Attack on magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

[Sanji Himura]

Yes, Cherif Kouachi was previously motivated by the torture of Muslims at Abu Ghraib.
http://antiwar.com/blog/2015/01/08/...e-over-american-torture-and-invasion-of-iraq/

Not likely. As even the page URL stated, Abu Graib was an American controlled prison in Iraq, and even at that, they turned it over to Iraq's government in 2006, well before the attacks.

There is another thing to consider. If the terrorists were motivated by the torture at the prison, shouldn't they actually be targeting an American interest, instead of a "soft" target that became an international story on free speech just because they printed a cartoon that had a character that looks like Mohammad two years ago?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If the terrorists were motivated by the torture at the prison, shouldn't they actually be targeting an American interest, instead of a "soft" target that became an international story on free speech just because they printed a cartoon that had a character that looks like Mohammad two years ago?

One of them was on an American no-fly list. Maybe they felt it was too difficult or too obvious to attack an American target. By going after the magazine, they hit a civilian target, one that they knew would get maximum coverag.

 

[Famine]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...t-printed-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-9970536.html

German newspaper attacked after publishing the same cartoon Charlie Hebdo got trouble.

You know, im completely opposed to ISIS. But adding fuel to fire amd this is what to expected.

#jesuischarlie

Of course it's expected - but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.

Terrorists use terror to get what they want. As soon as you change your behaviour because you're afraid of the consequences, you've given in to the terror they've wrought and they win. You've just taught them that they can kill people and blow stuff up to get their own way - so guess what they do the next time they want something?

Baiting them puts your life at risk. Giving in to them puts everyone's life at risk.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I think there is a difference between not doing something that you had originally planned to do as a response to an event, and not doing something that you had not originally planned to do as a response to an event.

In other words, while baiting them might put your life at risk, is it really giving in if you don't do something that you had never planned to do in the first place?

 

[Lizard]

I would like to see how many of you think what the terrorists did is immoral? I am betting almost all and without considering their side.

The thing is in their eyes we are the evil people. They follow a moral code and just because it is totally different to ours doesn't mean it isn't moral to them. They don't do this for fun they see us just as evil as we see them.

I am not supporting them as I don't really agree that they are right and we are evil, but it is worth seeing reasons for things.

 

[tarnheld]

Don't lose your sense of humor in face of tragedy, sign reads:

Being islamist, ending in a kosher supermarket.
Kill a newspaper and die in a print shop.
If God exists, he has humor!

 

[Famine]

I think there is a difference between not doing something that you had originally planned to do as a response to an event, and not doing something that you had not originally planned to do as a response to an event.

If CharlieHebdo hadn't been attacked, there'd have been no need to reprint their images in honour of them being attacked...

It's not like Hamburger Morgenpost independently decided to print cartoons of Mohamed just to piss off terrorists. They reprinted them in memoriam, knowing it'd risk pissing off terrorists. Many UK papers capitulated to the terrorists - the BBC even blurred out images of the cover of CharlieHebdo as held by Charb...

 

[Sanji Himura]

One of them was on an American no-fly list. Maybe they felt it was too difficult or too obvious to attack an American target. By going after the magazine, they hit a civilian target, one that they knew would get maximum coverag.

Maybe I wasn't being clear. Just because the terrorist were on French soil (and one of them being on the American no-fly list) doesn't mean an instant disqualification of going after an American target. They could have targeted the embassy(howbeit suicidal), or kidnap an American in Paris with little effort. That is assuming that they were offended by Abu Graib.

The fact that the terrorists timed the attack so perfectly that they got the most wanted woman in France out of the country and into ISIS controlled land before the attack seems to suggest that this was a well oiled machine that had money and resources to fool French Intelligence just long enough so that they couldn't connect the dots until it was too late.

 

[Luminis]

Many UK papers capitulated to the terrorists - the BBC even blurred out images of the cover of CharlieHebdo as held by Charb...

And personally, I'm quite glad German newspapers aren't following that lead. Sure, it might just cause trouble and that's not something I'm happy with... But the zero tolerance stance towards terrorism is more important, in my opinion. There's a reason governments are entirely unwilling to negotiate with terrorists, even if they've taken hostages and such. Doing so makes them vulnerable, I feel.

