11 people killed at a French satirical Newspaper

[Walsingham]

I was searching for "False Flag", for the heck of it, to see another point of view, perspectives and so on and forth and I'm very skeptical about sensational mainstream media (because they can popularize whatever they want, for the benefit of only themselves, and they do fuel the confusion in doing so). I'm also very skeptical about any wannabe sensational conspiracy theorist, probably more skeptical about these people than the mainstream media to be honest.

 

But... Veterans Today did post some pretty interesting things still.

 

December 13th, 2014

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/12/13/historic-speech-in-damascus-sends-shockwaves-around-the-world/

 

January 8th, 2015

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-viral/

 

Do I believe any of it? No. And yes. In the same way I believe that the attackers in France were radical Muslims, I also believe that the masked people seen in the first footages of the attack on Charlie Hebdo could've been anyone. I'm trying to be analytically objective, not conspiracy theorist.

 

How can one hold 2 contradicting views at once? By being neutral and analytically objective.

 

Yeah, and objectively how can you be sure that everyone else on this forum isn't a State department plant?

 

You can't.

 

You cannot - I repeat CANNOT - live your life doubting everything just because it's possible to doubt it.

 

Or - and again I can prove this with pencils and graph paper - you will end your days living under a bridge drinking rat tears.

[Osvir]

Of course Walsingham. Sometimes I just find it easier to exaggerate or polarize a point to be able to explain it.

It's just... radical rethoric.

EDIT: I value discussion, and to be able to have discussion one has to have an open mind and tackle the subject from multiple angles to get the most out of it. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

So many people are "This is how it is because the box told me so and if you oppose that view in any way, then you are an idiot". Boooring.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Osvir

[Walsingham]

Of course Walsingham. Sometimes I just find it easier to exaggerate or polarize a point to be able to explain it.

 

It's just... radical rethoric.

 

EDIT: I value discussion, and to be able to have discussion one has to have an open mind and tackle the subject from multiple angles to get the most out of it. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

 

So many people are "This is how it is because the box told me so and if you oppose that view in any way, then you are an idiot". Boooring.

 

Fair point. Sorry.

 

I ate a bunch of takeout fried chicken last night and now I'm feeling dirty and I'm taking it out on you.

[Osvir]

I thought you gave a very fair and well put counter-point argument yourself no need for any sorry's.

[Walsingham]

I thought you gave a very fair and well put counter-point argument yourself no need for any sorry's.

 

Hmm... maybe I should eat filthy takeout more often.

[Darkpriest]

People who are EU-sceptics and in the right wing ideologically will use this incident to highlight the failure of multiculturalism. But this terrible event definitely doesn't mean the end of multiculturalism., but it does raise an issue that countries like France now face.

 

Firstly almost the entire global  Muslim community has condemned this attack, so its not a case of  " Muslims actually support this type of action ". We know this terrorism was committed by Islamic extremists and they don't represent the broader Muslim community

 

And finally France is one of those countries that is an active target for fundamentalists. This exists for many reasons like their history with Algeria, there support for various UN campaigns like Libya and some of the recent laws they have passed that are seen to some as "Un-Islamic ". They have the largest Muslim community in Europe and add to that there social structures ( lots of disenfranchised Algerians live within France)  and geographical borders you can understand how they can easily become a target for various extremist groups

 

My thoughts go out to the families of the victims of this senseless violence 

 

 

To be honest, the multil-culturlalism in its current/original form IS a failure. It gave too much tolerance, which led to creation of communities, that simply do not want to assimilate to the local culture and created their own "ghettos" and too many allowances were given to the immigrants. It even created so called "No Go Zones", where even ambulances or firefighters are simply afraid to go to help in case of emergency.

 

Also as I said in some other thread, tolerance should go as far as the other side is also willing to go. Try to go to a muslim country and demand the same things that they demand in EU countries for themselves (applying own religious laws, places of worship, etc.), you will be surprised with the reaction. You have no such problems with other communities like asian, hindu, etc. Only the muslim one is non-tolerant.

[Hurlshort]

Multiculturalism and tolerance don't create ghettos, struggling economies do.  

[Raithe]

[Raithe]

To me, multiculturalism should be a blending of cultures, with a recognition of where they came from and why they existed. But as gets pointed out, what you seem to be getting is communities of one culture forming, and insisting on their right to keep their culture exact as it is, in whichever new country they've moved to, while also insisting that they shouldn't have to adapt to the cultures around them.

