11 people killed at a French satirical Newspaper

[Darkpriest]

 

The problem with acting sooner is that there was no middle ground. Stopping Hitler at any time before Poland would have meant war. No one was ready for it. The two major players in WW1, France and Britain, also disagreed dramatically about German reperations. Ideal ground for a gambler and brinksman like Hitler. 

 

yeah so instead of small war it ended up as WW2, doesnt sound any better to me to be honest

 

 

To be honest, if France and UK would only do as much as honor and execute the defensive alliance agreement that they had signed with Poland, there would be nothing even remotely close to the scale of WW2. Hitler called the bluff of UK and France, which he viewed as too lazy to react, and invaded Poland, allowing his troops to get experience, refine Blitzkrieg and extend economic power and production capabilities.

 

If France and UK would respond to the aggression just as Poland was attacked, war would be over within a month with Germany losing. But it did not happen and we all know what happened next.

[Chilloutman]

 

 

The problem with acting sooner is that there was no middle ground. Stopping Hitler at any time before Poland would have meant war. No one was ready for it. The two major players in WW1, France and Britain, also disagreed dramatically about German reperations. Ideal ground for a gambler and brinksman like Hitler. 

 

yeah so instead of small war it ended up as WW2, doesnt sound any better to me to be honest

 

 

To be honest, if France and UK would only do as much as honor and execute the defensive alliance agreement that they had signed with Poland, there would be nothing even remotely close to the scale of WW2. Hitler called the bluff of UK and France, which he viewed as too lazy to react, and invaded Poland, allowing his troops to get experience, refine Blitzkrieg and extend economic power and production capabilities.

 

If France and UK would respond to the aggression just as Poland was attacked, war would be over within a month with Germany losing. But it did not happen and we all know what happened next.

 

 

Thats basically what I have stated

[Chilloutman]

You guys are trying to defend and justify total BS by pointing fingers at other people's total BS. Irrational at best that is.

 

I think I am missing something, on what BS we are pointing here?

[Darkpriest]

BTW, some news from Belgium. Apparently within last hour there was an anti-terrorists intervention in eastern Belgium - Verviers. At least 3 killed, and more injured - no confirmed details on casualties though and the target details.

[Malcador]

Welcome to 2015. Where there's people aplenty that confuse the refusal to print filth with cowardice. As well as confuse journalism with filth.

It does seem that way when the application of respect is inconsistent. Add that to a violent act inflicted upon people that didn't, and the needle sinks in a bit deeper.

 

So going back to the suggested faked video of the cop getting shot, what is the ultimate end then of doing that and how does the affect any other details of the attack ? Or is that all there is to it ?

[Darkpriest]

Further on the Belgium actions. It seems it's a wider action across the country aimed at islamic extremists/terrorists. Official details coming on 20:00 CET on a press conference.

[Zoraptor]

What so filthy about crying guy with label 'Je suis Charlie' after 11 dead people working in Charlie magazine?

 

 

They know a very large number of people are going to be offended by it? What is the purpose, except to cause offence? And it has to be more than "well, we have the right to do it, therefore we should", that's a five year old's logic which most people grow out of eventually. If it were aimed at radical muslims then it would be fine, but that is something otherwise perfectly reasonable muslims will find genuinely offensive. Is it really just an attempt by a unreservedly atheist magazine to co-opt a religious figure for sympathy and to try to look 'reasonable' if anyone complains- they don't Believe so they might as well have Gandalf or Yoda with the placard, yes? Why should jews have special protection under french law but not muslims, when even M. Hollande says muslims are most discriminated against? etc etc.

 

#jesuisEdwardSnowden would be far more appropriate to support actual freedom of expression as opposed to freedom to be a bit of a Richard. CH do have the right to be a complete asterisk just because they can, but that doesn't mean that they aren't being an asterisk just because they have that right.

 

(I usually find the loads of rhetorical questions answering a question approach a bit lazy but, meh.)

[Valsuelm]

 

Welcome to 2015. Where there's people aplenty that confuse the refusal to print filth with cowardice. As well as confuse journalism with filth.

It does seem that way when the application of respect is inconsistent. Add that to a violent act inflicted upon people that didn't, and the needle sinks in a bit deeper.

 

So going back to the suggested faked video of the cop getting shot, what is the ultimate end then of doing that and how does the affect any other details of the attack ? Or is that all there is to it ?

 

 

Cui bono for the first question, and there's a number of possibilities. For the second, it may not at all. It would depend on what other details we're talking about, and if it was a sure thing that the shooting was faked or not. Something that's inconclusive from what I've seen so far, and taken by itself it doesn't add up to much.

