Charlie Hebdo Attack

[McTallshort]

What a sad day. I'm afraid the winners from this massacre are radical and anti-EU parties in France (and Europe in general). The losers will be the muslim world (who will all be branded as terrorists) and the citizens of Europe (who will only lose in the end from the rise of the extremist parties).

But what were the French police and secret service doing? How is it possible that a very obvious target for terrorism to be attacked in daylight, in the heart of Paris, by guys in body armor with assault rifles? How could they run away from the scene? Especially since this comes after several armed attacks in France during the Christmas period.

Thats a good question, the UK and US seem to nailing these things at source but France seem to have totally lost control of its national security. They really should be doing better. As Gerry Adams once said "we only have to get lucky once...."

 

[TRF_Olyy]

From what I understand there were police stationed outside the building, for their protection, but both were shot (one killed, one in intensive care?).

Obviously there are questions to be asked as to who the gunmen were, were they known to the French intelligence services etc. but the Charlie Hebdo building did have protection.

I think the difference between France and the UK is that France is so much easier to get into undetected.
I mean these guys could've lived/planned/trained anywhere on the continent and then just driven into France and carried out their attack.

 

[LittleGuy]

What these people want is for people like yourself to start raising barriers between themselves and Islam. They want to make it Us and Them. They want to make it a big fight, they want people to blame Muslims in an unselective manner, they want European Muslims to feel different and other because people have it in for them. They want a confrontation.

Do not let them get what they want. Do not let them win.

Talking about a confrontation is very unhelpful. You seem to suggest some form of Western Intervention - the reality is Western Intervention is a huge part of what has led us to this pass. There is very little we can usefully do.

The most helpful thing the West can do in terms of curing the current problem of hardline Islamic fundamentalism fuelling abuses of human rights and terrorism is to curtail the current flood of Islamophobia. It's to step away from casting things as a conflict of West vs East. It is to ensure that liberal Muslims feel as respected and non-conflicted as possible, so they can deal with this problem. It's to accept that things will take time. It's to accept that they will have to find their own solutions.

And that is only possible if people stop bellowing at politicians to do something about these bloody Muslims.

It's not about confrontation. It's about reconciliation.

What a load of tripe.

 

[j'nuh]

Disappointing so much media in the UK lacks the guts to show the cartoons and back free speech. Anyway, I believe this is what pîssed them off so much. '100 lashes if you don't die of laughter'.

The actions taken by these extremists don't legitimise this material. It is still offensive.

(BTW, discussions about whether Islam embraces the freedom of speech is exactly the reason that this atrocity was committed. The more that this discussion is had, the more the extremists "win". And I don't mean "win" in an intangible symbolic victory kind of way. They actually achieve tangible goals.)

 

[LittleGuy]

The actions taken by these extremists don't legitimise this material. It is still offensive.

(BTW, discussions about whether Islam embraces the freedom of speech is exactly the reason that this atrocity was committed. The more that this discussion is had, the more the extremists "win".)

Damn I should have waited five minutes before calling a post a load of tripe, sorry Peat, I acted too hastily.

 

[McTallshort]

The actions taken by these extremists don't legitimise this material. It is still offensive.

(BTW, discussions about whether Islam embraces the freedom of speech is exactly the reason that this atrocity was committed. The more that this discussion is had, the more the extremists "win".)

Amen to that! Was listening to the radio earlier and some muppet was banging on about the right to offend and how we shoudnt give it up. We have been paronid about offending people for about 10 years now.

 

[psychic duck]

The actions taken by these extremists don't legitimise this material. It is still offensive.

(BTW, discussions about whether Islam embraces the freedom of speech is exactly the reason that this atrocity was committed. The more that this discussion is had, the more the extremists "win". And I don't mean "win" in an intangible symbolic victory kind of way. They actually achieve tangible goals.)

Only if you choose to take offence I'm afraid. Cretins like that are exactly the kind who satire should continue to be mocked. Religion shouldn't be above criticism or humour, and indeed most of it is utterly deluded garbage anyway.

If hypothetically someone or a small group of people believed in some nutcase idea they would obviously be ridiculed for being deluded. Bigger groups shouldn't get special treatment just because they are precious, whining and attempt to bully with threats and terrorism. Hopefully the media stands up to it.

Hopefully the Islamic community will rally round and protest the vile acts under their banner the same way they did for that random YouTube movie featuring the prophet from a couple years back.

 

[j'nuh]

Damn I should have waited five minutes before calling a post a load of tripe, sorry Peat, I acted too hastily.

Explain?

Anyone who believes that this attack is emotionally motivated is being extremely naive about extremist Islam. Extremism in Islam is highly coordinated and their attacks have long-term goals. This attack wasn't done because they felt insulted, it was done because it destabilises the Western view of Islam, causing persecution towards moderate Muslims and the shift of these Muslims towards extremism.

