RiriRiri:

You know, being the cold asshole that I am, when I try to rank all the direct and indirect beneficiaries of such an act, I get a fucking long list in which neither muslims nor Gods of all sorts seem to be present.

But that's the magic of it: religion doesn't need rational motive, which makes it so convenient. I shouldn't be thinking that much. I should be dumping emotional hash tags on Twitter instead.

Scandinavian:

yeah, you can read an old book and blindly put your life in the hands of others who read the same book. After all, God created stem cell researchers. 

laowaigentleman:

The day a new version of Father Ted is made featuring Imams.

royceH:

Not a bad idea but I'm afraid it won't articulate.  Only catholics are in a position to truly understand the brilliance that was Father Ted.  Even if they deny themselves this enlightenment, as so many of them chose to do.  Not me though.

LONG LIVE FATHER TED!  Alas, God called him home for some serious councilling....

DrMonkey:

Never heard about the recent Mali intervention ? The Central Africa intervention ? Patrols on the coast of Somalia ? The eyes were wide open before that.

philbravery:

You would not it if you lived in Australia

A TV host got abused by the touchy feely crowd o Twitter because he was not surprised it was Islamic exstreamists at  again

it was also mentioned that some people did not want it reported  any Islamic ties to the attack in Paris

see the today show on channel 9 yesterday with Ben Fordom  

and for some reason this site does not like my keyboard or spell check

DrMonkey:

I don't know if you use Facebook and if you have some French contacts there... but right now, the mood is more like "Come get some. We are not scared, just disgusted."

humbug:

@Dr Monkey agreed- the response has been overwhelmingly supportive and defiant. If anything, more people than ever will be publishing those cartoons and reading Charlie Hebdo

thelatinodancer:

are u real?

dongbeiren:

Amen

Nessquick:

in jail for a life ? you want feed them from your taxes ? no way. give me a nice knife, I will pay them back with their own way ...

DrMonkey:

Personally, I'm ok with paying taxes to keep the guys who did that in jail. In my own ideal : they did something, they completely failed to achieve the effect they wanted (to see French people united like that is quite an unusual sight, trust me), they end-up in jail, with no other life prospect than rotting in jail, with not even the satisfaction of dying a martyr of some sort. They did that in Norway with Breivik, and I think it's a wise thing to do. Don't put yourself down to the ways of those lunatics.

mattsm84:

Why not? You've already chosen to use this as a platform to sound off on some personal beliefs. At the risk of being into yet another long discussion on this by Martian, most conspiracy theorist aren't skeptics. They have a world view with its own set of biases that color their perceptions of the world around us. Like a lot of other people--the hyper religious, the the hyper partisan--they are advocates of a faith that they uncritically defend, only in their case it isn't about a god, or economic ideology, or social justice. It's about the omnipotence of a small set of ill defined elites. Like the rest these irrational beliefs a conspiracy theory provide its own kind of certainty. Why fear a cold a random universe if there is a kind and loving god, or a set of personal or economic principles that can guide you to a good end, or an idea that the evil in this world is governed by planning and malice? For each, the desired world view, be it one that relies upon the existence of a loving god in heaven or one that simplifies complex human events to agency and evil, overrides its implausibility.

Dr. Doom is fictional. And placing the blame on something similar is like blaming homosexuals for natural disasters.

DrMonkey:

Yes, it fits various agendas. But then, for any event of this scale, you can find a good fit to several agendas, given a large enough pool of agendas and sufficient lack of information. I'm highly sceptical about you having the relevant cold hard facts to back any theory at this point. Bottom line : people massacred for drawing caricatures. It shall not change France stance on freedom of expression. We will keep doing caricatures, satires about anything, and those doing that shall be protected by the French state.

RiriRiri:

Seriously? You are calling this on me because I refuse to unconditionally get sucked into the emotional spiral of fear and hate this kind of event is bound to breed? Please. Just, fucking please. This got old a decade ago already.