 

This kind of has zones of all the "Indians/poles/insert_cultural group" buying/renting houses in areas where there are family members already living, forming "little russias/chinas" etc, where you can walk into and pretty much only hear the language of their original country/culture spoken. I have no problem with people honouring the culture they come from, or making sure their children can speak the language and have the connection to their past. But I think it does start to become a problem when it becomes ingrained that you are separate from the culture you (or your parents / grandparents) emigrated to.

 

You have that these groups for a variety of reasons (whether economic, political, or religious) decide to leave their country of origin and move to another place for a better chance at a peaceful life where they can prosper, but the moment they arrive it turns into a "but I don't want to join your culture, I just want the benefits it provides."

 

If we look back at the past, it seems that America used to have a situation where people emigrated looking for that "Freedom" to put in hard work, and potentially make a fortune and rise. You had the poor immigrants and refugees staking everything, and while they did respect their own culture you had the parents encouraging their children to learn English, and do well in school, and work within the system. - Okay, that might be somewhat rose tinted but consider the way the Irish and the Italians and the Koreans and Vietnamese went over and merged into the great melting pot.

 

Nowadays (especially in Europe it seems), it's not so much about that. It's moving somewhere, then milking the system for the benefits while refusing to adapt themselves, and complaining that they don't have the opportunities because they're a minority group and the country they've moved to isn't giving them a chance or adapting to them. That isn't "good" multiculturalism. How can I respect that, when they don't want to respect me or where they've decided to move to and raise their children?

[Darkpriest]

Multiculturalism and tolerance don't create ghettos, struggling economies do.  

 

nope, those people were not willing to assimilate from the start, they wanted to bring their own laws and social behaviors, but get the benefits of welfare state and better standard of living than they had in their countries. It has nothing to do with struggling economy, unless you want to tell me that the economy has been struggling for the last 40 years all the time.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Darkpriest

[Darkpriest]

To me, multiculturalism should be a blending of cultures, with a recognition of where they came from and why they existed. But as gets pointed out, what you seem to be getting is communities of one culture forming, and insisting on their right to keep their culture exact as it is, in whichever new country they've moved to, while also insisting that they shouldn't have to adapt to the cultures around them.

 

This kind of has zones of all the "Indians/poles/insert_cultural group" buying/renting houses in areas where there are family members already living, forming "little russias/chinas" etc, where you can walk into and pretty much only hear the language of their original country/culture spoken. I have no problem with people honouring the culture they come from, or making sure their children can speak the language and have the connection to their past. But I think it does start to become a problem when it becomes ingrained that you are separate from the culture you (or your parents / grandparents) emigrated to.

 

You have that these groups for a variety of reasons (whether economic, political, or religious) decide to leave their country of origin and move to another place for a better chance at a peaceful life where they can prosper, but the moment they arrive it turns into a "but I don't want to join your culture, I just want the benefits it provides."

 

If we look back at the past, it seems that America used to have a situation where people emigrated looking for that "Freedom" to put in hard work, and potentially make a fortune and rise. You had the poor immigrants and refugees staking everything, and while they did respect their own culture you had the parents encouraging their children to learn English, and do well in school, and work within the system. - Okay, that might be somewhat rose tinted but consider the way the Irish and the Italians and the Koreans and Vietnamese went over and merged into the great melting pot.

 

Nowadays (especially in Europe it seems), it's not so much about that. It's moving somewhere, then milking the system for the benefits while refusing to adapt themselves, and complaining that they don't have the opportunities because they're a minority group and the country they've moved to isn't giving them a chance or adapting to them. That isn't "good" multiculturalism. How can I respect that, when they don't want to respect me or where they've decided to move to and raise their children?

 

This, and I am saying as a Polish origin person staying currently in Vancouver, Canada.

[Malcador]

Multiculturalism and tolerance don't create ghettos, struggling economies do.

It does create enclaves of other cultures I find, which is wrong to me in the degrees I see it here (like gathering with like is just how we are). Street signs in Chinese or Korean or whatever with the English secondary.

[Valsuelm]

so, there's a version that says the whole thing was staged

http://newru.org/gollivud-na-elisejskix-polyax-ostorozhno21/

 

English!

[Raithe]

One article on things that makes a few good points..
 