 

Here's a recent presentation that includes a bit on how someones(s) might benefit from staging a 'terrorist' attack. Warning to the brainwashed: there's 'conspiracy theory' type stuff in this. But it's a mainstream source, and it's ok to talk 'conspiracy theories' when it's about someone that's either a real or perceived enemy (in other words this 'conspiracy theory' has been deemed ok to talk about and believe in by mainstream western media), so you'll probably be ok.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/putins-way/

Edited January 15, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Gorgon]

 

 

 

The problem with acting sooner is that there was no middle ground. Stopping Hitler at any time before Poland would have meant war. No one was ready for it. The two major players in WW1, France and Britain, also disagreed dramatically about German reperations. Ideal ground for a gambler and brinksman like Hitler. 

 

yeah so instead of small war it ended up as WW2, doesnt sound any better to me to be honest

 

 

To be honest, if France and UK would only do as much as honor and execute the defensive alliance agreement that they had signed with Poland, there would be nothing even remotely close to the scale of WW2. Hitler called the bluff of UK and France, which he viewed as too lazy to react, and invaded Poland, allowing his troops to get experience, refine Blitzkrieg and extend economic power and production capabilities.

 

If France and UK would respond to the aggression just as Poland was attacked, war would be over within a month with Germany losing. But it did not happen and we all know what happened next.

 

 

Thats basically what I have stated

 

They should have gone to Poland and fought the Vermacht after the battle had been lost ?. Not practical at all. The allies weren't going to get there in time even with the best of intentions. The French only had enough manpower for a defensive battle and in practical terms quickly settled into the idea of relying on fortifications. How they were eventually going to beat the Germans no one had given much thought. 

[Malcador]

Cui bono for the first question, and there's a number of possibilities. For the second, it may not at all. It would depend on what other details we're talking about, and if it was a sure thing that the shooting was faked or not. Something that's inconclusive from what I've seen so far, and taken by itself it doesn't add up to much.

 

Here's a recent presentation that includes a bit on how someones(s) might benefit from staging a 'terrorist' attack. Warning to the brainwashed: there's 'conspiracy theory' type stuff in this. But it's a mainstream source, and it's ok to talk 'conspiracy theories' when it's about someone that's either a real or perceived enemy (in other words this 'conspiracy theory' has been deemed ok to talk about and believe in by mainstream western media), so you'll probably be ok.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/putins-way/

Okay, like what though ? If the cop wasn't actually killed, then kind of weird to add in one faked cop death to heighten outrages after 11 others are already dead. I suppose one could say it is all faked to inflame hatred of Muslims or perhaps frame ISIS (because they need more crimes on their bill), but the currently accepted interpretation is simple enough to be true.

 

The constant tone of a man who has seen the light is pretty grating though, especially as proving that is next to impossible. Ah well.

 

It is a curious phenomenon in that offending some groups is okay and others not. Ideally, they all should be okay to do (everyone should HTFU, to borrow an EVE-ism).

[Hurlshort]

Claiming that everyone that doesn't buy into conspiracy theories is brainwashed really undercuts your otherwise interesting assertions and opinions.

[Hildegard]

Ity's funny that people will go all out for their right to make fun of Catholic priests being pedophiles because a minority of them are but you can't write anything negative about Islam at all even if it's the truth without threat of death and people claiming it's deserved. EVIL. Also,  caholics and non catholics tend not make excuses for the priests who do that sort of crap but muslims and non muslims have plenty of excuses for those who commit mass murder or rape under that religion's banner.

 

Hilarious and sad.

 

You can write negative about the Muslim but it's a whole other issue when you make cartoons mocking Jews

 

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2vinmsk&s=8#.VLhECCvF8jk

 

http://anonhq.com/charlie-hebdo-fired-anti-semitic-cartoonist-ridiculing-judaism-2009/

[Darkpriest]

 

 

 

 

The problem with acting sooner is that there was no middle ground. Stopping Hitler at any time before Poland would have meant war. No one was ready for it. The two major players in WW1, France and Britain, also disagreed dramatically about German reperations. Ideal ground for a gambler and brinksman like Hitler. 

 

yeah so instead of small war it ended up as WW2, doesnt sound any better to me to be honest

 

 

To be honest, if France and UK would only do as much as honor and execute the defensive alliance agreement that they had signed with Poland, there would be nothing even remotely close to the scale of WW2. Hitler called the bluff of UK and France, which he viewed as too lazy to react, and invaded Poland, allowing his troops to get experience, refine Blitzkrieg and extend economic power and production capabilities.

 

If France and UK would respond to the aggression just as Poland was attacked, war would be over within a month with Germany losing. But it did not happen and we all know what happened next.

 

 

Thats basically what I have stated

 

They should have gone to Poland and fought the Vermacht after the battle had been lost ?. Not practical at all. The allies weren't going to get there in time even with the best of intentions. The French only had enough manpower for a defensive battle and in practical terms quickly settled into the idea of relying on fortifications. How they were eventually going to beat the Germans no one had given much thought. 