I won't make anyone believe I am not a byproduct of my own world view and personal bias. Everyone is. I am a human after all.

But then, I'm making simple fact checking and I defy everyone including you to say objectively that this kind of tragic farce has always ever been, in the end, to the benefit to one specific kind of people who are everything but mad Allah believers or any kind of retarded integrist of any sort. See above.

By the way, what's their plan, seriously? Bomb the hell of all a country's elite until there's no one left? Then the buildings?

Oh but wait no they're quote unquote crazy Ismalists, don't question them, they're not supposed to make sense anyway. Let us pass those national security bills instead and fear no more.

You know, there's a constant with the bias I see the world through, and it's that :

- it resists fact checking and still makes sense every fucking time as opposed to what I'm sold by emotional mainstream

- it stays consistent with everything I ever read and see

And you know, in the end, it doesn't even confine me to being a nutjob stuck behind a screen all night long believing in aliens. It just makes me a rational person who won't go frantic at the sight of my muslim neighbor and who'll keep supporting freedom versus police state. So, even if I'm wrong, I'm still right anyway.

RiriRiri:

@Monkey, agreed, wait and see who's agenda gets fulfilled.

mattsm84:

Yes. Seriously.

"given a large enough pool of agendas and sufficient lack of information... I'm highly sceptical about you having the relevant cold hard facts to back any theory at this point."

Haven't we? People bust into a the office of a publication that has printed a cartoon of Mohammed, screamed out "Allah Akbar" and started shooting people and you don't think there is enough here to have more than justified suspicions? 

But lets say that there is a lack of evidence here. Should we then start dropping innuendo about false flags and inside jobs in the service of a police state? Of course not, and doing so  betrays excessive paranoia on the part of the speaker.

"You are calling this on me because I refuse to unconditionally get sucked into the emotional spiral of fear and hate this kind of event is bound to breed? Please. Just, fucking please. This got old a decade ago already."

You seriously don't think that you're in an emotional spiral now? The bodies are barely cold and already dropping innuendos about some vague somebody's agenda. Doing so is neither reasoned nor dispassionate.

"I'm making simple fact checking"

No. You seriously aren't.

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/gunmen-storm-paris-satirical-newspaper-killing-at-least-11/2015/01/07/f358b17a-9660-11e4-aabd-d0b93ff613d5_story.html

Here's a quote from the article:

"France raised its security alarm to the highest level and mobilized teams on foot, by air and in vehicles seeking the three masked assailants, who carried out the assault shouting the Arabic call of “Allahu Akbar,” or “God is great,” amid the gunfire, according to video posted by France’s state-run broadcaster."

The most likely answer as to why the shooters were screaming "Allah Akbar" while murdering people who did something forbidden by a specific religion is that they are most likely adherents to that specific religion angry that their faith is being made light of.  And it isn't as if this is part of an established pattern of behavior.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18321160

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3974179.stm

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/07/terrorism.religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/sep/11/ianblack

"Let us pass those national security bills instead and fear no more."

I don't think anyone is advocating that at the moment. Once again, the bodies aren't even cold. Yet, you're more than willing to assume in the will adopt some draconian measure or another not because anybody has or will, but rather based on a free floating sense of distrust and paranoia that lead you to believe that that was perhaps the point of it from the beginning. To do that in the immediate aftermath is in incredibly poor taste.

"It just makes me a rational person who won't go frantic at the sight of my muslim neighbor and who'll keep supporting freedom versus police state. "

A rational person that has abandoned Occams Razor because of a person bias? No. You are not behaving rationally.

Nobody as of yet has introduced any such measures to the French Legislature. Perhaps nobody will. And for you to even hint that that might have been the actual cause for the attack is in incredibly poor taste.
 

DrMonkey:

@mattsm84

* Whatever someone shouts does not necessarily reveal his motives. You can be a nutcase claiming things (ie. the recent nutcase in Australia), you might want to steer opinions (ie. like that nutcase in Norway in 2011, Breivik).

