Thread: Paris shooting: at least 12 people killed at offices of French newspaper

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by Necron99

The gunmen where Algerians raised by the generosity of the State of France.

The gunmen were born in France and French citizens. I assume you mean they were of Algerian descent?

Correct.

I imagine the folk attending several wedding parties in Waziristan thought something similar, Tax.

... and just exactly what were al qaeda doing hiding like cowards amongst women and children, knowing full well that they were on a hit list and could be targeted at any time.

wouldnt be to draw fire ensuring martyrdom for all, including the women and children present, at the hands of the filthy infidel and playing right into the hands of the lily livered liberals looking for any excuse to further demonise the west and justify acts of terrorism as some kind of deserved response would it?

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

Originally Posted by Looper

There is more to this issue than body-count. There is also the base affront to human nature in deliberately slaughtering innocent school children in front of each other and filming the beheadings of captured opponents so their family and friends can watch and use of 10 year old children as human bombs.

Yeah, as long as we don't admit to it, and just blame the communists then it's 'okay'...




Nobody is saying that the murders in Paris are justified or ok. But, the folks amongst us who care to think realize that things happen for a reason, and part of that reason may be a reaction to the things we are doing; if we stop killing people then maybe there will be less killings in Paris, London and New York too...

Indeed. With action comes reaction.
Though, this reasoning is extremely difficult to instill into Western minds, as they have felt a "civilising mission" on the already dehumanised savages for a better part of two centuries - nothing has changed much from the apex of the European imperial age, yet just changed form in it's rhetoric and politics. Manipulation and intervention, of a clandestine nature, probably are a greater percentage today than of yesteryear.

As long as this very deluded fest of European civilised superiority exists and shown through proxy interventions, the West will forever have complications with their invented underlings, as they [truthfully] are the principle instigators of all the troubles that exist. Historically, Western folk have found a demented manner in which to justify their colonial expansions - quite accepted and understood by the Western populations that fall prey to the dogma of "we are a more civilised people attempting to civilise the world in our mold".

These are present day colonial wars in a form. Naturally, with wars of this nature will give to rise resistance and retribution.

Simple. Leave them alone and they will response in kind.

Leaked Al Jazeera emails reveal disdain for Paris murder victims

While citizens around the free world embraced the mantra “Je suis Charlie” to show solidarity with the murdered employees of a French satirical magazine, a top editor at a Muslim-owned news organization had a different message for his colleagues: “We are Al Jazeera.”

A leaked email from Al Jazeera English Editor and Executive Producer Salah-Aldeen Khadr used the twist on a viral phrase used around the world to show support for victims of Wednesday’s Islamist terror attack on Charlie Hebdow in Paris. The magazine was targeted for its penchant for publishing forbidden caricatures of Prophet Muhammed, which it did in addition to poking fun at other religions.

“Was this really an attack on “free speech?” Khadr asked his subordinates in the email blast. “Who is attacking free speech here exactly?

“Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile,” wrote Khadr, who urged Al Jazeera staffers to consider that “I am Charlie” is an “alienating slogan – with us or against us type of statement – one can be anti-CH’s racism and ALSO against murdering people.”

The email, first obtained by National Review Online, appears to have touched off a vigorous debate among editorial employees of the Qatar-owned outlet, which has often been accused of showing sympathy to Muslim extremists.

“Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile,”

Al Jazeera English channel reporter Omar Al Saleh responded with an obligatory condemnation of the killings of 12 people, including four well-known cartoonists, in the attack, but made his real point in all capital letters, for extra emphasis.

“I AM NOT CHARLIE,” Saleh wrote. “JOURNALISM IS NOT A CRIME. INSULTISM IS NOT JOURNALISM AND NOT DOING JOURNALISM PROPERLY IS CRIME.”

But Al Jazeera’s U.S. correspondent Tom Ackerman disagreed, in another portion of the leaked email chain.

“If a large enough group of someone is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization,” Ackerman wrote. “When offenses are policed by murder, that’s when we need more of them, not less, because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed.
Leaked Al Jazeera emails reveal disdain for Paris murder victims | Fox News

Originally Posted by ENT

“Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile,” wrote Khadr, who urged Al Jazeera staffers to consider that “I am Charlie” is an “alienating slogan – with us or against us type of statement – one can be anti-CH’s racism and ALSO against murdering people.”

What a spanner. Trying to wriggle out of Islamic extremist culpability with his contorted logic. Utterly laughable.

In the west the press has the right to publish satirisation of religious belief. Anyone who doesn't like it can respond using counter-satirisation or straight written criticism. They cannot respond with Kalashnikovs.

Originally Posted by Looper

In the west the press has the right to publish satirisation of religious belief. Anyone who doesn't like it can respond using counter-satirisation or straight written criticism.

Fantasy and delusions.

You're a perfect product and reflection of your broader culture, Loop.
And as long as you keep repeating and convincing yourself [et al] of these fallacies, they will always be true.

I'm sorry for that.

Originally Posted by thaimeme

Fantasy and delusions.

Can you elaborate meme?

Which part of the quoted statement do you not agree with and why not?

Originally Posted by ENT

“Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile,”

Originally Posted by ENT

“I AM NOT CHARLIE,” Saleh wrote. “JOURNALISM IS NOT A CRIME. INSULTISM IS NOT JOURNALISM AND NOT DOING JOURNALISM PROPERLY IS CRIME.”

Apart from the bit I've underlined, I basically agree with those sentiments.

