assailants are more prepared than you can ever be, whether you have military training or no. Like in Charlie Hebdo's case, they knew when to hit, and they arms to do this. Or is AK common weapon in French? And didn't they have armor, too?

Dew, we had this week dude murder two men. Police was ready to apprehend the perpetrator, with armors on, but he still managed to axe policeman. He was already snapped out of this reality and no reasoning could have changed him. He was ready to die.

No matter how much prepared you are, there are always situations you cannot prevent, even if you have training. THE END.

And dew, even if my country has conscription, it has zero fucking relation to this. You can try call me out on it and twist about it how much you want, bleed your heart all about it, but it is always national issue.

Personally? I wish we could get away with it, maybe replace it with voluntary system. But reality is a bitch. Being blue-eyed in today's politics is like calling a devil for a visit.

CorSair said:

And while I am it, more stuff about shooters...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/world/europe/paris-terrorism-brothers-said-cherif-kouachi-charlie-hebdo.html?_r=0

Amazing they can know so much NOW and yet at the various hundred or so opportunities that existed to stop and prevent this, nothing was done.

You'd almost be tempted to think a certain number of these attacks are going to be let through, for political reasons.

After all, at no point in this long sordid tale is there any use of cryptography going on, but yet we suddenly have the Five Eyes nations making wild claims that we need to outlaw useful cryptography, so that they can spy on us even more effectively. This started so soon after the attack that I doubt the bodies were even cold yet. Clearly the idea to use the next attack as justification for this has been planned out a long time in advance.

Technician said:

Because Syria and Gaza are not European. Maybe if the Middle East shared an ounce of unity you'd see the same. Of course, if they did we'd see a caliphate like no other.

I'm talking about non Europeans of them ..

Quasar said:

You'd almost be tempted to think a certain number of these attacks are going to be let through, for political reasons.

Of course they are. Allowing the enemy in our midst to strike a soft target or two is as good a way as any to remind why our privacy, rights and freedoms are being stripped away.

Gez said:
Problem when you start going the "it's your fault for your history" is that history isn't as unilateral as you might be thinking. Algeria was conquered to put an end to piracy and slave raids.

The slave trade in Algeria was ended in 1830 and the country was a colony until 1962. Fifty years after those one-hundred and twenty years, Europeans are currently bombing the Middle East. I expect people to react to what's happening today, not almost two centuries ago. France is responsible now because it is in NATO and the US, which dominates the military grouping, is in a long term campaign to dominate the Middle East by generating ethnic and cultural infighting and destroying nation states to secure the oil trade through a dominant market that can weigh down on crippled nations. The War on Terror is fueled by and feeds the violence between the Middle East and West to sustain these ulterior political and economic motives, so you mustn't form part of it if you don't like terror attacks.

dethtoll said:
I hate to wade into this but they're the same thing. It's just that most people don't realize that free speech goes both ways.

They might yet there are different rights that are clashing, since you can ruin peoples' reputation or business through the use of "freedom of speech". I'd say that the issue is that the concept of "freedom" often implied doesn't generally consider your neighbors' freedom, just your own, else it would be limited. My freedom starts where yours ends, at least when we aren't friends. The right to expression might not be equivalent to the idealist or fundamentalist concept of freedom of speech, which can, in any case, turn into "the freedom to spam you to oblivion if my servers are bigger than yours".

If you can cause character, economic, political and labor damage through freedom of speech, why not physical as well? And there a joke that is read as an insult leads to a bomb or shooting. At one point, that is, it gets much harder to effectively make jokes about your non-friendly neighbors. It doesn't mean you won't be able to express anything about a matter or issue, but humor is a pretty sensitive thing to be brandishing when tensions flare and people don't understand each other through empathy.

doom_is_great said:
You are ignoring the elephant in the room which is that these whack jobs believe in a radical ideology that tells its followers that anyone who disrespects their prophet should be put to death. How do you know that they wouldn't have followed that directive if Europe or the US were not involved in the Middle East?