* I'm not entirely sure if you are aware of the political climate in France. Pushing authoritarian measures in the name of security is debated a lot. The former president was elected partly through exploiting this. Fear of muslims is being heavily exploited as well, since decades.

RiriRiri:

Oh really, they were shouting "Allahu Akbar"? Compelling proof, sorry you were right all along, I mean, this is totally NOT what false flag would be supposed to mean.

...are we seriously having this conversation?...

Now you can read Monkey above, you obviously have no idea what is the situation in France. Some trivial things like the national media literally blasting about the muslim danger since September have led me (and others) to think and write (obviously not here, but in other places) that this was only a matter of time before a scripted attack happens. Bam, right again. Sigh... But you won't believe me obviously, so let's just wait and see, that's the best we can do until I'm proven right, once again, in my predictions by the reality of what will happen in the next couple of years (and trust me there is nothing I could wish more than being wrong).

mattsm84:

Yea, I kind of can't believe it either.

So we have something on camera that would seem to indicate that the most obvious cause is probably the right one, but you find that its very existence indicates the opposite. Once again, its not a reasoned position.

" I'm not entirely sure if you are aware of the political climate in France. Pushing authoritarian measures in the name of security is debated a lot. The former president was elected partly through exploiting this. Fear of muslims is being heavily exploited as well, since decades."

No, I'm aware of headscarf bans, xenophobia, Sarkozy and all that. That alone proof that it there are elements that would murder people to forward this agenda. Frankly it isn't even compelling.

"Now let's just wait and see, that's the best we can do until I'm proven right by the reality of what will happen in the next couple of years"

You are most assuredly wrong. You'll never admit it. You may not even realize it. But you are. Realistically they'll catch the people who did it and give them a trial, which you'll find suspect, or kill them during the arrest, which you'll take as proof of foul play. Then some months later some law might get passed and you'll point to it as proof that it was an inside job. But it wasn't and it only means that you're incapable of approaching this logically. There are no super-villains. Sometimes fucked up shit just happens.

mattsm84:

Hey, real quick. Does the existence of debates around gun control prove that school shootings are false flags to pursue a pro-gun control measures? If not, what is the difference between this and what you're saying?

RiriRiri:

I am absolutely not saying that what is seen on camera constitutes proof of the opposite. Did I say that? I didn't.

What I'm saying is that shit most likely always happen for a well defined reason, for a well defined purpose with a well defined roadmap.

As such, I try to figure out the biggest beneficent in a direct and indirect way and in that very case, I fail to find any credibility to the fanatic muslim storyline.

This until, of course, you can explain me what is the strategy of the crazy integrist and what they are trying to achieve. Please give me an insight into how religious nutcases would find any short/long term benefit in such a massacre. And yes, I say long term, because this attack was military grade. With military gear, pro training and apparently inside intel too. People putting on this kind of resources are thinking long term.

So, explain me what is the benefit. I'm longing for a satisfying answer. And I'm serious, maybe there's one. Welcome to enlighten me.

RiriRiri:

The difference is that what's needed for a school shooting is to pick up a gun and go shoot. Usually the perpetrator ends up dead in the hour.

What's needed for shooting a dozen of journalists in a non-weapon free country AND escaping is a plan, gear, training and inside intel.

Please talk me about stuff happening on the same scale.

rasklnik:

False-flag operations are useful when you re trying to start a war with another country. Since France has little interest in being at war (Algeria didn't go well) how would this be useful?

-Oh they want to pass police-state laws...not needed...Simply elect Front Nationale. Marie would love to crack down on the muslims...

-It's the DGSC...again...already in Mali. How is this useful? Why kill journalists.

-Look, I've met ENGLISH TEACHERS who threatened to kill somebody for mocking Islam. It really isn't that hard to find an under-employed, unmarried, Muslim dude and give him an AK-47. I'm just shocked it doesn't happen more often.

