Attack on magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

[Encyclopedia]

Live stream of the raid:

http://www.bfmtv.com/mediaplayer/live-video/

Which seems a bit dumb because they show exactly where the raid team is positioned.

Might be a "red herring"?

Seems like the footage is just a loop now.

 

[Dennisch]

I wouldn't say the text on the left is exactly what it is. It's not evil in the name of Islam, it's evil in the name of enforcing one's own viewpoints onto others and denying them the agency to express their own.

It's evil in their view of the Islam. Allah only exists in the Islam. This is why it's called Radical Islam.

Edit.

Footage indeed seems to be on a loop.
Still the fact remains that the general public walks on.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Allah simply means god. Christian Arabs use allah as well.

 

[Dennisch]

Allah simply means god. Christian Arabs use allah as well.

Yeah, I meant the Islamic one.

Seems like the raid team have left the building, no shots, no arrests.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Well that's a disappointment.

 

[Dennisch]

Well that's a disappointment.

Police in Reims did issue a warning to all the journalists gathered there to be very cautious in case there might be a attempt to break out.

The major of Rotterdam, Ahmed Aboutaleb, yep, a Muslim, has said that all of those who can't agree with our way of living should get the **** out of here. Wonder if that sparks some unwanted interest in his person.

 

[Encyclopedia]

"BREAKING: 2nd major anti-terror operation underway in Charleville Mézières"

https://twitter.com/RuptlyNewsroom

 

[Sanji Himura]

Actually, the text on the left is exactly what the situation is.

But I agree on the image. I saw it and couldn't even find the words for it.

I wouldn't say the text on the left is exactly what it is. It's not evil in the name of Islam, it's evil in the name of enforcing one's own viewpoints onto others and denying them the agency to express their own.

I was referring to the fact that the attack in general wasn't called a terrorist attack on the cover. Any attempt to sugar coat this as something else, as it was tried by the White House is just plain insulting.

 

[Dennisch]

I was referring to the fact that the attack in general wasn't called a terrorist attack on the cover. Any attempt to sugar coat this as something else, as it was tried by the White House is just plain insulting.

What did The White house say? Every European knows it is a terrorist attack, can't imagine it's any different in the US?

 

[Sanji Himura]

What did The White house say? Every European knows it is a terrorist attack, can't imagine it's any different in the US?

Secretary Kerry called the attack "an act of violence". During the White House daily press briefing, the Press Secretary continued the narrative by saying, "if there was a terrorist attack." Obama? Mute.

 

[Brett]

Sad day for our friends in France. Hopefully, the perpetrators are swiftly brought to justice.

 

[Famine]

Typical. Don't call it for what it actually is, but show the picture of the two gunmen and the police officer before they kill the officer for the shock value. I am actually surprised that you Brits put up with this stuff all the time out of your press.

Granted, this is the Sun.

Actually, the text on the left is exactly what the situation is.

But I agree on the image. I saw it and couldn't even find the words for it.

Would you like some plot twist to go with the image?

The policeman on the floor is Ahmed Merabet, a 42 year old Muslim.

 

[Dennisch]

Would you like some plot twist to go with the image?

The policeman on the floor is Ahmed Merabet, a 42 year old Muslim.

That's a plot twist. M. Night Shyamalan, is that you?

 

[Dennisch]

Hamyd Mourad, the youngest of the three suspects has surrendered to police, sources tell AFP.

The BMFTV ticker now reports it too.

He surrendered at 23.00 to the police in Charleville-Mezieres.

Reports are now also popping up that the youngest of the 3 suspects wasn't present at the attack, but at school.

 

[terminator363]

Live stream of the raid:

http://www.bfmtv.com/mediaplayer/live-video/

Which seems a bit dumb because they show exactly where the raid team is positioned.

Heavily armed cops everywhere, and the general public is free to walk and drive along.

The footage they are showing now isn't live but did no one learn anything from the Munich massacre? The captors knew what to expect because the media was broadcasting live coverage of their raid on TV and they happened to have a TV in the hotel room..

