Attack on Charlie Hebdo - Paris

[earthJoker]

Charlie Hebdo: Gun attack on French magazine kills 12

Gunmen have attacked the Paris office of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, killing 12 people and injuring seven, French officials say.

At least two masked attackers opened fire with assault rifles in the office and exchanged shots with police in the street outside before escaping by car.

President Francois Hollande said there was no doubt it had been a terrorist attack "of exceptional barbarity".

A major police operation is under way in the Paris area to catch the killers.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30710883

Looks terrible, but not that surprising. This is one of the few cases where I really think that armed security should be around whenever the office of the magazine is open.

[earthJoker]

Seems there was a guard, but it has been killed as well. The attackers used heavy weapons and brutal force.

[Flixy]

[Asmodian]

I can't really see a way to prevent this type of attack short of turning sensitive locations in to forts with kill zones separating the guards from the public which is not really feasible or desirable. Reducing accessibility of fire arms helps but its not like arms a readily available in France. Obviously intelligence could have prevented but you cant really count on knowing every terror threat in advance. I am pretty certain that a group of 3 armed individuals could eliminate at least 10 times that number of police officers before being finally apprehended or killed if they chose their targets carefully they would have the advantage in any given encounter.

[Aimless]

Wtf is this world

[Flixy]

And I'm wondering/fearing whether the fact they planned a getaway means they are planning more attacks..

[Loki]

I can't really see a way to prevent this type of attack short of turning sensitive locations in to forts with kill zones separating the guards from the public which is not really feasible or desirable. Reducing accessibility of fire arms helps but its not like arms a readily available in France. Obviously intelligence could have prevented but you cant really count on knowing every terror threat in advance. I am pretty certain that a group of 3 armed individuals could eliminate at least 10 times that number of police officers before being finally apprehended or killed if they chose their targets carefully they would have the advantage in any given encounter.

Intelligence can't really catch lone-wolf terrorists (assuming they're even remotely competent). There really is no way to prevent these kind of attacks.

[earthJoker]

I like the message.

[Hazir]

I seriously think that financial aid to European mosques from outside should be illegal unless there's zero doubt about that money not coming from sources that actually try to destroy European society. Saudi Arabia doesn't meet that standard as far as I'm concerned.

[Loki]

A lot of these crazies get radicalized online.

[wiggin]

I seriously think that financial aid to European mosques from outside should be illegal unless there's zero doubt about that money not coming from sources that actually try to destroy European society. Saudi Arabia doesn't meet that standard as far as I'm concerned.

I think that rapidly gets into very murky territory, Hazir, even if your idea sounds reasonable. Putting the burden of proof on the NGO/nonprofit organization to prove their sources of funding are meeting a nebulous definition is very troubling. Restricting foreign funding of domestic organizations is a favored method of clamping down on dissent for dictators the world over, often under the guise of claiming the nonprofits are trying to 'destroy society' or somesuch. We've seen in in Eastern Europe/Russia, much of Africa, bits of Asia, and the nastier regimes in Latin America. I think that in general the default should be to allow such funding under the rubric of free speech, and the burden of proof should be on law enforcement to prove that said funding is promoting illegal/harmful activity.

[Hazir]

I think that rapidly gets into very murky territory, Hazir, even if your idea sounds reasonable. Putting the burden of proof on the NGO/nonprofit organization to prove their sources of funding are meeting a nebulous definition is very troubling. Restricting foreign funding of domestic organizations is a favored method of clamping down on dissent for dictators the world over, often under the guise of claiming the nonprofits are trying to 'destroy society' or somesuch. We've seen in in Eastern Europe/Russia, much of Africa, bits of Asia, and the nastier regimes in Latin America. I think that in general the default should be to allow such funding under the rubric of free speech, and the burden of proof should be on law enforcement to prove that said funding is promoting illegal/harmful activity.

Murky or not, I am fed up with being tied in a suicide pact with the crazies of the middle east.