-Do I think all Muslims are terrorists...hell no...most...no...How many? Like 1%. Unfortunately, that 1% like killing people.  Now, I have no idea how to identify and 'remove' that 1%...but all this "Islam is peace isn't working..." Secondly as we see, most Muslims have serious issues with fanatics. Look at the Kurds, they are Muslims, but they are at war with IS. And the Lebanon Civil War was a 6 way war...muslims fighting some Muslims while allied with other Muslims against some Christians...

-Hollande is toast...This will NOT make him look good at all.

mattsm84:

"I am absolutely not saying that what is seen on camera constitutes proof of the opposite. Did I say that? I didn't."

If what's being seen on camera is them shouting Allahu Akbar and them shooting that is possible evidence of a false flag then yes you are.

"What I'm saying is that shit most likely always happen for a well defined reason, for a well defined purpose with a well defined roadmap."

Well defined reason: A publication published something the gunman found offensive. Like others before them, they committed themselves to an act of violence. That's pretty well defined. Similar crimes were committed against individual citizens in other countries in Western and Northern Europe. Why is it difficult for you to believe that this was of the same kind? The answer is fear and an existing bias. 

Well defined purpose: To discourage similar outlets from publishing similar cartoons. Again, a well defined goal. Similar murders of public figures in the resent past had similar goals. To cow the opposition.

Now, you might say that those plans won't work, but that's besides the point. Is it plausible that the people that committed this crime believed that they would. Certainly it is.

How do you not find that convincing? Its simple enough to be enacted and achieved as most functioning plans are. One of the things that is maddening about what you are suggesting (and about what others who suggest similar things suggest) is that you have a pretty straight forward set of causes for a simple plan with a set of achievable goals, and you bypass them for something as fantastical as shadowy cabals and smoke filled rooms.

Don't get me wrong, you should be looking at it this as logically as possible. Its just that you aren't. Whats the road map on your side of this argument. Ask yourself the questions that you need to be asking. What specific policy are they trying to get enacted? Simply something filled under the header of "draconian policy" is not well defined. Why would they need to murder people to accomplish that and what would make traditional means of rallying support for a cause inadequate? After all, these fears can be exploited easily enough to get Sarkozy and others elected. As an example Le Pen was beating Hollande in polls speculating on a nation run off as early as last fall. So why got to this extreme? Who are "they" to begin with? Once again, this is incredibly ill defined on your part. How many variables within the french legislative process could possibly result in an out come separate from what they want? How do they assure that the desired policy is passes into law? How can complete control over the legislative process be achieved or even assumed? And finally, do the answers to these sorts of questions make the scenario you seem to be advocating more or less likely? If you think about this in terms of its specifics it becomes too convoluted to be controlled.

But who needs that when you've got your gut feeling.

"Please talk me about stuff happening on the same scale."

These two things are on the same scale. As was the Boston bombing.

"What's needed for shooting a dozen of journalists in a non-weapon free country AND escaping is a plan, gear, training and inside intel."

You're over estimating the amount of effort that needed to go into this. All they really needed access to weapons and a plan of escape. Otherwise your just walking in and shooting everyone you see until you kill the people you came to kill. Government prohibitions are usually never enough to keep weapons, or drugs or pornography in the UK or Facebook in China out of the hands of people that really want to use them. 

RiriRiri:

- Good point. How about civil war? Yeah don't laugh, it's been a hot topic before Christmas.

- Not a huge fan of the National Front, but they're not the ones pushing the police state the most, at least not from what I've seen but yeah they aren't in office. Though granted this might be the biggest boost in their political history (hey I got my culprit, right matts?).

- Charlie was a lame journal. But it has been at the center of some scandals in the past, for having mocked Mahomet. It was a symbol, though a shitty one.

- I haven't been saying the perpetrators weren't muslims themselves. I'm sure they were radicals. I just have some doubts about whoever was behind them.

- Yeah.

