11 people killed at a French satirical Newspaper

[Orogun01]

Considering that every time that a shooting spree happens the left intermediately bring the anti-gun arguments is only fair that the right gets to promote guns when terror acts occur. Both stances are equally reprehensible though.

BTW, Hassat guns didn't help because they didn't have them.

[Valsuelm]

Considering that every time that a shooting spree happens the left intermediately bring the anti-gun arguments is only fair that the right gets to promote guns when terror acts occur. Both stances are equally reprehensible though.

It's not a left/right issue. Nothing really is other than the very issue of the false left/right paradigm itself.

 

The 'gun debate' entered the conversation via what apparently was essentially two trolls posts. The first being by a moderator of this forum.

 

 

Obviously the only solution is for France to ban all weapons.

 

And then the second follow up:

 

 

 

Obviously the only solution is for France to ban all weapons.

Well, it probably makes more sense than arming copy editors would...   

 

 

Apparently they didn't get the 'no laughter aloud' memo, and ironically another mod sunk to the level of telling someone(s) to 'STFU' when the conversation went further and more serious. Poor form all around.

 

@ Hassat: You completely misunderstand the discussion that occurred if you think it's about someone's 'insecurity'.

 

If you find yourself hating anyone, let alone a large group of people, for any reason whatsoever, check yourself. Hate is irrational at best, generally grows out of ignorance, and leads to downright evil things.

 

[Orogun01]

Go easy on them, humor is a coping mechanism and nowadays these attacks are far too common. A little humor might be appropriate if only for the cartoonist's sake.


On another note and since we have already breached the political I expect this event to become the platform for immigration reformation debate. Western Europe has a problem with immigration and with some groups that want it to happen en masse, while opponents become more radical thanks to events like this. 

[Valsuelm]

On another note and since we have already breached the political I expect this event to become the platform for immigration reformation debate. Western Europe has a problem with immigration and with some groups that want it to happen en masse, while opponents become more radical thanks to events like this. 

 

So why is it that the opponents of mass immigration are the radicals and not those who are for such things?

[Hurlshort]

Val, the moderators aren't paid employees or anything.  They can take part in arguments as well as everyone else here.  

[Orogun01]

 

On another note and since we have already breached the political I expect this event to become the platform for immigration reformation debate. Western Europe has a problem with immigration and with some groups that want it to happen en masse, while opponents become more radical thanks to events like this. 

 

So why is it that the opponents of mass immigration are the radicals and not those who are for such things?

 

The rise in crime due to immigration plus a bad economic situation and terrorist attacks both in Europe as well as from extremists that migrate from Europe has drawn more support to far right groups across Europe. Mind you these are their national equivalents of the KKK or Neo Nazis, they aren't reformist and aren't very likely to begin mass deportations of immigrants if they get their chance. Even if they have good point extremism ins't the way to go, but in the face of unfaltering opposition the only possible response is violence.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

On another note and since we have already breached the political I expect this event to become the platform for immigration reformation debate. Western Europe has a problem with immigration and with some groups that want it to happen en masse, while opponents become more radical thanks to events like this. 

 

So why is it that the opponents of mass immigration are the radicals and not those who are for such things?

 

The rise in crime due to immigration plus a bad economic situation and terrorist attacks both in Europe as well as from extremists that migrate from Europe has drawn more support to far right groups across Europe. Mind you these are their national equivalents of the KKK or Neo Nazis, they aren't reformist and aren't very likely to begin mass deportations of immigrants if they get their chance. Even if they have good point extremism ins't the way to go, but in the face of unfaltering opposition the only possible response is violence.

 

 

From all I've seen for the most part the association of those who are against the mass immigration that is and has been occurring for the last couple of decades in most of the west with 'far right groups' is nothing more than an attempt to marginalize the position and argument of those who have issues with mass immigration. Classic label them a 'bad name' or guilt by association (never mind if there's an actual association or not, that doesn't matter) to de-legitimize the argument.