You can see it throughout this thread alone, people talking about "the Islam problem". I can guarantee you that the vast majority of Muslims find the material objectionable (and bloody rightly so) but don't condone killing for it. But that doesn't matter: what matters is that the extremists make Westerners question Islam's compatibility with Western ideals. It creates a "them and us" attitude on all sides, destabilising the peace process.

They repeat the same pattern in Muslim-majority countries. Rather than direct warfare or revolutionary-style warfare, Islamic extremism adopts long-term-based guerilla warfare tactics (e.g. the Manchester Manual talks about assassinations, blowing up bridges and economic centres; the Manchester Manual is a must read for anyone even slightly interested in the political situation of Islam). They recognise that instant grabs for power do not work. Instead, they destabilise governments over a very long time through fear, in order to create a power vacuum that they then fill.

A question people need to ask themselves: why are there no Muslim countries that are occupied by extremists (dictators are not extremists in this sense; in fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find an extremist Muslim that actually accepts the rule of guys like Mubarak, Assad etc., the Manchester Manual explicitly denounces them)? Simple answer: there are not enough followers of extremism in Islam! They wouldn't need to adopt such tactics if there were.

Only if you choose to take offence I'm afraid. Cretins like that are exactly the kind who satire should continue to be mocked. Religion shouldn't be above criticism or humour, and indeed most of it is utterly deluded garbage anyway.

If hypothetically someone or a small group of people believed in some nutcase idea they would obviously be ridiculed for being deluded. Bigger groups shouldn't get special treatment just because they are precious, whining and attempt to bully with threats and terrorism. Hopefully the media stands up to it.

Hopefully the Islamic community will rally round and protest the vile acts under their banner the same way they did for that random YouTube movie featuring the prophet from a couple years back.

Drawing depictions of Muhammad invariably ends in hatred-ridden groups using it to legitimise Islamophobia and hatred of Islam, see: http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/05/draw-muhammad-day-predictably-descends-into-hate-fest/

re: Islam condemnation of the attack, yep:
https://www.journalism.co.uk/press-...eace-in-iraq-and-the-middle-east/s66/a562270/
http://news.yahoo.com/arab-league-top-muslim-body-condemn-paris-attack-150207581.html
http://www.ibtimes.com/moderate-muslims-use-jesuischarlie-condemn-charlie-hebdo-attack-paris-1775986
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/189630#.VK3ejyusV8E

 

[goodNumber10]

Nearly every mosque that has been raided by police, every School investigated for teaching extremist veiws and every publishing works that has been caught printing anti western material in in the UK has almost without exception been funded by Saudi Arabia.

So called home grown terroists (most who are currently being used as cannon fodder by ISIS in syria) are funded from abroad mainly Saudi Arabia and then are trained abroad in places like Pakistan and Libya. They are not home grown but home recruited and grown abroad.

that's a slightly different point to the one i was trying to get at mate, I was talking about the radicalisation process of Foreign Fighters etc....

I don't really have the scope to contribute that much on this topic so i'm gonna bow out and let the more eloquent among us do the chatting.

 

[ENZED-88]

Explain?

Anyone who believes that this attack is emotionally motivated is being extremely naive about extremist Islam. Extremism in Islam is highly coordinated and their attacks have long-term goals. This attack wasn't done because they felt insulted, it was done because it destabilises the Western view of Islam, causing persecution towards moderate Muslims and the shift of these Muslims towards extremism.

You can see it throughout this thread alone, people talking about "the Islam problem". I can guarantee you that the vast majority of Muslims find the material objectionable (and bloody rightly so) but don't condone killing for it. But that doesn't matter: what matters is that the extremists make Westerners question Islam's compatibility with Western ideals. It creates a "them and us" attitude on all sides, destabilising the peace process.

They repeat the same pattern in Muslim-majority countries. Rather than direct warfare or revolutionary-style warfare, Islamic extremism adopts long-term-based guerilla warfare tactics (e.g. the Manchester Manual talks about assassinations, blowing up bridges and economic centres; the Manchester Manual is a must read for anyone even slightly interested in the political situation of Islam). They recognise that instant grabs for power do not work. Instead, they destabilise governments over a very long time through fear, in order to create a power vacuum that they then fill.

A question people need to ask themselves: why are there no Muslim countries that are occupied by extremists (dictators are not extremists in this sense; in fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find an extremist Muslim that actually accepts the rule of guys like Mubarak, Assad etc., the Manchester Manual explicitly denounces them)? Simple answer: there are not enough followers of extremism in Islam! They wouldn't need to adopt such tactics if there werke.