- Meh, agreed he's probably waiting for his term to end, regretting every minute of it.

mattsm84:

So the NF put him up to it to make gains in the next election or failing that spark a civil war? You don't think that's much more of a reach?

RiriRiri:

With the help of aliens, Vs and nazi robots.

Yes, perfecty.

diverdude1:

"Ich bin ein Berliner"

Nessquick:

that to some extend, chinese and muslims react in similar fashion, just because you write or draw something, they do not like ... and the freedom of speech ...

ScotsAlan:

It is connected with China, because China has recently suffered from similar attacks. Except they used knives in China.

Of course, the reason given for the attacks were reported as being different. In China the blame was put on seperatists, in France it is idiots who want to deny people the freedom on speech.

But really, when it comes down to it these clowns are all the same. They want the entire world living under their oppressive version of their religion.

royceH:

I should correct you, Scotty.  The attacks in China have been attributed to terrorists, not separatists.  The reason for this is political expediency.  The attacks are indeed carried out by seperatists.

RiriRiri:

But that's because Chinese journalists always want to check the facts before they publish anything*. You know, there are so many people in China, it needs to take longer!

That's factually true, they do this at the Propaganda Bureau.

rasklnik:

But the issue is that has terrorism stopped? No? Yes?

Belsan was the worst Terrorist attack ever, in terms of cruelty. After that, Putin could have nuked Chechnya from the planet, and gotten domestic support...

-But it's 2015. You can't kill them all...and killing one seems to make two more radicals.

-Once, years ago, I saw an interview on a news show with an Iraqi politican (post 2001) where he said "My country needs more soccer fields. If men played more soccer they'd be too busy to become ." There is a massive level of boredom, insane youth unemployment, and poor education across the middle east, and in these ghettos in France and Germany.

DrMonkey:

Sure, a bunch of loosers go all Jihad warriors rather than facing what is wrong with their lives : we lacked of respect to them because of cartoons. We shall say and draw only purely consensual things, being overly emotional in all matters and not being able to take critics and (bad or not) humor. Because a few guys have a fragile ego, we shall bend over. The one who get upset the fastest win the argument, no need for rationality.

Thanks for the kind words, but they can keep their advises and ram that down their arses, with sand & gravel as lubricant.

DrMonkey:

The comment section have some pretty epic WTF comments ^^

DrMonkey:

One comment from a guy with the Chinese flag as avatar
不管怎样，从后果来看，西方这样的新闻自由不但无助于解决不同族群之间的矛盾，相反会激化。毕竟，不同的族群，其价值观和宗教信仰是不同的，如果用一个族 群的标准去衡量另一个，其冲突不可避免。更何况，难道新闻自由也包括冒犯他人信仰的自由吗？从这个角度讲，中国没有这样的新闻自由，实是各民族之幸。

"I'm not in a jail ! I'm outside, it's everybody else who is inside ! hahaha !"

jetfire9000:

Dr. Monkey - I'm surprised that there is somebody making a comment as stupid and noncoherent as that.

The example made was pointing out contradictions between different ethnic groups' concepts of social and ethical values...    pertaining to multicultural/ multi ethnic societies.  

He then applied that argument to China, purporting it can avoid cultural clashes.  LOL -Since China is not multicultural, what then, is censorship accomplishing?

RiriRiri:

"So, the lack of such freedom in China is in fact a blessing for all ethnic groups in the country,"

"The Global Times' Chinese edition blames "freedom of speech" for causing ethnic tensions in Western societies"

That's what I love with China, its oligarchy so goddamn dumb and ignorant they'll have no problem making the case for their perfect society of slave robots with no aspirations. In the open. And without laughing.

By the way, not because you aren't listening something doesn't exist.

rasklnik:

The difference between murder and terrorism is widely one of 'motive' not the criminal act. ie was the violence for a personal reasons or a political/ religious/ social one.

-Kill a cop to not go to jail-criminal

-kill a cop to bring about the big red revolution-terrorism.

