At least 10 dead in Paris shooting: French media

[Exocet]

Damn.

(Reuters) - At least 10 people were killed in a shooting at the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical newspaper firebombed in the past after publishing cartoons joking about Muslim leaders, French TV channel iTELE reported.

France Info radio also said police had confirmed a toll of 10 dead and five injured. Reuters had no immediate official confirmation of deaths.

The news channel quoted a witness as saying he saw the incident from a building nearby in the heart of the French capital.

"About a half an hour ago two black-hooded men entered the building with Kalashnikovs (guns)," Benoit Bringer told the station. "A few minutes later we heard lots of shots," he said, adding that the men were then seen fleeing the building.

A police official, Luc Poignant, said he was aware of one journalist dead and several injured, including three police officers.

"It's carnage," Poignant told BFM TV.

A firebomb attack gutted the headquarters of Charlie Hebdo in November 2011 after it put an image of the Prophet Mohammad on its cover.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/07/us-france-shooting-idUSKBN0KG0Y120150107

[Vlerchan]

I've seen calls for the general French media to re-print their latest cover as a sign of solidarity.

I like it.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6vY6mDIAAEI5k1.jpg:large

Even if I don't quite get it.

[Exocet]

http://s3.lprs1.fr/images/2015/01/07/4426041_fusillade_545x460_autocrop.jpg

[phuckphace]

Le Camp des Saints: Une histoire vraie

welp.

[Living For Love]

It's quite a shame indeed, but this is not about "freedom of speech" or "humour" like people are claiming, it's about respect. We all know Muslims hate this entire stuff about caricatures of their prophet, and an attack has happened once, yet people still don't get the message. Everything has limits, including sarcasm and humour (even though I can't quite see what's so funny about those pictures). This could have all been avoided.

[Omniscient]

The amount of skill that the attackers used worries me and makes me hope that the police can catch them ASAP.
But what worries me more is that this is a sort of confirmation to islamaphobes that Muslims are all like this. I hope that the majority of people can keep their common sense and don't act against Muslims for this act of terror.
My thoughts are with the families of those killed today, it is beyond sad.

[Vlerchan]

We all know Muslims hate this entire stuff about caricatures of their prophet.
I posted what was probably the offensive caricature that sparked this. It was of Al-Baghdadi - leader of ISIL - and not Mohammed.

---

However I still don't agree that people should just censor themselves out of some special consideration for Muslims.

If there's any speech that's of the utmost important to uphold it's critical speech and outlets like Charlie Hebdo act to produce just that.

[phuckphace]

It's quite a shame indeed, but this is not about "freedom of speech" or "humour" like people are claiming, it's about respect. We all know Muslims hate this entire stuff about caricatures of their prophet, and an attack has happened once, yet people still don't get the message. Everything has limits, including sarcasm and humour (even though I can't quite see what's so funny about those pictures). This could have all been avoided.

I don't owe any respect to people who behave like savages over minor slights.

[Living For Love]

I posted what was probably the offensive caricature that sparked this. It was of Al-Baghdadi - leader of ISIL - and not Mohammed.

I was talking about pictures depicting their prophet, though.

I don't owe any respect to people who behave like savages over minor slights.

Minor slights, is that what you call this? They also don't owe any respect to people they offend who offended them first. I don't have the obligation to be tolerant towards someone who is intolerant towards me. The thing is, who's the intolerant entity here? Guess it's just a matter of perspective, then.

[Vlerchan]

I was talking about pictures depicting their prophet, though.
Right. I was talking about the attack.

I don't have the obligation to be tolerant towards someone who is intolerant towards me.
Sure - Go attack the cult of Atheism or something in your own magazine. But in the liberal-democratic tradition you do have an obligation to respect people's rights.

Charlie Hebdo were doing nothing wrong based on the modern Western conventions.

[Living For Love]

But in the liberal-democratic tradition you do have an obligation to respect people's rights.
Something that magazine's editors didn't do.

Charlie Hebdo were doing nothing wrong based on the modern Western conventions.
"Modern Western conventions", if you could explain what those conventions exactly are, it would be appreciated.

[phuckphace]

Minor slights, is that what you call this? They also don't owe any respect to people they offend who offended them first. I don't have the obligation to be tolerant towards someone who is intolerant towards me.The thing is, who's the intolerant entity here? Guess it's just a matter of perspective, then.

you're right, they don't owe us any respect either. my civilized European mind just can't make sense of how one goes from "I'm offended" to "I'm going to go on a shooting rampage because of it."

how many European politicians did this same outlet also lampoon? I'm sure quite a few, and I'm sure that at least some of them were offended by what they read about themselves, but here in the civilized world we brush it off and accept it as par for the course. if they aren't willing to play by our rules then perhaps they need to take the camel express back to Riyadh.

[Vlerchan]

Something that magazine's editors didn't do.
Please do tell me what right the gunman had violated.

I would appreciate a link to the relevant French legislation in the process.