I suppose, particularly on web forums, we have the 'freedom of speech' to be obnoxious and insulting against pretty much anything- the Islamic world and their religion, Gays, Judaism, western society & Christianity, Asians, Jews, Africans, Afromerkins whatever. But is that Journalism, or is it just doggerel, verging on Hate speech (if anyone with brains took it seriously)?

Perhaps we should at least acknowledge that what comes around goes around. I do not believe in fighting the pen with the sword, and thus find the recent Parisian atrocity entirely repulsive. But what if our religious types where to face a similar onslaught from Islamist's, demeaning their religions & prophets? I'm not religious- I would just scoff. But would they?

^ You re being distracted.
The publication was not a newspaper, it is not intended to be jounalism.
It was a satirical magazine.

Should National Lampoon or Mad magazine get shot up when they take a crack at Billy Graham, Westboro, or the Catholics?

Originally Posted by sabang

we have the 'freedom of speech' to be obnoxious and insulting .......................... But is that Journalism, or is it just doggerel?

Doggerel, definitely doggerel.

Hyper-colonic mindfarts - never even approaching anything worthier!

Originally Posted by Necron99

^ You re being distracted.
The publication was not a newspaper, it is not intended to be jounalism.
It was a satirical magazine.

Should National Lampoon or Mad magazine get shot up when they take a crack at Billy Graham, Westboro, or the Catholics?

Yet, there might be a difference of intended critique between true satire and blatant racist hate.

Much akin to comparing a Monty Python sketch with a Stormfront diatribe.

Originally Posted by sabang

But is that Journalism, or is it just doggerel, verging on Hate speech (if anyone with brains took it seriously)?

The quality of the humour is not relevant.

A stand has to be taken and an example made of Islamic extremists who profess that satirisation created by the western media will be met with violence and murder.

This is our turf and they will submit to our rules of engagement while they are our guests.

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by sabang

But is that Journalism, or is it just doggerel, verging on Hate speech (if anyone with brains took it seriously)?

The quality of the humour is not relevant.

A stand has to be taken and an example made of Islamic extremists who profess that satirisation created by the western media will be met with violence and murder.

This is our turf and they will submit to our rules of engagement while they are our guests.

In this instance, they [the extremists] weren't guests.
Franco-born and raised.


Another scenario of imperial colonialism coming back to bite them in the arse.

Originally Posted by Looper

western media

Why are you holding "western media" in such high esteem? All of these rags, satirical or "serious" are all owned by millionaires or billionaires who dictate the content. They have as much standing in the world as a bloke in the street writing his opinion on a piece of paper and sticking it in box of fruit in sainsburys (which the police investigated). What makes charlie hubbabubba any more sacred than a group of skin heads pumping out a hate rag in a garage?

"oh, they are allowed to do and say anything they like because they have money for a nice office and write stuff against muslims which is the target for insult for the western media right now". Is this your general feeling?

Originally Posted by Looper

This is our turf and they will submit to our rules of engagement while they are our guests.

How do you treat guests at your home - with civilty and politeness I should hope.

Still as the only person on this forum who professes to admire Tim Sharky Ward - I suppose guests shouldn't expect too much from your dinner parties.

Originally Posted by Koojo

You would of course approve such an action.

Again - where have I approved of murder and death? Where? You are judging me you on your gutter hate filled standards. Mind you, you might be onto something thought. Did the israelis kill them in Paris?

If the shooting was to punish the Charlie Hebdo mob for republishing the insulting Danish cartoons, the office was already firebombed in 2011 for that reason.

It doesn't make sense though that the jihadist islamist nutters wanted more revenge but not against the the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten and the newspaper’s Jewish editor Flemming Rose who commissioned and published the cartoons in the first place in 2006.

Seems very weird indeed.

The raid and murders seemed very well planned, certainly not the work of morons, but people with some smarts. Yet, by killing these people, all they have achieved is more hatred against islam, more attacks on them by all and sundry, more support for their zionist enemies (as the election looms there), more acceptance for the very unpopular sweeping new powers the French police have gained a few days ago giving them unsurpassed surveillance powers, and likely a reaction against the French very unfrench like support for the creation of a Palestine state just before crimbo which considerably angered israel who said france had made "a very grave mistake".

So the only people who did not benefit anything were muslims, and the only people who did were, well, hmmm, it was a very well carried out assassination after all, and the video of the copper being assassinated shows they were well drilled - shot from a distance, and then bullet in the head in true special forces style.

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

How do you treat guests at your home - with civilty and politeness I should hope.

Yes, and I expect the same from them as a pre-condition.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Why are you holding "western media" in such high esteem?

I am not holding western media in high esteem. I am holding western values, specifically including the right to satirise religion, in high esteem.

Originally Posted by thaimeme

In this instance, they [the extremists] weren't guests. Franco-born and raised.

Not relevant. The rules are the rules for guests and citizens alike. Try again meme.

Nothing extraordinary about Western values.

Try again, Loop...

Originally Posted by Koojo

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Simple fact remains that this cartoonist was just a racist pumping out racist propaganda in a racist rag.

.

Wrong.

Religion is not race and religious lampoonery is not racism.

Originally Posted by thaimeme

Nothing extraordinary about Western values.

Nor Eastern ones.

Originally Posted by ENT

religious lampoonery

You call it that when its against islam. what do you call it when its against judaism?

religious lampoonery is not a crime, your answer to the question above is. Go figure.

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by thaimeme

Nothing extraordinary about Western values.

Nor Eastern ones.

Indoctrinated perspectives will vary, of course.....