ScotsAlan:

I agree raskinik.  In this case there was no cause.

If these people really think God is looking down on them smiling then they are deluded and just plain simply mad.

thelatinodancer:

This attack can not be justified and it is really terrible.

I also  believe that freedom of speech should have limits.

You can say that it is freedom of speech and you can draw racist cartoons or mock Jesus or Muhammad.

However you should take in to a account that some people are radical and crazy.

Some people thinks it is not fair to be treated like that and they do crazy things like that.

DrMonkey:

@thelatinodancer So the one who feels the most hurt win ? The one with the least self-control and the most fragile ego is right and other have to yield ?

You have (at least) two approaches, for the sake of conciseness, I keep down to two.
A) Saying things can hurt. Everybody stay as consensual as possible, to not hurt anybody. The one who claim to be offended the first or the loudest prevail.

B) Saying things can hurt, but people have to be able to take jokes, even if it's not your taste at all. Being offended is ok and saying it is ok, and you can even bring it to the justice. However, being offended does not give you the moral high ground, you gotta debate and justify your opinion rather than just showing that you are offended.

Now, look at the social consequences

A) You push anybody and submit anybody to your own will, just be offended often and a lot, and look scary. Anything not going according along your line, you take it as an offense. You effectively control the consensus, that nobody can really escape from.

B) People are debating about controversial subjects, with multiple point of views. Controlling a consensus is near impossible. People have to do some effort to defend a point of view, just being offended does not work.

RiriRiri:

That's another super hot topic Monkey.

'Cause as far as I remember, there are topics in France that have been legally placed out of the "rational debate" boundaries for no other reason than imposing a consensus, and get regularly out of control on every side for that very reason. While on the other hand, some other issues, such as the Islamic terrorism, have been constantly pushed on the frontline while their statistical occurrence rate on French soil has strictly been of 0,00 until a few days ago.

Maybe that'd be something to look into as well.

ScotsAlan:

On the subject of free speech, here is British man Anjem Choudary being interviewed on Fox News:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuhtsCeXTIE

Now I'm not a fan of Fox news, and to an extent, the news presenter was not allowing Mr Choudary to speak fully.  But, the fact is, Mr Choudary refuses to condemn the killings. As is his right, because he has freedom of speech.

I can't get my head around that.  He uses his right to freedom of speech, to defend the murder of people exercising their right to free speech.

RiriRiri:

Yeah well just like "democracy" or "death penalty", freedom of speech is a hardcore choice in a society where people need to know either choice can backfire in a very nasty way. No freedom comes without risks and common responsibilities.

rasklnik:

Man...you are kind of....ahem...being a....how shall we say....a parsnip?

DrMonkey:

Hu... So your list (where I read a lot of positive answers, ho the irony...), and 12 comic artists & journalists massacred, do you mind pointing out the chain of cause & effect ? Or I just yell I'm offended and say I will do terrible things to you ? Will I be right, because, hey, I am *offended*, you hurt my feelings ? That you had a bad experience in France, well, ok, I can understand. But that's hardly anything to do with the case here. About migrants in France : one of the policeman on duty at Charlie was Arab, one journalist as well. Enough said.

humbug:

I agree that France has a rather problematic history with immigrants but this has nothing to do with 12 unarmed people being massacred by gunmen, for expressing ideas. 

Extremists also murder, imprison and suppress devout muslims across the world. These people are murdered for the same reason the 12 at Charlie Hebdo were: they express ideas, or live in a that contradicts what the extremists believe in. No one is safe from this and you seem to be suggesting that  France brought it on itself because someone on Yahoo answers thinks Parisians are snobby. 

DrMonkey:

+10000 There are quite a few authors, either secular or religious arabs, who wrote *against* fundamentalist, explaining how those people got their popularity. But who is listening to them, give them a microphone ?