[Dreadnaught]

This is awful. Just seeing the cop get executed is awful, and I can only imagine how horrible the inside of the office must have been.

I'm going to be a bit insensitive but sincere in my suggestion: in a civil society where publications like Charlie Hebdo was constantly being fined for stupid "infringements", it doesn't take much of a stretch for locals to think they can force a publication to stop producing content that offends them (and then go on a rampage when they fail to do so).

[GGT]

Murky or not, I am fed up with being tied in a suicide pact with the crazies of the middle east.

Yeah, they were delusional and stupid crazy, but they were French Europeans.

Today's terrorists can be home-grown, and don't even need to be 'trained' in the middle east. They can be recruited by local war lords (like Boko Haram in Nigeria), or on the internet. Some web sites or blogs are quite good at exploiting the kind of 'crazy' that shows up in angry, disenfranchised, hopeless people looking for a purpose....even when that 'greater cause' means murdering innocents and/or suicide.

Since that's antithetical to every organized religion and civilized society -- it must be a form of mental illness.

Besides, it wouldn't be free speech (or freedom of association or religion) if you ban private donations to mosques -- just because you don't like the country it came from. Isn't that as bad as banning cartoons (or movies) -- just because they come from certain countries? And isn't that why publications like Inspire aren't banned?

[earthJoker]

Yeah, they were delusional and stupid crazy, but they were French Europeans.

With Algerian background.

[GGT]

With Algerian background.

OK, but what made them connect with their Algerian background, over French identity and values?

If I can trace my ancestral roots to Genghis Khan...does that mean I can kill people with impunity?

[earthJoker]

OK, but what made them connect with their Algerian background, over French identity and values?

If I can trace my ancestral roots to Genghis Khan...does that mean I can kill people with impunity?

They never got rid of their background. They never integrated into France.

[GGT]

They never got rid of their background. They never integrated into France.

How do you figure? Does becoming French mean giving up an entire family history?


That's a rhetorical question People who want to become US citizens are not expected to give up their ethnic background, language, or culture, in order to assimilate. Ideally, we make things easy for immigrants. But in reality we make them jump hoops that most citizens couldn't.

I suspect the same dilemmas are going on in France, but on a different level/magnitude, with dire results.

[earthJoker]

No it involves not shooting people for their opinion you now the whole liberté, égalité, fraternité thing.

[Aimless]

Man, how fucking many Algerians do you know that go around massacring innocents over satire?

[Loki]

How many join or sympathize with terrorist organizations? It's not a majority by any means, but we're talking about thousands if not tens of thousands of people in France.

[earthJoker]

Man, how fucking many Algerians do you know that go around massacring innocents over satire?

What is your fucking point. It seems three/two were enough.

[Aimless]

My point is that it's ridiculous to imply that their "Algerian Background" and their Algerian Culture are the most important or interesting factors here. That's why I asked how many Algerians you know that go "woo massacre!! moar!!". Sure, the ME is a toxic shithole full of crazies, but these guys were born in France and they grew up in France, albeit in a particular segment of French society that may be very different from the ones in which you would've grown up, had you been raised there. They were radicalized as adolescents/adults. They're not "Middle-Eastern", they're not "Algerians", they didn't end up doing this because they obstinately and wilfully refused to let go of their "Algerian Identity" and be integrated into ordinary society, as the popular rhetoric goes among increasingly wacky racist white Europeans.

Blood will tell eh

[earthJoker]

My point is that it's ridiculous to imply that their "Algerian Background" and their Algerian Culture are the most important or interesting factors here.

It is relevant that they were not integrated in the European society. It is relevant to note the fact that the 2nd generation not automatically shares our values just because they are born here.

That's why I asked how many Algerians you know that go "woo massacre!! moar!!".

You are fucking asking for it:

Good chances that many of them are from former French north African colonies.