 

[Mr. S]

Normally I don't but today I bought newspapers on the way to work, going to frame these two. L'Equipe is a sports newspaper usually.

L'Equipe: "Liberty 0 - 12 Barbarism" (the small text box explains why they decided not to put any sports on the front page today)
Le Parisien: "They will not kill freedom. - Yesterday night dozens of thousands of French people have come together, after the attack on Charlie Hebdo, which left at least 12 dead while the police is tracking the attackers down in Reims."

 

[mister dog]

Bit worried the Dalton brothers will make it across the border. The attacker of the Jewish museum in Brussels was caught by a stroke of luck because he was on a bus and they happened to do a check for drugs smugglers, the Kalashnikov and Isis banner being a dead giveaway. But with so much traffic passing the borders of European countries without control I fear they might actually make it across.

 

[doblocruiser]

New shots fired in Paris this morning. Police is currently not completely sure if it is connected to yesterday's masacre. Another one with an automatic weapon but he seemed to be alone. Fled by taking the metro.

http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-dive...ee-par-balles-ce-matin-08-01-2015-4428367.php

update: 2 suspects. One fled with car, the other one with the metro. One arrest (unclear). It's a policewoman who got shot in the back with an automatic weapon.

What a mess....

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I have a question: at what point does the freedom of speech or the freedom of expression stop being that freedom and start being, for want of a better word, trolling?

Now, there are a few members out there who I suspect will read the above question and accuse me of victim blaming and giving into terrorists. I am doing no such thing, and in the aftermath of this atrocity, I feel that it is a question that demands a response.

Allow me to give you an example: in indigenous cultures, depictions or representations of the deceased are considered distressing to the point of being taboo. As such, if a television programme contains images or voices of the dead - like, for example, a documentary on indigenous soldiers at Gallipoli - then they are at least prefaced with a warning as to its contents. It's showing respect to those cultures, even if we do not fully understand the reasons behind it.

Now, in the same way, representations of the Prophet Mohammed are considered to be blasphemous. It's a concept that may seem alien to us, but the angry response from the Muslim community is well documented. For every one Muslim who publicly vents that anger, how many are keeping their outrage private?

The reason I ask these questions is because our politicians keep framing the massacre as an attack on our values and our way of life. But isn't one of our values being inclusive, or multiculturalism? And if that is the case, then why are we calling an act that is considered taboo by one culture the freedom of expression, but we respect the practices of another culture? I find that to be hypocritical.

Representing or poking fun at a religious figure might seem relatively benign, but surely we have a responsibility to recognise that it is offensive to others. If there is a debate to be had, then by all means, have it - just about every Muslim I know is very open about their faith - but how can we call ourselves multicultural and then show a lack of respect to another culture by doing something they consider taboo and then call it freedom of speech? To turn that around, how would it be received if someone posted a cartoon of Angela Merkel being sodomised by Adolf Hitler? It would be extremely offensive, and I very much doubt that the German public would respond with "oh, well, freedom of speech!" and let it go.

 

[Omnis]

It is an attack on our values because we don't wrathfully kill those with whom we disagree or find distasteful. Instead, it is our duty, out of love and hope, to embrace them as fellow human beings, and to bring them into the fold through discussion and exchange.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Instead, it is our duty, out of love and hope, to embrace them as fellow human beings, and to bring them into the fold through discussion and exchange.

So, where does doing something that we know that the moderate community will consider blasphemy come into it? And how can we expect them to put aside their anger because we call it freedom of speech? Because reading your answer, I see a need to accept their culture just as much as they need to accept ours - and a part of that is respecting their practices even if we don't understand them. Because otherwise, it's going to spiral into forced assimilation.

 

[Omnis]

I think Hebdo was wrong to poke the beast, yeah. But two wrongs don't make a right, you know.

I wrote before in either the islam or religion thread about the fundamental problem with fundamentalism (islamic or otherwise) is that there is a hyperstress on the divine will. There will never be understanding as long as muslims place theological voluntarism over reason or logos or the divine word.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I think Hebdo was wrong to poke the beast, yeah. But two wrongs don't make a right, you know.