"Modern Western conventions", if you could explain what those conventions exactly are, it would be appreciated.
Freedom of speech, is the important one here.

France also does have some exceptions to this - which I disagree with. Just none of them that were violated by Charlie Hebdo.

[Living For Love]

you're right, they don't owe us any respect either. my civilized European mind just can't make sense of how one goes from "I'm offended" to "I'm going to go on a shooting rampage because of it."
I don't support the attacks, I'm just saying they could have been avoided if the people responsible for those publications had a minimum sense of respect for the Muslim religion.

how many European politicians did this same outlet also lampoon? I'm sure quite a few, and I'm sure that at least some of them were offended by what they read about themselves, but here in the civilized world we brush it off and accept it as par for the course.
Politicians nowadays are all treated like they were some kind of dangerous species who deserve to be exterminated no matter what, nobody cares about them. It's different when you compare them to a sacred prophet for Muslims.

if they aren't willing to play by our rules then perhaps they need to take the camel express back to Riyadh.
That's something I've been advocating for a loooooong time, but I don't want to get off topic.

Please do tell me what right the gunman had violated.

I would appreciate a link to the relevant French legislation in the process.
France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs. It shall be organised on a decentralised basis. Article 1, Constitution of France.

Freedom of speech, is the important one here.
This is not about freedom of speech.

[Vlerchan]

France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs. It shall be organised on a decentralised basis. Article 1, Constitution of France.
This passage deals with the conduct of the French government.

This is not about freedom of speech.
Yes it is. You're just approaching from a different angle.

[Living For Love]

This passage deals with the conduct of the French government.
I don't mean to offend any French user here, but it doesn't seem the French government acted accordingly by allowing that magazine to publish those caricatures, then.

Yes it is. You're just approaching from a different angle.
No. When my freedom and my rights clashes with yours, then I'm not acting under my freedom any more, I'm just being disrespectful.

[Vlerchan]

I don't mean to offend any French user here, but it doesn't seem the French government acted accordingly by allowing that magazine to publish those caricatures, then.
It acted in accordance with the passage you quoted.

That's because it was a procedural clause. Which means it just applies to the French government's conduct. Nobody elses.

No. When my freedom and my rights clashes with yours, then I'm not acting under my freedom any more, I'm just being disrespectful.
You are yet to prove to any degree of satisfaction that the shooter's rights were violated.

[fairmaiden]

This is so sad. RIP to all of those who died.

[Living For Love]

You are yet to prove to any degree of satisfaction that the shooter's rights were violated.
Supposing he was a Muslim, the right he has to demand respect towards his religion and his beliefs was violated.

[Vlerchan]

Supposing he was a Muslim, the right he has to demand respect towards his religion and his beliefs was violated.
Please provide the relevant legislation. Thank you.

Note: What you provided earlier, was not relevant, as mentioned in my previous post.

[Exocet]

Supposing he was a Muslim

The terrorists shooted "allah akbar","we avenged prophet muhammed","we killed charlie hebdo".

[phuckphace]

I'm sure Mohammad's semi-petrified skeleton feels quite certain that he was avenged satisfactorily. rattle once for yes, twice for no.

[Plane And Simple]

Supposing he was a Muslim, the right he has to demand respect towards his religion and his beliefs was violated.

"Your freedom ends where mine starts" or "Your rights end where mines start". no matter what the menace was, religion gives no right to kill anybody.

[Hideous]

This is horrible, rest in peace to the lives lost in this incident.

[Living For Love]

Please provide the relevant legislation. Thank you.

Note: What you provided earlier, was not relevant, as mentioned in my previous post.
It's the most basic sense of human rights, you don't really need legislation. Some European states, such as France, have hate speech laws (http://www.legal-project.org/issues/european-hate-speech-laws) that "protect individuals and groups from being defamed or insulted because they belong or do not belong, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or because they have a handicap."

"Your freedom ends where mine starts" or "Your rights end where mines start". no matter what the menace was, religion gives no right to kill anybody.
I didn't say religion gives the right to kill anybody.

[Vlerchan]

It's the most basic sense of human rights, you don't really need legislation.
Right. But that's not relevant.

Some European states, such as France, have hate speech laws that "protect individuals and groups from being defamed or insulted because they belong or do not belong, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or because they have a handicap."
Charlie Hebdo aren't defaming or insulting Muslims.

Muslims might find their caricature of Mohammed offensive (or insulting) but Hate Speech laws means to use the term as synonymous with an attack. That means Charlie Hebdo would need to be setting out with the clear intention of insulting all Muslims, and it would need be direct at the same time. Looking at their various caricatures I'd deem Charlie Hebdo as setting out to shock as opposed to insult - something inherent to the nature of satire.

This of course all presumes that we see Mohammed as a representation of all Muslims. I don't consider this so. Whilst Muslim's revere Mohammed criticisms of Mohammed or the Islamic doctrine still are not an attack on all Muslims as a whole - regardless of whether Muslims are offended as a whole or not.