Sure, the ME is a toxic shithole full of crazies, but these guys were born in France and they grew up in France, albeit in a particular segment of French society that may be very different from the ones in which you would've grown up, had you been raised there. They were radicalized as adolescents/adults. They're not "Middle-Eastern", they're not "Algerians", they didn't end up doing this because they obstinately and wilfully refused to let go of their "Algerian Identity" and be integrated into ordinary society, as the popular rhetoric goes among increasingly wacky racist white Europeans.

Blood will tell eh

Yeah, call everyone racist who disagrees and the problem will go away by itself. I got news for you, the racist card has worn of, it doesn't let you win the game anymore. Try to play it on those who really commit racist crime, like the shooter of Toulouse.

[Aimless]

To address Hazir's post, I must say I find the idea appealing and for similar reasons. I get where Wiggin's coming from, but I think dictatorships abuse many things that may have otherwise legitimate uses.

[Aimless]

What exactly do you think that picture proves?

[Aimless]

Yeah, call everyone racist who disagrees and the problem will go away by itself. I got news for you, the racist card has worn of, it doesn't let you win the game anymore. Try to play it on those who really commit racist crime, like the shooter of Toulouse.

What I'm trying to say is that you're looking in the wrong direction and finding the wrong answers. You're not only dealing with radical crazy immigrants fresh off the boat. You're dealing with people who've grown up in these European countries and then been radicalized after spending their childhood, youth and adolescence excluded from both their mother cultures, and disenfranchised in various ways. They're not Middle-Eastern or North African. They're French, or Swedish, or British or whatever.

Re. integration and cultural identity, it's perfectly possible to be un-integrated without wishing gruesome death on innocents. Xenophobes and racists don't understand that because they think that being a Muslim, for example, is incompatible with being European, because it means you must crave the slaughter of Europeans. But the culture you need to take on isn't that of Islam (whatever that is) or that of Algeria; rather, it's the largely home-grown culture that's really shaped these young men into ripe targets for radicalisation.

[earthJoker]

Re. integration and cultural identity, it's perfectly possible to be un-integrated without wishing gruesome death on innocents.

It doesn't matter. As long as there are people who not only wish gruesome death but actually pull the trigger themselves. No tolerance to intolerance.

Xenophobes and racists don't understand that because they think that being a Muslim, for example, is incompatible with being European, because it means you must crave the slaughter of Europeans.

Name calling and prejudice against people with other opinions wont get you any were.

But the culture you need to take on isn't that of Islam (whatever that is) or that of Algeria; rather, it's the largely home-grown culture that's really shaped these young men into ripe targets for radicalisation.

Yes the problem is that we tolerated intolerance.

[Aimless]

Yeah, the problem is that you tolerated your own intolerance against members of your own society. Just going "la la la I'm not listening you're just saying mean things" isn't likely to help you, but sure, enjoy your increasingly absurd country while you can.

Do you believe that being a Muslim is incompatible with being European because Muslims must crave the slaughter of Europeans? If you do, then I guess I was calling you a racist xenophobe, but, if you don't believe that, then maybe I wasn't calling you a racist xenophobe. You keep going on about name-calling as if you don't know that racism and xenophobia are real things. Is that the case? Is that why you're confused?

It doesn't matter. As long as there are people who not only wish gruesome death but actually pull the trigger themselves. No tolerance to intolerance.

This is just the most retarded response. Please go back and read what I said in response to what you said about integration, so that you can better understand why your response misses the mark.

Let me help you out a little: you're talking about French men born in France and raised in France and you're saying that the reason they went out and killed innocent people is because "they never got rid of their Algerian background" and therefore couldn't be integrated into French society. Just give yourself some time to think on that so that you can see how ridiculous and also disgusting that is.

[earthJoker]

You may be a fucking little twat than I would call you a fucking little twat but maybe you aren't so I wouldn't call you a little twat or you don't know what twat is and therefore you may fuck your fucking little own twat yourself. But just maybe. Is that why you are so cuntfused?