Correct, I can ignore or see through opinion columns from the US GOP elephant. Unlike what fundamentalists (either neocons or Islamic radicals) think, ideas don't drive action, they only allow or channel it within certain social and political contexts. Remove this context (violence and economic colonialism against the Middle East) and the fear and reality of Islamic terrorism ceases to be a chronic issue. You can move to a country that isn't involved directly or indirectly in the "War on Terror" (centered on US and Western military intervention in the Middle East) and you'll see that terrorism is not a daily topic without that campaign.

Just a quick bit of roumour control and a retraction from fox to boot.

myk said:

You can move to a country that isn't involved directly or indirectly in the "War on Terror" (centered on US and Western military intervention in the Middle East) and you'll see that terrorism is not a daily topic without that campaign.

You know, that's something I keep wondering myself. First of all, most "Western" countries (and many would-be "Western-friendly" ones, mostly service Americanophile regimes) are involved in some way with the War On Terror, either directly by being part of one of the many "Coalitions of the Willing" (e.g. Poland in Iraq and Afghanistan) or by allowing direct US intervention in their territory (e.g. Pakistan).

Secondly, I don't know how literal-minded militant Islamists are in this respect, but if they are just as inclement as they are with depictions of Muhammad, then there are only very few countries in the world which don't "deserve" a strike, in their book.

In practice, of course, they'd rather focus on the big, obvious, high value targets, where they can also get a foothold. I doubt e.g. that they'd bother organizing a strike in Warsaw.

In Greece we like to think that for a variety of reasons (no direct Greek involvement in combat missions in Afghanistan/Iraq, a traditional friendship with the Arabic people, an instinctive rooting for the "underdog" etc.) that we'll be spared from a strike and that the "terrorists", even if they are among us, will prefer striking more high-value targets such as Americans, British, French etc. citizens and buildings.

Perhaps the fact that we have about 1 million of muslim immigrants (legal and illegal) on a population of 11 million without any of them going Al Qaeda on us, provides some confirmation in that direction. But then again you never know.

The war was dirty on both sides, and revenge from those involved is inevitable. You cant start a full blown war which never finished to then crawl back and claim its all coming from one side.

"c'mon let us shoot"
"hehe, he just drove over a dead body, hehe"
"look at all those dead bastards"
"it was their fault for bringing their kids into battle"

Gunship crews are like that. Even CoD4 called them on it. They're so far removed from the battlefield that people on the ground are basically video game sprites to them.

FireFish said:

"c'mon let us shoot"
"hehe, he just drove over a dead body, hehe"
"look at all those dead bastards"
"it was their fault for bringing their kids into battle"

That's just the modernized version of some good ol' plunder and pillage. Every field commander gives permission to his "boys" to "have some fun" once in a while.

In the middle ages, any rag-tag misfit joining a merc company or a vassal having to serve his feudal lord in battle was given "rights to plunder and pillage" any conquered hamlet/village/town/city after a victory, and "get back" at what was otherwise a quite shitty and miserable life, by dealing some misery and sorrow himself, and "come on top", at least temporarily. Even if that means burning down some peasant huts, raping some women etc.

I believe that deep down, anyone enlisting for a modern, internationally-intervening professional army, actually hopes that he will be given a similar "opportunity", the chance to kill "the bad guys", or simply shoot at people without being labelled a random-ass "spree shooter" and getting punished for it, as he would if he did in his home country. Even better, you get to do it from the relative safety of a gunship, with virtually no chance of retribution.

Disturbingly, there's an even "better" opportunity to do the same without even leaving your country: the Police can shoot their own fellow citizens and get away with it, which probably is an even more sought-after "prize" than shooting some "towelheads" and having to be deployed in the most God-forsaken of the World's cesspits in order to do it. Better yet, usually citizens are not armed with AK-47s and RPGs.

dethtoll said:

Gunship crews are like that. Even CoD4 called them on it. They're so far removed from the battlefield that people on the ground are basically video game sprites to them.

It takes an approximate of 3 seconds between the gunfire and the arrival of the bullets. And looking at how oblivious they where about the gunship, they where floating high and dry very far away.

Maes said: .

War is war, it does not change and it never will. only the weapons change.