[/url]

You seem to have a bit of knowledge on this topic j'nuh but I think these attacks are emotionally driven by those carrying out the attacks, maybe the planning and these tactics you speak of came from the top but the actuall ones who carry out the attacks would be fueled by anger. The whole foundation of their life is their religion from their daily prayers to Ramadan,Islam is pretty much their being you can see how their emotions an anger makes them do ****ed up ****.

 

[goodNumber10]

Anyone who believes that this attack is emotionally motivated is being extremely naive about extremist Islam. Extremism in Islam is highly coordinated and their attacks have long-term goals. This attack wasn't done because they felt insulted, it was done because it destabilises the Western view of Islam, causing persecution towards moderate Muslims and the shift of these Muslims towards extremism.

Is it not fairer to say that Extremism is organised and co-ordinated at the top of the hierarchy, but relies on the emotional instability of individuals to perform these acts?

They repeat the same pattern in Muslim-majority countries. Rather than direct warfare or revolutionary-style warfare, Islamic extremism adopts long-term-based guerilla warfare tactics (e.g. the Manchester Manual talks about assassinations, blowing up bridges and economic centres; the Manchester Manual is a must read for anyone even slightly interested in the political situation of Islam). They recognise that instant grabs for power do not work. Instead, they destabilise governments over a very long time through fear, in order to create a power vacuum that they then fill.

You've read the Manchester Manual? :huh: I thought like The Turner Diaries it was illegal to obtain in the UK?

Having said that the theories within the MM are very much theories no? As far as i was aware there was no hard evidence that the methods within, such as economic instability and disinformation, have been successful outside of terrorist incidents?

 

[j'nuh]

You've read the Manchester Manual? :huh: I thought like The Turner Diaries it was illegal to obtain in the UK?

Oh, really? I was linked to it on reddit and thought it would be innocuous. That's worrying.

 

[Peat]

As part of my job, I see pretty much everything printed in the British Media that contains the word Paris. It was a pretty grim night. Seeing the facts repeated again and again does touch a nerve. No matter how touching the vigils, or sentiments like this -

“I am Muslim and I defend until the end what this poster says - hate cannot win. These killers tried to kill not only people but also the idea of peace and debate. I won’t let them do that and everyone in France won’t let them do that. They had no right to use the name of Allah. Mohamed would be turning in his grave. Tonight we are all Charlie. †(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ought-murder-and-mayhem-to-paris-9963791.html)

Nothing is restoring those people to their loved ones.



I've tried to formulate a coherent post on the rest of it, the how best to defuse the Islamic Extremist bomb. And failed, so I'm just going to do it in bullet points

- While Saudi Arabia has been the wellspring of fundamentalism Islam and much of the terrorism behind it, the cat is out of the bag and you can't stuff it back in. IS, for example, have a turnover of 2-3 billion dollars, a lot of territory, and a big army. They will be providing the example and succour to Islamic Extremists for a while yet (ditto Hamas, Hezbollah etc.etc) regardless of what Saudi Arabia do; indeed, the Saudis (and Qatar) have already cut off (official) aid to them, but its too late.

- That said, if countries like Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Qatar, Pakistan and so on decided to come down really hard on those sponsoring terrorism... it might help. Or it might create more conflict and martyrs. But yes, fewer training camps abroad, great thing.

- The whole point of better integrated Muslim communities is that they don't have these guys as role models. That, whatever poison is being spewed, there are few receptive ears to it in your backyard.

- Ideally, you stop both at source. Both would be incredibly hard to do. Integrating the Muslim communities at home is easier. You can have integrated Muslim communities (although it's a hell of a struggle when they basically all form solid ethnic groupings and are at the crap end of society); the Muslim governments turning the blind eye to (or encouraging) terrorism, well, how do you persuade them to change their minds? Other than the prospect of their own creations chomping them into pieces.

 

[goodNumber10]

Oh, really? I was linked to it on reddit and thought it would be innocuous. That's worrying.

I wouldn't' worry too much about it, i think a pdf was put out there by the FBI, or someone similar, in an open link. I know there were some people in the UK arrested for downloading it a couple of years ago, but i think it got thrown out so i may be just jumping to conclusion on it's legality - in fact i'm not sure the Turner Diaries is even illegal still.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

It's certainly not illegal anymore so don't worry about it - though it may still be in Canada.

The irony is that, the words on everyones lips are 'freedom of speech'. Certain Northern American countries meanwhile have a history of banning books for myriad reasons such as obscenity as with Naked Lunch; perversity as with Lolita.

 

[tituslechmakus]

As part of my job, I see pretty much everything printed in the British Media that contains the word Paris. It was a pretty grim night. Seeing the facts repeated again and again does touch a nerve. No matter how touching the vigils, or sentiments like this -

"I am Muslim and I defend until the end what this poster says - hate cannot win. These killers tried to kill not only people but also the idea of peace and debate. I won't let them do that and everyone in France won't let them do that. They had no right to use the name of Allah. Mohamed would be turning in his grave. Tonight we are all Charlie. " (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ought-murder-and-mayhem-to-paris-9963791.html)

Nothing is restoring those people to their loved ones.