I don't want to imagine what's going to happen if some extremist terrorists learn they can actually get what they want by resorting to violence. The backlash to an action of defiance might be severe, but it's only going to be temporary. Positively reinforcing violent behaviour is bound to make matters worse in the long run.

The thing is in their eyes we are the evil people. They follow a moral code and just because it is totally different to ours doesn't mean it isn't moral to them. They don't do this for fun they see us just as evil as we see them.

Evil or not, killing those who don't follow your own moral code is BS. And I don't give a rat's behind about any reasoning they might or might not have. Someone who's into a moral code that conflicts with human rights can bloody well bugger off, if you're asking me.

 

[Spurgy 777]

I would like to see how many of you think what the terrorists did is immoral? I am betting almost all and without considering their side.

The thing is in their eyes we are the evil people. They follow a moral code and just because it is totally different to ours doesn't mean it isn't moral to them. They don't do this for fun they see us just as evil as we see them.

I am not supporting them as I don't really agree that they are right and we are evil, but it is worth seeing reasons for things.

So what you're saying is that before we decide whether terrorism and murdering innocent people is immoral, we should consider their side? Granted, knowing the reasons for people actions is useful, but it's completely irrelevant when deciding the morality of their actions.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The fact that the terrorists timed the attack so perfectly that they got the most wanted woman in France out of the country and into ISIS controlled land before the attack seems to suggest that this was a well oiled machine that had money and resources to fool French Intelligence just long enough so that they couldn't connect the dots until it was too late.

Like I said before, there has been a paradigm shift among the terrorists.

Once upon a time, they went for complex attacks. Even a crude explosive requires materials and knowledge to assemble, and any coordinated attack requires a network. This creates a trail that intelligence agencies can pick up on. On the other hand, the Charlie Hebdo attack was simple - two guys with guns. It leaves a much smaller footprint, and as such, it is much harder to detect. There's no doubt a network in place, but in theory, they could have just gotten the name of a local sympathiser months ago and never had any contact with them until after the attack. I also think you're crediting them with too much intelligence; Boumeddiene wasn't declared the most-wanted person in France until her association with the attackers came to light. Getting her out when they did would have been much easier than if they had waited.

 

[tarnheld]

There's a reason governments are entirely unwilling to negotiate with terrorists, even if they've taken hostages and such.

Unfortunately so far the american government is the only one that shows zero tolerance with regard to hostages and ransom payments, a big part of the income of the terrorists. You all know the grim consequences.

This is a true dilemma, having to weigh peoples lifes against others.

EDIT: The UK government has a zero tolerance policy too. Big part are private companies that pay for captive employees. Full article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/w...citizens-europe-becomes-al-qaedas-patron.html

 

[FoRiZon]

Of course it's expected - but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.

Terrorists use terror to get what they want. As soon as you change your behaviour because you're afraid of the consequences, you've given in to the terror they've wrought and they win. You've just taught them that they can kill people and blow stuff up to get their own way - so guess what they do the next time they want something?

Baiting them puts your life at risk. Giving in to them puts everyone's life at risk.

Males sense. Perhaps some messages have to be broadcasted even of its sounds silly in process.

 

[Luminis]

Unfortunately so far the american government is the only one that shows zero tolerance with regard to hostages and ransom payments, a big part of the income of the terrorists. You all know the grim consequences.

Well, I might have to word my post differently... I firmly believe governments shouldn't give in to terrorists. It is unfortunate that some do, as you said.

This is a true dilemma, having to weigh peoples lifes against others.

It is horrible indeed...

 

[Sanji Himura]

Like I said before, there has been a paradigm shift among the terrorists.

Once upon a time, they went for complex attacks. Even a crude explosive requires materials and knowledge to assemble, and any coordinated attack requires a network. This creates a trail that intelligence agencies can pick up on. On the other hand, the Charlie Hebdo attack was simple - two guys with guns. It leaves a much smaller footprint, and as such, it is much harder to detect. There's no doubt a network in place, but in theory, they could have just gotten the name of a local sympathiser months ago and never had any contact with them until after the attack. I also think you're crediting them with too much intelligence; Boumeddiene wasn't declared the most-wanted person in France until her association with the attackers came to light. Getting her out when they did would have been much easier than if they had waited.