 

The main steam media is and has been for the most part pro immigration for a long time now, which shouldn't be a surprise given who generally owns it. The very fact that some groups are labeled as 'far right' should ring alarm bells, whether they be generally against immigration or not. This label is pretty much only ever used to marginalize an argument, and sadly it works on the more ignorant out there. ie: in a somewhat related issue, it's purely asinine that those who are generally nationalists are considered 'far right' these days as there are oodles of people from all schools of political thought that embrace the merits of nationalism, just as oodles of people from all schools of political thought have issues with mass immigration and are not members of the KKK or neo-nazis. That's pure propaganda designed to marginalize the argument and merit discussions of nationalism, just as it is in regards to the subject of immigration and other issues.

 

'You're against immigration? You must be some fringe far right loony!' So sayeth the modern dogma preached by talking heads bought and paid for by evil folks who generally want mass immigration and a divided populace.

 

Neo-nazi's and the KKK should almost never make the news because they rarely do anything newsworthy, yet they are invoked often to marginalize. In fact, it's been more than a decade since I've read an article or seen anything where those two groups are mentioned where marginalization is not a goal of said article or media presentation. Successfully associate someone(s) or an idea with either of those groups and you've completely shut down their argument in the minds of many an ignoramus. For anyone really paying attention, it's really as ridiculous as someone saying 'Joe likes hamburgers, and so does the KKK!!' and then idiots believing that not only hamburgers are bad but Joe and everything about him or that he'd ever say is bad, crazy, evil, nutty, etc., never mind if any of this is true or what Joe actually has to say. There are a real lot of people that are not really paying attention at all though, or are half-assing it, that fall for this brainwashing trick.

 

All that said, the issue of immigration/emigration is complex and the relevant discussion points vary both in terms of specifics and degree depending on the nation we're discussing. In general though, both extreme positions, that of wide open borders and completely closed ones (and even wanting to mass deport millions of legal residents) are beyond asinine, and neither deserve much discussion in the media as they are positions that have as much merit as the occasionally put forth idiotic at best idea of nuking the whole of the middle east. Yet both get oodles of attention while the complex realities are nearly completely ignored. One should ask themselves why.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

Val, the moderators aren't paid employees or anything.  They can take part in arguments as well as everyone else here.  

 

Also I don't think either person was Trolling, I'm sure Gfted1 was being perfectly serious when he suggested a solution to the problem was more guns

 

( yes he said it in an indirect way )

 

 We all know that there is very vociferous movement of people, like the NRA,  who do believe you will be better protected if everyone has a gun. Is it valid ?

 

I don't know, I just know this. I probably live in the most violent country of anyone on these forums, we have 30-50 murders a day and many of these murders are committed by firearms

 

Despite this apparent threat most of my friends and people I know don't have guns. The reason for this is simple, if you are faced with an armed attacker you need to have excellent reflexes to be able to draw your gun and defend yourself.

 

So take car hijackings, a guy comes to your window with a gun drawn. If you don't put our hands up and immediately get out the car he will open fire. The chance of you being able to draw your weapon is unlikely

 

So even though people may think "  having a gun will make you safer "  I believe the average person will battle to be able to use their firearm under the type of pressure that violent crime exists and in fact you may end up getting killed while trying to defend yourself just because you now draw a firearm

 

But of course this argument doesn't apply to this newspaper attack because in this case you are going to be killed either way, if you complied with the attackers or not. So I suppose there is a valid point that says " if someone is going to just kill me I may as well try to draw my gun to defend myself "  

 

So it really boils down to the type of threat a country faces and when it comes to terrorism or mass shootings  we need to look at the whole gun debate in a different way?

[BruceVC]

 

 

Val, the moderators aren't paid employees or anything.  They can take part in arguments as well as everyone else here.  

 

Also I don't think either person was Trolling, I'm sure Gfted1 was being perfectly serious when he suggested a solution to the problem was more guns

 

( yes he said it in an indirect way )

 

 We all know that there is very vociferous movement of people, like the NRA,  who do believe you will be better protected if everyone has a gun. Is it valid ?

 

I don't know, I just know this. I probably live in the most violent country of anyone on these forums, we have 30-50 murders a day and many of these murders are committed by firearms

 

Despite this apparent threat most of my friends and people I know don't have guns. The reason for this is simple, if you are faced with an armed attacker you need to have excellent reflexes to be able to draw your gun and defend yourself.