I've tried to formulate a coherent post on the rest of it, the how best to defuse the Islamic Extremist bomb. And failed, so I'm just going to do it in bullet points

- While Saudi Arabia has been the wellspring of fundamentalism Islam and much of the terrorism behind it, the cat is out of the bag and you can't stuff it back in. IS, for example, have a turnover of 2-3 billion dollars, a lot of territory, and a big army. They will be providing the example and succour to Islamic Extremists for a while yet (ditto Hamas, Hezbollah etc.etc) regardless of what Saudi Arabia do; indeed, the Saudis (and Qatar) have already cut off (official) aid to them, but its too late.

- That said, if countries like Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Qatar, Pakistan and so on decided to come down really hard on those sponsoring terrorism... it might help. Or it might create more conflict and martyrs. But yes, fewer training camps abroad, great thing.

- The whole point of better integrated Muslim communities is that they don't have these guys as role models. That, whatever poison is being spewed, there are few receptive ears to it in your backyard.

- Ideally, you stop both at source. Both would be incredibly hard to do. Integrating the Muslim communities at home is easier. You can have integrated Muslim communities (although it's a hell of a struggle when they basically all form solid ethnic groupings and are at the crap end of society); the Muslim governments turning the blind eye to (or encouraging) terrorism, well, how do you persuade them to change their minds? Other than the prospect of their own creations chomping them into pieces.

No, sorry you cannot unfortunatly and this is leading to the raise of extrem right ideas down here.

I had a lot of friends at school 20 years ago, from different origins, like italians (a lot), spanish or portuguese, and from north africa (morocco, algeria and tunisia). But only the muslim ones did not want to get integrated to the french society. It is a big shame by the way as when you are a kid, you are more tolerent than being adult ... To prove it, I would say : see at every soccer world cup what happens. If France is playing their own parent's country of origin, most of the european immigrants will support their new country. North african won't ! See all the mess during last WC when algeria qualifyed to 1/8th ... Their own team won and they went in the streets of France riotting !!! How can you tolerate this in your country ?
In 2001, we played Algeria in a friendly match. The crowd was essentially algerian/french and they went to boo the french anthem : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0RrhBrMXbw is it normal ?

And again, you could say that we did not do anything to integrate them ... But I will again reply, why did the italians, spanish and portuguese succeed to integrate french society, having the same conditions when the all arrived here ?

 

[goodNumber10]

And again, you could say that we did not do anything to integrate them ... But I will again reply, why did the italians, spanish and portuguese succeed to integrate french society, having the same conditions when the all arrived here ?

Yes, but you can't really seriously compare Italian, Spanish Portugese immigration because they didn't come to France as an essentially opressed society. North Africa and the Maghreb was a serious area of conflict for France over the last 200 years(?), the French-Algerian war and Suez etc... were huge conflicts that are well remembered by an elder generation of immigrants.

Expecting these anti-national emotions to disperse over one generation? well it's just not going to happen.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I think one of the first things we need to realise is you have a right to free speech and you have a right to be offended, you DON'T have a right to prevent someone exercising their right to free expression just because you find it offensive.

Frankly I'm shocked when material is published and you get sympathisers who say "well it shouldn't have been published because it was offensive" completely ignoring the violent reaction and putting all the blame on us westeners. We should not abide by this self-censorship any more than extremists trying to silence it. We in the west are lucky enough to have free speech and we should protect it, not give it up at the first sign of people getting offended. Otherwise it's simply blasphemy laws in another guise.

 

[tituslechmakus]

Yes, but you can't really seriously compare Italian, Spanish Portugese immigration because they didn't come to France as an essentially opressed society. North Africa and the Maghreb was a serious area of conflict for France over the last 200 years(?), the French-Algerian war and Suez etc... were huge conflicts that arel well remembered by an elder generation.

Expecting these anti-national emotions to disperse over one generation? well it's just not going to happen.

I don't exactly get what you ment ...? Do you mean the Magherb population who emigrated here was anti-french ? It is a bit of non-sense ! How can you emmigrate to a country you hate ? Those who came here, did it in their will, they were not forced ... So it means they did not hate us ... And by the way, it is not these people causing troubles down here. It is the second and third generation. The first generation was respectful and worked hard ... On the contrary to those now ...

 

[goodNumber10]

I don't exactly get what you ment ...? Do you mean the Magherb population who emigrated here was anti-french ? It is a bit of non-sense ! How can you emmigrate to a country you hate ? Those who came here, did it in their will, they were not forced ... So it means they did not hate us ... And by the way, it is not these people causing troubles down here. It is the second and third generation. The first generation was respectful and worked hard ... On the contrary to those now ...

What?