Still, an attack with that kind of footprint(how else could they have gotten the heavy weapons that was used in the attack) should have sent some red flag up somewhere among the intelligence community, either through the French or MI5 and the CIA relaying the information to the French. Phone records did show 500 phone calls were made between the terrorist families, again that is something that should have been picked up by the French.

 

[Dotini]

What is the root cause of crimes such as the massacre at Charlie Hebdo?

Elsewhere I have identified extensive Saudi state sponsored fundamentalist Wahabbism. https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/islam-whats-your-view-on-it.263208/page-64#post-10372706

But what is it that makes large numbers of Muslims susceptible to such reactionary preachings they might easily ignore?

Here's a very good article, punchy and readable, which sums it up this way:
1) Western policy toward the Middle East
2) One-sided Western support given to Israel in its war against Palestinians
3) Rampant discrimination against European Muslims, high unemployment and hopelessness

http://original.antiwar.com/sahimi/...provides-fertile-ground-for-islamic-radicals/

 

[jimipitbull]

I would like to see how many of you think what the terrorists did is immoral? I am betting almost all and without considering their side.

The thing is in their eyes we are the evil people. They follow a moral code and just because it is totally different to ours doesn't mean it isn't moral to them. They don't do this for fun they see us just as evil as we see them.

I am not supporting them as I don't really agree that they are right and we are evil, but it is worth seeing reasons for things.

Perhaps we could cheer them up with some jokes.



What do you call a good looking terrorist?

Asif

 

[Brett]

or kidnap an American in Paris with little effort.

Only if the American was not related to Liam Neeson.

 

[VolkswagenX]

 

[Milouse]

This last cartoon (already posted earlier in the thread) is really bad, it's not better than a rebus and could be replaced by a short assertion. Additionally, it's a false affirmation in its first half. In France at least.

 

[Touring Mars]

Agreed, the last one is bollocks. There's a satirical magazine in France, for example, that regularly lampoons the Jewish faith.... Also, there's a difference between poking fun at or being critical of Judaism and anti-Semitism, just as there is a difference between poking fun at or being critical of radical Islam and Islamophobia. Poking fun at or being critical of religion is morally defensible, whilst bigotry and racism are not. No doubt alot of Jews are offended by Charlie Hebdo, just as The Vatican likely don't have a subscription either, but 'The West' (which in itself is a tad patronising) does indeed accept that all religions and institutions can be the subject of satire, criticism, mockery and even downright bad taste.

 

[Touring Mars]

If CharlieHebdo hadn't been attacked, there'd have been no need to reprint their images in honour of them being attacked...

It's not like Hamburger Morgenpost independently decided to print cartoons of Mohamed just to piss off terrorists. They reprinted them in memoriam, knowing it'd risk pissing off terrorists. Many UK papers capitulated to the terrorists - the BBC even blurred out images of the cover of CharlieHebdo as held by Charb...

However, the BBC today clarified its policy that it is not necessary to refrain from depicting the prophet Mohammed, as evinced by tonight's Panorama where the cover of the 'guest-editted' edition of Charlie Hebdo was shown full screen and uncensored.

The BBC and other broadcasters tread the fine line that is at the centre of this particular debate - adhering to the principle of free speech while avoiding causing unnecessary offense. BBC News 24 and the 6 O'Clock News quite probably have a different editorial policy to that of Newsnight or Panorama... they clearly do, since one will show potentially offensive pictures while the others don't, hence it's not entirely accurate to suggest that the BBC capitulate to terrorists.

 

[Roger the Horse]

Thinking about it, it would make sense for a general news programme to stand on the side of not causing offence while a perhaps more specific or in depth (not to mention late night) current affairs programme may be prepared to step over that line in the name of accurate reporting.

 

[Milouse]

"We killed Charlie Hebdo!", the fool said...

The next issue of Charlie Hebdo will be translated in 16 languages and 3 millions copies will be printed.

Edit: And guess who is on the cover?