 

So take car hijackings, a guy comes to your window with a gun drawn. If you don't put our hands up and immediately get out the car he will open fire. The chance of you being able to draw your weapon is unlikely

 

So even though people may think "  having a gun will make you safer "  I believe the average person will battle to be able to use their firearm under the type of pressure that violent crime exists and in fact you may end up getting killed while trying to defend yourself just because you now draw a firearm

 

But of course this argument doesn't apply to this newspaper attack because in this case you are going to be killed either way, if you complied with the attackers or not. So I suppose there is a valid point that says " if someone is going to just kill me I may as well try to draw my gun to defend myself "  

 

So it really boils down to the type of threat a country faces and when it comes to terrorism or mass shootings  we need to look at the whole gun debate in a different way?

 

The problem with your examples are one on one situations which is not what owning a gun prevents in a long run.

 

There was an example in the US. Some guy tried to pull a gun in store. He was shot mid movement by 4 or more civilians who where shopping there. And that is a situation most pro gun people are talking about. In a situation someone pull a gun on you, yes you have no chance to pull your own gun, but imagine that 2-3 bystanders will pull their guns to help you. Will the assailant be able to defend against them?

 

You say you live in a violent country but from what I read the most of the "gun" related crimes happen in areas that have restrictions about having a gun like NY, LA etc. and are mostly non existent in areas where most people have guns by their side on regular basis.

 

 

One of the problems in South Africa is that criminals have illegally owned guns. So we have  an issue of far too many unregistered  guns in circulation, so even if you tried to make it illegal to own a firearm it won't make a difference to criminals owning guns. So from a South African context we don't have the means to effectively enforce a " no gun culture" as all that will happen is that law abiding citizens won't be able to own firearms and the people that actually commit the crimes will still get firearms from the black market 

[Meshugger]

Know your enemy:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/07/islam-allah-muslims-shariah-anjem-choudary-editorials-debates/21417461/

[Orogun01]

@Valsuelm:
Might I suggest some reading on the subject:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elinadav-heymann/sudden-rise-of-far-right-_b_5512961.html

When I say that the far right is rising I mean that the far right is rising; is not leftist propaganda that for every moderate that wants to close immigration there is bound to be one that is motivated by racism and hatred. The longer this issue is drawn out the more problems it will cause and the more people will drawn to far right groups that promise decisive actions.

@Meshugger:

Whoever wrote that article is an ****; blaming the journal for a ****ed up religion's honor killings. If the best opposing view they come up is that we should stop because those crazies will keep attacking us, your'e giving enough justification for all out war against Muslim terrorists groups. 

[Meshugger]

@Meshugger:

Whoever wrote that article is an ****; blaming the journal for a ****ed up religion's honor killings. If the best opposing view they come up is that we should stop because those crazies will keep attacking us, your'e giving enough justification for all out war against Muslim terrorists groups. 

 

Nah, it just shows that no one should take their opinions seriously. Twitter is full with people like him.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Meshugger

[Hassat Hunter]

It's kind of telling I see every single person with an Islamitic name on Twitter or newsreplies or facebook or whatever saying that they had it coming.

They're definitely not helping with the image of a people not agreeing with their terrorists... au contraire

 

Val, the moderators aren't paid employees or anything.  They can take part in arguments as well as everyone else here.  

 

Unless you get too annoyed and heated with one and get fired, like me... :/

 

As for having to go right... if all other politicians are doing absolutely nothing, and even capitulate and force Islam-rights above our own, heck yeah are we going to vote on those that disagree with that. All we need is a good, non-radical alternative, but apprently the politicians are too afraid to offer that themselves, and thus play right into the cards of neo-nazistic organisations. I can't say I like it in the least, though I see it happening and I don't see any politician actually trying to resolve this, infact they all attack the alternative and distanciate, and thus the ones that should be quelled get more and more support as time passes.

 

Also, did I hit too close to home with my insecurity statement? After all, it's a rather odd place to defend your apparent need to own guns in a thread that's about a terrorist attack overseas.