DrMonkey:

You briefly mention Paris killings, then do a massive copy-pasta over the French legacy in Algeria (I don't dispute any of what you copy-pasted). What is your point there, do you mind writing what *you* are thinking ?

thelatinodancer:

Point is when you do a genocide then when you kill Algerian protestors in Paris in 1961,  just do not assume that will be forgotten . Don't assume that you will say sorry and it is enough. 

When you kill 1.5 million in the middle of 20 the century, you should think that it may hunt you back.

DrMonkey:

So far, the suspects for the Charlie attack are not caught yet. There haven't been any revendication. One of the attackers shout "Allah is Great", and that's about it.

Links to the past... There's a clear one : Charlie have been bombed in the past, and for years got hate mail for making fun of fundamentalists. None of the attackers mentionned anything with the 1961 Paris Massacre and 1962 Charonne Massacre (both are not secret nor censored anymore, they have been officially acknowledged). How do you know it's clearly linked ? Or are you just guessing ?

A good half of the current French population is born past 1962, so all they see is 12 unarmed guys shot at point blank range, under the motive "they draw stuffs that made me angry". That half of the population, I don't think the deny any of the horrors of the Algerian war, and Paris 1961 and Charonne 1962 is not a secret nor censored : yup, we know about it. I don't think anybody assumed it is forgotten : it's now officially acknowledged, it's part of the history and it's remembered. I think you are severely off track : cartoonists being killed over drawings, not to avenge past killings.

Robk:

I agree with Dr. Monkey. 

Yes, many people have been killed in genocidal numbers all over the world and that particular event was in Paris. 

Were the killing justified?

Of course not. Killing people for not going back to their houses on time is insane.

So let us get revenge by killing random cartoonists?

Well, that does us all a lot of good.. fighting cowardice and stupidly with a dose more of it. If these men were trying to somehow get revenge for that events, why would they not attack police station of police officers directly involved in that incident or the leaders that ordered the violent suppression of the crowd?

That would at least make some sort of statement that people may agree with. But instead, they go after a bunch of helpless cartoonists that are making fun of them...

rasklnik:

-War is hell...of course killing people, innocent people in war is bad and terrible...but war is ugly, wrong, nasty, but war

-killing unarmed JOURNALISTS at WORK is not war. It is cruel. Is Algeria at war with France? No. It is terrorism, an attack on the civilian population by a crazed religious-political group.

-Apples and oranges.

rasklnik:

Objection 1

The Media HAS SHOWN that one of the dead cops was a Muslim...

Objection 2

Pakistan allowed Bin Laden to live in close proximity to a military base, and ISI is known to sponsor attacks in India.

Objection 3

The attackers were French Citizens, or at least residents. Free Speech is a basic legal right in the EU. I disagree with Salon, as above. I do not bomb them. Virtually all major terrorist attacks that have taken place in Europe have been either Islamic, Basque or Nationalist, or Communist (Red factions). Are the majority of terrorists muslims? Yes. Are the majority of Muslims terrorists? No. But Boko Haram in Nigeria has killed more people than any right-wing or Christian movement of the last several years. Islam has a terrorism problem , much like the Catholic church has a sex abuse problem and orthodoxy has a Russian-too-close-to-the-government-problem, and...

Objection 4

Everything is boiling down to...It was wrong to kill the journalists BUT...Hey this is identical to "I'm not racist BUT...." it isn't a good way to express yourself.

Objection 5

If these terrorists were really bad, and betraying Islam you wouldn't defend them, but you do. As long as ANY Muslim feels that they were in some way ok...they are supporting terror. In the same way, until people spoke out against the IRA and called them murderous thugs and not good catholics, they could always play the poor defender of the faith card.

rasklnik:

-Actually I do want to add, I understand your problem. The number 1 people to suffer in the long run are those 'moderates' in Syria, Pakistan, France and the US. Islamic Fundamentalism is simply primitivism and seperatism, and no different from the IRA, the ETA, or the Shinning Path. They promise a better life, and a solution, kill people, and cause hell. And when the people lash back, they kill them.