Edit2: CNN described the cover without showing it...

Edit3: The four 24/7 french news TV channel (LCI, Itélé, BFM TV, France 24) do show the cover.

 

[Touring Mars]

This is well worth a watch:

If you mock me, and there's a grain of truth in it, I'll may feel quite threatened, I may feel quite offended - but maybe it is something I need to hear"

If you can't deal with someone of a different religion cracking jokes about your religion, so much so that you resort to mass murder, then maybe there's something wrong with the way you are practising your religion.

 

[GBO Possum]

 

[Johnnypenso]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...nown-terrorists-struck-in-london-1101024.html

The Israelis knew the Palestinian satirical cartoonist Nagy el-Ali el-Adami was to be assassinated in London in 1987 by his countrymen. The British were not told because Israel did not want to expose its double agents in the PLO's London-based cells.

http://electronicintifada.net/content/naji-al-ali-timeless-conscience-palestine/5166

A friend of Naji al-Ali was quoted saying that he had been warned his life was in danger in a telephone call from a senior member of the PLO in Tunis. The telephone call, two weeks before the murder, came after the publication of a cartoon attacking a female friend of PLO leader Yasser Arafat. “The cartoon was famous in the Arab community,” the friend said. The caller said: “You must correct your attitude.”

“Don’t say anything against the honest people, otherwise we will have business to sort you out,” the caller continued. Naji al-Ali ignored the warning and published a cartoon lampooning Arafat and his henchmen on 24 June.

Even Al Jazeera says the case is unsolved:
http://www.aljazeera.com/focus/2009/09/200995162530794470.html

On August 29, 1987, Naji al-Ali, one of the Arab World's most renowned political cartoonists, was shot dead in London by unknown assailants. The murder case has never been solved.

 

[Sanji Himura]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...nown-terrorists-struck-in-london-1101024.html

The Israelis knew the Palestinian satirical cartoonist Nagy el-Ali el-Adami was to be assassinated in London in 1987 by his countrymen. The British were not told because Israel did not want to expose its double agents in the PLO's London-based cells.

http://electronicintifada.net/content/naji-al-ali-timeless-conscience-palestine/5166

A friend of Naji al-Ali was quoted saying that he had been warned his life was in danger in a telephone call from a senior member of the PLO in Tunis. The telephone call, two weeks before the murder, came after the publication of a cartoon attacking a female friend of PLO leader Yasser Arafat. “The cartoon was famous in the Arab community,” the friend said. The caller said: “You must correct your attitude.”

“Don’t say anything against the honest people, otherwise we will have business to sort you out,” the caller continued. Naji al-Ali ignored the warning and published a cartoon lampooning Arafat and his henchmen on 24 June.

Even Al Jazeera says the case is unsolved:
http://www.aljazeera.com/focus/2009/09/200995162530794470.html

On August 29, 1987, Naji al-Ali, one of the Arab World's most renowned political cartoonists, was shot dead in London by unknown assailants. The murder case has never been solved.

In otherwords, Naji al-Ali could have been assassinated by his own people just because of a cartoon that he wrote making fun of Arafat, and blame Israel in the process. No sense of humor at all.

 

[Mr. S]

"We killed Charlie Hebdo!", the fool said...

The next issue of Charlie Hebdo will be translated in 16 languages and 3 millions copies will be printed.

Edit: And guess who is on the cover?

Edit2: CNN described the cover without showing it...

Edit3: The four 24/7 french news TV channel (LCI, Itélé, BFM TV, France 24) do show the cover.

Funny, I went to work this morning and stopped by the news stand (this is in Versailles, so it's not a small city) and asked the guy to reserve some Charlie Hebdo copies for me.

He pulled out a very long list and said that he'll try but if not he'll get more copies on Thursday. Fools...they can't kill freedom of speech.

 

[Milouse]

Funny, I went to work this morning and stopped by the news stand (this is in Versailles, so it's not a small city) and asked the guy to reserve some Charlie Hebdo copies for me. He pulled out a very long list [...].

Versailles... I've bought a lot of Charlie Hebdo issues there in the 90's
Not a small city, but known to be a bastion of christian conservatism