Sharpening Contradictions - Why al- Qaeda Attacked Satirists in Paris
 
 

The horrific murder of the editor, cartoonists and other staff of the irreverent satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, along with two policemen, by terrorists in Paris was in my view a strategic strike, aiming at polarizing the French and European public.
 
The problem for a terrorist group like al-Qaeda is that its recruitment pool is Muslims, but most Muslims are not interested in terrorism. Most Muslims are not even interested in politics, much less political Islam. France is a country of 66 million, of which about 5 million is of Muslim heritage. But in polling, only a third, less than 2 million, say that they are interested in religion. French Muslims may be the most secular Muslim-heritage population in the world (ex-Soviet ethnic Muslims often also have low rates of belief and observance). Many Muslim immigrants in the post-war period to France came as laborers and were not literate people, and their grandchildren are rather distant from Middle Eastern fundamentalism, pursuing urban cosmopolitan culture such as rap and rai. In Paris, where Muslims tend to be better educated and more religious, the vast majority reject violence and say they are loyal to France.
 
Al-Qaeda wants to mentally colonize French Muslims, but faces a wall of disinterest. But if it can get non-Muslim French to be beastly to ethnic Muslims on the grounds that they are Muslims, it can start creating a common political identity around grievance against discrimination.
 
This tactic is similar to the one used by Stalinists in the early 20th century. Decades ago I read an account by the philosopher Karl Popper of how he flirted with Marxism for about 6 months in 1919 when he was auditing classes at the University of Vienna. He left the group in disgust when he discovered that they were attempting to use false flag operations to provoke militant confrontations. In one of them police killed 8 socialist youth at Hörlgasse on 15 June 1919. For the unscrupulous among Bolsheviks–who would later be Stalinists– the fact that most students and workers don’t want to overthrow the business class is inconvenient, and so it seemed desirable to some of them to “sharpen the contradictions” between labor and capital.
 
The operatives who carried out this attack exhibit signs of professional training. They spoke unaccented French, and so certainly know that they are playing into the hands of Marine LePen and the Islamophobic French Right wing. They may have been French, but they appear to have been battle hardened. This horrific murder was not a pious protest against the defamation of a religious icon. It was an attempt to provoke European society into pogroms against French Muslims, at which point al-Qaeda recruitment would suddenly exhibit some successes instead of faltering in the face of lively Beur youth culture (French Arabs playfully call themselves by this anagram term deriving from wordplay involving scrambling of letters). Ironically, there are reports that one of the two policemen they killed was a Muslim.
 
Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, then led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, deployed this sort of polarization strategy successfully in Iraq, constantly attacking Shiites and their holy symbols, and provoking the ethnic cleansing of a million Sunnis from Baghdad. The polarization proceeded, with the help of various incarnations of Daesh (Arabic for ISIL or ISIS, which descends from al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia). And in the end, the brutal and genocidal strategy worked, such that Daesh was able to encompass all of Sunni Arab Iraq, which had suffered so many Shiite reprisals that they sought the umbrella of the very group that had deliberately and systematically provoked the Shiites.
 
“Sharpening the contradictions” is the strategy of sociopaths and totalitarians, aimed at unmooring people from their ordinary insouciance and preying on them, mobilizing their energies and wealth for the perverted purposes of a self-styled great leader.
 
The only effective response to this manipulative strategy (as Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani tried to tell the Iraqi Shiites a decade ago) is to resist the impulse to blame an entire group for the actions of a few and to refuse to carry out identity-politics reprisals.
For those who require unrelated people to take responsibility for those who claim to be their co-religionists (not a demand ever made of Christians), the al-Azhar Seminary, seat of Sunni Muslim learning and fatwas, condemned the attack, as did the Arab League that comprises 22 Muslim-majority states.
 
We have a model for response to terrorist provocation and attempts at sharpening the contradictions. It is Norway after Anders Behring Breivik committed mass murder of Norwegian leftists for being soft on Islam. The Norwegian government launched no war on terror. They tried Breivik in court as a common criminal. They remained committed to their admirable modern Norwegian values.
 
Most of France will also remain committed to French values of the Rights of Man, which they invented. But an insular and hateful minority will take advantage of this deliberately polarizing atrocity to push their own agenda. Europe’s future depends on whether the Marine LePens are allowed to become mainstream. Extremism thrives on other people’s extremism, and is inexorably defeated by tolerance.