-I once had a student from Jordan who told me, the difference between a Muslim fanatic and a Christian fanatic is that a Christian fanatic grows long hair and lives in the forest, talking crazy to himself. A Muslim fanatic shows up at the mosque and says "I'm holy! be like me!" and young people, angry at life, believe him. Islamic fundamentalism is simply angst. Angst with guns.

thefidu881:

Well! I have many objections more or less of the same magnitude like who introduced OBL to the world as 'Mujahid' back in 1970s? But its not the way to resolve this issue. It wasn't OBL rather a mentality that was harboured by you and me together under the label of containing Russians... I am really not in favor of this debate but if you are validating the killing of 141 kids just because OBL was found in Pakistan then you really need to revise your faith in humanity. The Muslims using arguments with (but) are less than a fraction if compared to those who condemn the barbaric attac. That was my point that the muslim killing is in the headlines but the one defending isn't.

thefidu881:

That's absolutely true about muslim fundamentalists that they show up with guns to manipulate their agenda. The main reasons of this growing filth is lack of education and employment. Easy access to guns makes it more flowery.

rasklnik:

You know...I think the lack of division in Islam has been its curse. Except for the very clear Shia-Sunni divide, everybody gets to be a muslim. A good example of this in America is Westboro Bptist Church, which pretty much every Christian in America despises and rejects as "unchristian" "heretical" and "an insult to God".

-Islam just doesn't have the same power level. No matter how many Immans and Mufti's in Cairo and London say "Terrorism is bad" seems there is always a Al-Sadir or Sheikh Nasrallah to take disagree. Maybe having ONE POPE was a good idea...can't be more catholic than the pope.

DrMonkey:

Completely agree with you... The large majority of Muslims in France have zero sympathy for fundamentalists, they fought for years to get rid of salafists in poor suburban areas... with not much help or even public awareness. Medias at fault here. Some guy from Yemen, calling himself a leader of Al Quaida Yemen, said there would be more. Who jumped first to tell him to go eat his turban ? French muslims, telling his kind are a shame to everything they pretend to defend.

rasklnik:

At least some hostages were saved...

Lord_hanson:

I think it is better they die. If they live they can pass on their knowledge to others. In death they are silent.

ScotsAlan:

I disagree Lord Hanson.

If they die their followers will think they have gone out in a blaze of glory as heroes.

Keep them alive and "vanish" them into a prison and maybe in a few years they will change and persuade others that their's was the path not to follow.

Look at Abu Hamza. Jailed for life by an American court today.  He done everything he could to avoid extradition to the States to stand trial. He even took his case to the EU court of human rights.

I admit today, I feel rather ashamed that he was allowed to spew his filth on the streets of Britain for so long.  Finsbury park seems to be a common denominator in a lot of these acts.

Now he has a long time alone in a concrete cell to think about why he is there.

Stiggs:

but now that they're dead other nutters will probably see them as martyrs and maybe think of doing he same, dying for the cause. If they were rotting away in France's deepest darkest dungeon for the rest of their lives that might deter the next idiot that thinks about doing something like this.

ScotsAlan:

My point exactly stiggs. Lock them up. And get as much information from them as you can.

Lord_hanson:

extremists don't need Martyrs. They will find some grievence somewhere and if they can't they will make one up.

mattsm84:

But none of those things are required by the religion.

Lord_hanson:

Israel may have killed thousands but I don't think they can be blamed for Islam's actions. The thousands killed are mostly soldiers/terrorists. When they kill civillians it is usually by accident due to the fact that the palestinian government (a listed terrorist group) likes to fire rockets at civilians from schools and hospitals. Look at how restrained Isreal is, they could wipe out everyone in the gaza strip if they wanted. If it was the other way round there would be genocide. The Jews even let Muslims pray at Judaisms most sacred site. Muslims have banned non muslims from going to Mecca. These actions speak more than words.