[Darkpriest]

btw, while all you have fun writing about gun debate, which is pointless regarding the topic, two fresh news:

 

1) There was a grenade thrown into one of the mosques in Le Mans - southern France (around 6:00-7:00 CET)

 

2) A police woman was shot on patrol (her injuries were fatal) in the southern district of Paris - Montrogue (around 7:15 CET). Second civil technician working for police was injured during the incident. Officially it is yet unknown if it is connected to massacre at the newspaper offices, but the captured men in its 50s was masked and dressed in black and he also used automatic weapon. He origins from Africa. Internal affairs minister went to the site of attack.

 

as for the gun debate:

 

the allowance of the guns, increases security, HOWEVER, criminals which decide to commit to the crimes keep that in mind, and in turn not risk less violent solutions and thus open fire to the victims more often than in the situation where they might assume that the victim does not own a lethal weapon.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Darkpriest

[exodiark]

Another terror attack tied to Islam... No wonder really, Islam is basically a more extreme branch of Christianity and Judaism, and both religions are too black-and-white already.

At least in Christianity there's that dogma to turn the other cheek, so enduring pain and insults comes naturally for them.

Edited January 8, 2015 by exodiark

[Osvir]

 

This picture depicts 2 men. One holds a rifle, the other holds a pen. It is implied that the masked man is a Radical Islamist/Muslim/Arab, but he is masked, so how do we know?

The ironic thing is, a man with a pen drew this picture.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Osvir

[Osvir]

Go easy on them, humor is a coping mechanism and nowadays these attacks are far too common. A little humor might be appropriate if only for the cartoonist's sake.

 

On another note and since we have already breached the political I expect this event to become the platform for immigration reformation debate. Western Europe has a problem with immigration and with some groups that want it to happen en masse, while opponents become more radical thanks to events like this. 

How easy is it to put on a mask and pretend to be someone else and fight for someone else's cause and ideals?

 

If I was a radical Right-Wing Neo-Nazi, how could I use someones faith I don't like for the benefit of myself and my own ideologies? (This happened a lot during the worst of GamerGate, Anti-GG dressing up as Pro-GG, harassing. Pro-GG dressing up as Anti-GG, harassing. This can happen just as much in the real world as it does in the virtual world. I remember that a lot of people thought the attacks in Norway, by Breivik, was fundamental/radical Islamist before the story unfolded).

 

It might be controversial of me to even ask these aloof questions and speculate/analyze like this but... who benefits from these attacks, in the long run? And what political ideology has been on the rise all of 2014 in Western Europe?

 

EDIT: The point I want to convey here is: Don't jump to conclusions until the story unfolds, and more research has been conducted.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Osvir

[Gfted1]

Trolling? Why I never!!!

 

I have learned from experience that every time there is some shooting we all gaze deeply into our navels and wonder aloud: "How can this happen! Why do we live in a society with weapons! People don't kill people, guns do!

 

The only reasonable solution is to disarm France. Duh.

[Cultist]

Good times with piggies.

[Chilloutman]

 

Go easy on them, humor is a coping mechanism and nowadays these attacks are far too common. A little humor might be appropriate if only for the cartoonist's sake.

 

On another note and since we have already breached the political I expect this event to become the platform for immigration reformation debate. Western Europe has a problem with immigration and with some groups that want it to happen en masse, while opponents become more radical thanks to events like this. 

How easy is it to put on a mask and pretend to be someone else and fight for someone else's cause and ideals?

 

If I was a radical Right-Wing Neo-Nazi, how could I use someones faith I don't like for the benefit of myself and my own ideologies? (This happened a lot during the worst of GamerGate, Anti-GG dressing up as Pro-GG, harassing. Pro-GG dressing up as Anti-GG, harassing. This can happen just as much in the real world as it does in the virtual world. I remember that a lot of people thought the attacks in Norway, by Breivik, was fundamental/radical Islamist before the story unfolded).

 

It might be controversial of me to even ask these aloof questions and speculate/analyze like this but... who benefits from these attacks, in the long run? And what political ideology has been on the rise all of 2014 in Western Europe?