If I thought two wrongs made a right, I would say "I think two wrongs make a right". I didn't say that, so I am a little confused as to why you think that I did.

 

[Omnis]

I don't think that. What the heck? I just said that for the sake of our conversation, since, obviously, these thugs don't understand the concept.

 

[Denur]

I have a question: at what point does the freedom of speech or the freedom of expression stop being that freedom and start being, for want of a better word, trolling?

It shouldn't matter if one is insulting on purpose. That should never have to be enough reason to kill "the troller". Take it to court or start a public debate.

 

[crue426]

Free speech is a great thing; particularly if you live in an homogeneous society, you can get away with a lot.

But once you've thrown open your gates to millions of grieving refugees from your wars and interventions in lands of deeply differing belief systems, it's only rational and prudent to curtail some of your most provocative excesses.

Ahoy Dotini, thanks for the input. Let me flip it around : When you are a refugee and/or immigrant in a new country it's only rational and prudent (and civilized) to curtail the urge to premeditate and carry out murder (assassination) in cold blood as a result of your religious sensibilities being offended. I'm not trying to discount what you said, it is relevent .. to a point.

I wouldn't say the text on the left is exactly what it is. It's not evil in the name of Islam, it's evil in the name of enforcing one's own viewpoints onto others and denying them the agency to express their own.

Ahoy Roger**, thanks for the input. I think you are being PC, and I believe the 'viewpoints' being 'enforced' are shared by many Muslims. Islamic blasphemy law in full effect. I think it's evil in the name of Islam. I don't think all followers of the religion are ready to go so far, yet.

Would you like some plot twist to go with the image?

The policeman on the floor is Ahmed Merabet, a 42 year old Muslim.

Ahoy Famine : WAIT, WHAT ?!?! What a strange twist.

I have a question: at what point does the freedom of speech or the freedom of expression stop being that freedom and start being, for want of a better word, trolling?

Now, there are a few members out there who I suspect will read the above question and accuse me of victim blaming and giving into terrorists. I am doing no such thing, and in the aftermath of this atrocity, I feel that it is a question that demands a response.

Allow me to give you an example: in indigenous cultures, depictions or representations of the deceased are considered distressing to the point of being taboo. As such, if a television programme contains images or voices of the dead - like, for example, a documentary on indigenous soldiers at Gallipoli - then they are at least prefaced with a warning as to its contents. It's showing respect to those cultures, even if we do not fully understand the reasons behind it.

Now, in the same way, representations of the Prophet Mohammed are considered to be blasphemous. It's a concept that may seem alien to us, but the angry response from the Muslim community is well documented. For every one Muslim who publicly vents that anger, how many are keeping their outrage private?

The reason I ask these questions is because our politicians keep framing the massacre as an attack on our values and our way of life. But isn't one of our values being inclusive, or multiculturalism? And if that is the case, then why are we calling an act that is considered taboo by one culture the freedom of expression, but we respect the practices of another culture? I find that to be hypocritical.

Representing or poking fun at a religious figure might seem relatively benign, but surely we have a responsibility to recognise that it is offensive to others. If there is a debate to be had, then by all means, have it - just about every Muslim I know is very open about their faith - but how can we call ourselves multicultural and then show a lack of respect to another culture by doing something they consider taboo and then call it freedom of speech? To turn that around, how would it be received if someone posted a cartoon of Angela Merkel being sodomised by Adolf Hitler? It would be extremely offensive, and I very much doubt that the German public would respond with "oh, well, freedom of speech!" and let it go.

Ahoy prisonermonkeys : Great post. I feel it's more important to protect freedom of speech than to be mindful of the sensitivities of Islam. Killing for religious ideals is medieval. If you don't like the views or opinions of a newspaper, don't read it. Ignore it. If freedom of speech goes, religion isn't far behind, or other freedoms.

I'm agnostic. I believe 'God' is way beyond human understanding. I don't care if some French cartoonist takes the piss about my personal belief system. Even if I did, I'm certain I would not kill over it. I hate that this happened and I don't like to think about where it's going. Just because someone doesn't like something or agree with it : 'THATS RACIST !'