[Valsuelm]

 

so, there's a version that says the whole thing was staged

http://newru.org/gollivud-na-elisejskix-polyax-ostorozhno21/

 

I know there are a  few people on these forums who subscribe to conspiracy theories but I find them  completely irritating and unhelpful. Its like they exist so people have an excuse to not realize the obvious truth and therefore don't have to worry about a solution

 

Do you know there are people who think that ISIS is an American and CIA created and supported organisation, thats right the same ISIS that the Americans are currently fighting in Iraq     

 

 

You must be slacking on your regular dose of  IronyGuard if you're finding 'conspiracy theories' irritating. This one wasn't even in English yet you knee jerk reaction to it, or do you actually read Russian? What did it say that was so wrong?

 

I'll remind you again though that the official narrative is also a conspiracy theory in this case (as with so many others). It's not conspiracy theories you're actually averse to it's facts, thoughts, ideas, and narratives that don't jive with your world view as given to you by the main stream media that you're averse to. The main stream media pushes conspiracy theories all the time, they just don't call them that. As I've said before, if the phrase 'conspiracy theory' is a pejorative to you, you are brainwashed and conditioned not to think outside of the paradigm created for you and that you've bought into. None but yourself can free your mind.

 

And yea actually. ISIS was indirectly created and funded in part by the CIA. Direct connections cannot be definitively made, but indirect ones can, and that's not exactly fringe thinking as even main stream media has reported on this. ISIS grew in large part out of the CIA supported Syrian rebels and in smaller part out various insurgent groups in Iraq, and that's if we accept the predominate theory. Does that mean the CIA created ISIS on purpose? Not necessarily, however, unlike many other government or semi governmental organizations in the US, the people at the top in the CIA are rarely idiots.

 

One thing for sure is that ISIS is quite the nebulous organization, particularly for one that has an army and reportedly has control of so much land.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Hassat Hunter]

I ate a bunch of takeout fried chicken last night and now I'm feeling dirty and I'm taking it out on you.

That's not what "Thinking outside the box" means

Multiculturalism and tolerance don't create ghettos, struggling economies do.

Which however doesn't concile with them forming during economic good times.

 

And yeah, there is a big difference about how those settlements are formed. Many cities have a "China-town" now. You see many natives there, many shops for everyone, people generally try to be nice to everyone, and it works just fine.

Moslim-town however... not quite the same.

 

There have been plenty of incidents in the Netherlands last few years of people rather than integrating demanding we instead subserve their opinions, and that their interpretation of stuff (which is totally incorrect too :/) is the right one and just 15million people need to deal with it. And they don't hesitate to simply ruin a children's festival for it. Not quite as bad as this incident by a long-shot, but it does show how integrating seemingly is replaced by "we came here, change for us. And we don't give a damn about your history or reasonings for holidays"... it's bound to explode sometime.

[HoonDing]

 

Enjoy your 70 virgins, brave hero.

[Malcador]

Nice.

[Meshugger]

It's like that Leroy Jenkins thing.

[Woldan]

Enjoy your 70 virgins, brave hero.

The worst thing about those terrorists is you can only kill them once. 

[licketysplit]

Damn. Point blank range.

[Valsuelm]

 

Enjoy your 70 virgins, brave hero.

 

Despicable.

 

So the police/state/authorities say a person(s) does X, and then executes them in cold blood in a video and you cheer?

 

You do realize that people are falsely accused by police/state/authorities of all sorts of things from the trivial to ubermajor all the time right? You do realize that people are acquitted all the time when actually prosecuted for whatever the police/state/authorities say they did right? It's not even uncommon that the police/state/authortiies' case is so flimsy that the case is outright dismissed before trial even happens.

 

The guys killed may very well have been guilty of what the police/state/authorities say they are. However, we'll likely never really know for sure now as they aren't around to give their side of the story, and we certainly don't know for sure now. It's convenient for the state when the suspects are dead, and this one was all too predictable.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

Food for thought:

 

[Wrath of Dagon]

What is it about Islam that seems to lend itself more easily toward these extremists?  Is it more easily wrongly interpreted (ie. more vague language in the Koran than the Bible or something)?  Are the teachings in the Koran more easily twisted to mean something that wasn't intended?

 

I'm genuinely curious why more often than not, these extremists/terrorists seem to be Muslim, as compared to the other religions out there.

I think this explains it pretty well : http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/blame-for-charlie-hebdo-murders

[HoonDing]

That terrorist charge reminded me of that Orc from Helm's Deep