 

EDIT: The point I want to convey here is: Don't jump to conclusions until the story unfolds, and more research has been conducted.

 

 

Possible but I really doubt that some neo-nazi would kill 10 white mans screaming 'allah akbar' and 'we avenged Mohamed today'

[Valsuelm]

 

Go easy on them, humor is a coping mechanism and nowadays these attacks are far too common. A little humor might be appropriate if only for the cartoonist's sake.

 

On another note and since we have already breached the political I expect this event to become the platform for immigration reformation debate. Western Europe has a problem with immigration and with some groups that want it to happen en masse, while opponents become more radical thanks to events like this. 

How easy is it to put on a mask and pretend to be someone else and fight for someone else's cause and ideals?

 

If I was a radical Right-Wing Neo-Nazi, how could I use someones faith I don't like for the benefit of myself and my own ideologies? (This happened a lot during the worst of GamerGate, Anti-GG dressing up as Pro-GG, harassing. Pro-GG dressing up as Anti-GG, harassing. This can happen just as much in the real world as it does in the virtual world. I remember that a lot of people thought the attacks in Norway, by Breivik, was fundamental/radical Islamist before the story unfolded).

 

It might be controversial of me to even ask these aloof questions and speculate/analyze like this but... who benefits from these attacks, in the long run? And what political ideology has been on the rise all of 2014 in Western Europe?

 

EDIT: The point I want to convey here is: Don't jump to conclusions until the story unfolds, and more research has been conducted.

 

 

Agent provocateurs on all levels are indeed a thing. A not uncommon thing.

[Osvir]

Possible but I really doubt that some neo-nazi would kill 10 white mans screaming 'allah akbar' and 'we avenged Mohamed today'

Either anyone who wants to put a lot of negativity on Islam/Muslims/Arabs, or a radical fundamental Islamist group that's just f-ed in the head.

 

"Ambition" is greater than individuals "Preference" in an organization with goals, purpose, ideology and propaganda. It's funny, because Neo-Nazis and radical Islamists are, in essence, both extremely Right-Wing Nationalistic.

 

What I want to say is, how many white men did the Nazi's kill? Did they care?

 

EDIT: These attacks doesn't help Islam, Muslims, or immigration, but, they do help the Islamophobic "cause". I think this aspect is important to consider.

 

However, everything points towards these two brothers being totally whack in the head, and that they had planned it for quite some time, and that they may/might/maybe (which needs confirmation) be part of a larger organisation (ISIL or other terror group). But it makes freaking no sense still! I can't wrap my head around it...

 

Pretty much this:

"We will make everything we believe in much harder to achieve by attacking these Frenchmen!!"

 

The explanation might be as simple as that too... they are dark ages to middle ages village idiots.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Osvir

[Valsuelm]

Good times with piggies.

 

A whole bunch of misinformation in this one to make many an ignorant hateful racist living in ****ed up fantasyland happy.

 

I recommend fact checking before posting things such as this.

[obyknven]

Firstly France do want cancel sanctions against Russia...

http://www.scoop.it/t/gatekeepers/p/4034753583/2015/01/06/russia-sanctions-must-be-lifted-now-hollande

 

but then..  "Islamists" attacks France... what a "surprise"! US colonies must known their place.

[Chilloutman]

 

Possible but I really doubt that some neo-nazi would kill 10 white mans screaming 'allah akbar' and 'we avenged Mohamed today'

Either anyone who wants to put a lot of negativity on Islam/Muslims/Arabs, or a radical fundamental Islamist group that's just f-ed in the head.

 

"Ambition" is greater than individuals "Preference" in an organization of nationalists. It's funny, because Neo-Nazis and radical Islamists are, in essence, both extremely Right-Wing Nationalistic.

 

What I want to say is, how many white men did the Nazi's kill? Did they care?

 

 

Well its hard to compare neo nazi when they were superpower and now when they are small groups. However nice thing you say that is Nationalists - because islam is not so much faith, its much more ideology or state government as comunism or nacism or democracy. Thats why its so hard for muslims to live in non muslim country. And that is why its no problem for other religions - because they can accept secularism

Edited January 8, 2015 by Chilloutman