I hope the French police give them an 'extended wooden shampoo' when they get them.

 

[kennylmao]

I have a question: at what point does the freedom of speech or the freedom of expression stop being that freedom and start being, for want of a better word, trolling?

Now, there are a few members out there who I suspect will read the above question and accuse me of victim blaming and giving into terrorists. I am doing no such thing, and in the aftermath of this atrocity, I feel that it is a question that demands a response.

Allow me to give you an example: in indigenous cultures, depictions or representations of the deceased are considered distressing to the point of being taboo. As such, if a television programme contains images or voices of the dead - like, for example, a documentary on indigenous soldiers at Gallipoli - then they are at least prefaced with a warning as to its contents. It's showing respect to those cultures, even if we do not fully understand the reasons behind it.

Now, in the same way, representations of the Prophet Mohammed are considered to be blasphemous. It's a concept that may seem alien to us, but the angry response from the Muslim community is well documented. For every one Muslim who publicly vents that anger, how many are keeping their outrage private?

The reason I ask these questions is because our politicians keep framing the massacre as an attack on our values and our way of life. But isn't one of our values being inclusive, or multiculturalism? And if that is the case, then why are we calling an act that is considered taboo by one culture the freedom of expression, but we respect the practices of another culture? I find that to be hypocritical.

Representing or poking fun at a religious figure might seem relatively benign, but surely we have a responsibility to recognise that it is offensive to others. If there is a debate to be had, then by all means, have it - just about every Muslim I know is very open about their faith - but how can we call ourselves multicultural and then show a lack of respect to another culture by doing something they consider taboo and then call it freedom of speech? To turn that around, how would it be received if someone posted a cartoon of Angela Merkel being sodomised by Adolf Hitler? It would be extremely offensive, and I very much doubt that the German public would respond with "oh, well, freedom of speech!" and let it go.

It does not, in my opinion. Freedom of speech should be absolute. Otherwise it wouldn't be freedom of speech.

The other popular opinion is when it offends people. Like I mentioned in the other thread, if you want to make things 'work' then forbid the criticism and parody of religion. I see it 'worked' somewhat with hate speech laws.

On another note, thank goodness for the USA and it's First Amendment.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

That should never have to be enough reason to kill "the troller".

I'm not talking about the people who carried out this massacre. I'm talking about the Muslims who were upset, angered and/or aggrieved by what they believe to be an act of blasphemy. How can we reasonably claim to be inclusive or multicultural if we don't respect their beliefs?

 

[Denur]

I'm not talking about the people who carried out this massacre. I'm talking about the Muslims who were upset, angered and/or aggrieved by what they believe to be an act of blasphemy. How can we reasonably claim to be inclusive or multicultural if we don't respect their beliefs?

I can only respect their believes as long as they don't conflict with my own. For the rest I'm all pro inclusion/multicultarism.

 

[Famine]

I have a question: at what point does the freedom of speech or the freedom of expression stop being that freedom and start being, for want of a better word, trolling?

That's easy. It doesn't.

How can we reasonably claim to be inclusive or multicultural if we don't respect their beliefs?

Multiculturalism isn't about respecting their* beliefs. It's about allowing them* to continue to practice the ones that aren't counter to morality (or, in lieu of that, the law).

The notion that the larger society must change to suit the beliefs of a smaller one isn't multiculturalism either. I shouldn't be required to circumcise my daughters because someone in my society believes that girls must be circumcised, nor should I be required to never depict a character I have drawn as "Mohamed" because someone in my society believes that depictions of Mohamed are profane.

It's not a lack of respect on my behalf to fail to mutilate my children's genitalia, nor to draw a stick figure and call it Mohamed. It's a lack of respect on their behalf to visit violence upon me for my actions and decisions that caused them no physical harm of any kind.


You would go insane trying to "respect" every sub-society's beliefs. All it needs is for two people to believe in completely opposed things and it's HAL9000 all over again.

* Where "their" and "them" is anyone.