 

 

No, they should have opened immediately the other front, where Germany had no military at all, it's not like the German mobilization and building up the military was already a violation of the peace treaty after WW1. That act alone, could possibly make Germany withdraw and make Russia not join Germany on invasion of Poland in th 1939. We can theorycraft probably more whatifs but the fact is, Hitler banked on the fact that France and UK will do nothing to stop him and he was right.

[Darkpriest]

More on the Belgian anti-terrorits action.

 

The action was aimed at people who were planning acts of terrorism. Police special forces assaulted several places at the same time. In one cases they were "welcomed" by islamic extremists armed with military grade equipment. 2 of them died others were captured after a firefight that lasted several minutes. The people that were arreste were previously on the watchlists due to their travels to middle-east, Syria in particular. As of now, officials cannot say if they were in any way tied to the terrorist that were responsible for attacks in France.

 

They also captured a man, who was trading weapon illegally - they investigate his ties to the terrorist responsible for killing a policewoman in Paris and attack on the kosher supermarket. He admitted so far that he wanted to "buy a car" from the wife of the terrorist (the woman who is now pursued by EU authorities and believed to successfully make her way to Syria)

Edited January 15, 2015 by Darkpriest

[Volourn]

Heldegard, great links, and while I don't agree with the firing  however you made one HUGE mistake. Nobody died there. How you equate firings with mass murder and try to equate them on a moral level? That's friggin' insane.

[Sarex]

Claiming that everyone that doesn't buy into conspiracy theories is brainwashed really undercuts your otherwise interesting assertions and opinions.

 

He didn't say that, he said that people who call them conspiracy theories/conspiracy theorist and dismisss them out of hand are.

[obyknven]

United in Outrage

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/12/opinion/after-the-charlie-hebdo-attack-the-french-join-hands.html?ref=opinion&_r=2

 

 

The solidarity march of more than one million people in Paris on Sunday was rich in placards and symbols but appropriately devoid of speeches. Like many in the vast throng that filled the broad boulevards between Place de la République and Place de la Nation, the world leaders who marched a portion of the route with President François Hollande locked arms and embraced. But there was no podium, no pulpit, only ubiquitous signs reading “Je suis Charlie.” For the moment, that said it all.

 

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-march-tv-wide-shots-reveal-a-different-perspective-on-world-leaders-at-largest-demonstration-in-frances-history-9972895.html

 

[Orogun01]

 

Claiming that everyone that doesn't buy into conspiracy theories is brainwashed really undercuts your otherwise interesting assertions and opinions.

 

He didn't say that, he said that people who call them conspiracy theories/conspiracy theorist and dismisss them out of hand are.

 

That's because of a conspiracy to dismiss conspiracy theorists.

[Sarex]

That's because of a conspiracy to dismiss conspiracy theorists.

 

Well played sir. Though we in the CT business like to call it brainwashing, it has a better ring to it.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Sarex

[Hassat Hunter]

Thruth be told, the "RUSSIA is behind EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE" was already old in Ukraine... :/

[Marcvs Caesar]

 

Hah.

 

Cowards. I lived in the UK for a while and the stories I heard about "offending" is ridiculous, it's interesting though that most of them involved Muslims. The west often defends "democracy" and "freedom of speech" but they're all hypocrites.

[JadedWolf]

Thruth be told, the "RUSSIA is behind EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE" was already old in Ukraine... :/

 

Indeed, everyone knows the evil West is behind everything.

 

And with everyone, I mean everyone who watches Russia Today.

[teknoman2]

i saw a video today, analyzing all camera footage from the attack. it made some pretty good arguments about the whole thing being staged.

first it showed in slow motion the execution of the injured cop, and how there wasn't a single drop of blood to be seen anywhere... an AK round at close range should have made quite a mess hitting someone on the head. also if viewed in slow motion, the point of impact or the bullet with the ground can be seen clearly, and it is not aligned with the position of the head

another fact that can be missed due to the camera movements and because the clips are short, is that all streets around the building are empty. no people and no cars (except those parked), in the middle of Paris at rush hour. and let's say people have run away and are hiding... the cars cant have run away too. in the panic, there should have been a huge trafic jam

several of the journalist escaping from the roof were wearing bulletproof vests

some people running down the street shouting "Allah Akbar", that news broadcasts identified as the 3 terrorists, if viewed attentivelly at the few frames they can be seen from behind, on their backs there is written "police"

also when the terrorists board their car to escape, the car has silver painted mirrors. when it is found later abandoned, it has black mirrors

the video however gets imediatelly taken down from youtube whenever someone posts it and most other video hosting sites tend to remove it as soon as they can identify it

[Gfted1]

^It was probably perpetrated by the same shadow organization that took down the twin towers.

[Hurlshort]

Staging this would be a massive undertaking that would require a fairly sizeable amount of conspirators.  This is the biggest problem with conspiracy theories, the more people involved, the less likely it is because most people are terrible at keeping secrets.