---

It's notable that Muslim's consider it blasphemous to depict Mohammed at all. This means they're quite easily offended about the subject in general.

This is why I don't take "well, let's just set the laws at the stage where Muslims get offended" as a serious proposition.

[Living For Love]

Charlie Hebdo aren't defaming or insulting Muslims.
They are, they are probably just not realising it.

Muslims might find their caricature of Mohammed offensive (or insulting) but Hate Speech laws means to use the term as synonymous with an attack. That means Charlie Hebdo would need to be setting out with the clear intention of insulting all Muslims, and it would need be direct at the same time. Looking at their various caricatures I'd deem Charlie Hebdo as setting out to shock as opposed to insult - something inherent to the nature of satire.
This is discussable. Nothing convinces me that they were publishing those caricatures only with the purpose of humour. And the boundaries between shock and insult are practically only in personal level; basically, it's shock if you're not the target of those caricatures, but it is insult if it is. Just like if you saw someone giving the finger or swearing to someone publicly, I'd say.

This of course all presumes that we see Mohammed as a representation of all Muslims. I don't consider this so. Whilst Muslim's revere Mohammed criticisms of Mohammed or the Islamic doctrine still are not an attack on all Muslims as a whole - regardless of whether Muslims are offended as a whole or not.
What you personally consider is not relevant.

By the way, I'm not sure if you saw the linked I placed on my previous post. I accidentally messed up the URL, but I've fixed it now. Here it is: http://www.legal-project.org/issues/european-hate-speech-laws

[Vlerchan]

They are, they are probably just not realising it.
I would image them getting taken to court in 2006 over this issue sort of hammered it home.

Nothing convinces me that they were publishing those caricatures only with the purpose of humour.
Here's Charlie Hebdo mocking racism.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Mrap_discriminations.png/220px-Mrap_discriminations.png
"I would hire you, but I don't like the color of...uh...your tie!"

---

It's notable that Charlie Hebdo has a history of attacking Clericalism-in-general. It's not just the Muslim religion it targets.

And the boundaries between shock and insult are practically only in personal level; basically, it's shock if you're not the target of those caricatures, but it is insult if it is.
From the point of view of the reader.

I'm talking from the point of view of the author. That's the important bit when we are determining whether something is hate-speech or not.

What you personally consider is not relevant.
It's the line between anti-Blasphemy laws and anti-Hate Speech laws.

[SethfromMI]

crazy. sad day for the family and friends

[thatcountrykid]

It's quite a shame indeed, but this is not about "freedom of speech" or "humour" like people are claiming, it's about respect. We all know Muslims hate this entire stuff about caricatures of their prophet, and an attack has happened once, yet people still don't get the message. Everything has limits, including sarcasm and humour (even though I can't quite see what's so funny about those pictures). This could have all been avoided.

You do realize it was a satire newspaper. That's what they do.

Freedom of speech is the issue. What about their basic human right to publish what they want without being killed?

And I hope when the police find those assholes they kill em.

[Exocet]

The total of killed is 12.
10 workers of Charlie Hebdo and 2 police officers. 4 persons are badly injured.
RIP.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6viYn6IYAAul73.jpg

More than 3.000 men of the police,GIGN,RAID,GIPN,are mobilized to the manhunt.
The patrol of the police,army,gendarmerie have been reinforced near Paris.

[dirtyboxer55]

religion of peace

also wtf @ the guy saying this couldve been avoided

[Vlerchan]

religion of peace
Because 3 individuals are the representatives of an entire religion.

[Exocet]

Yes,not all muslims are terrorists....
But all terrorists are muslim. :metal:

[Living For Love]

Here's Charlie Hebdo mocking racism.

image (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Mrap_discriminations.png/220px-Mrap_discriminations.png)
"I would hire you, but I don't like the color of...uh...your tie!"

---

It's notable that Charlie Hebdo has a history of attacking Clericalism-in-general. It's not just the Muslim religion it targets.
Other religions aren't as "aggressive" as Muslim religion, but that's just due (among other factors) to the association between Muslims, Islam and terrorism.

From the point of view of the reader.

I'm talking from the point of view of the author. That's the important bit when we are determining whether something is hate-speech or not.
How do you suggest determining the author's point of view, then?

What about their basic human right to publish what they want without being killed?
What about their basic human right of having their beliefs respected?

[Vlerchan]

Other religions aren't as "aggressive" as Muslim religion, but that's just due (among other factors) to the association between Muslims, Islam and terrorism.
I don't quite get how this relevant. Would you mind explaining? Thank you.

How do you suggest determining the author's point of view, then?
Context.

Charlie Hebdo is a satirical magazine which has been undiscriminatory in its attacking of everything, alongside it's history of anti-racism.

What about their basic human right of having their beliefs respected?
I think you are the only person here who believes this right should exist.

I don't think people have a right not to be offended anyway.

[thatcountrykid]

Other religions aren't as "aggressive" as Muslim religion, but that's just due (among other factors) to the association between Muslims, Islam and terrorism.


How do you suggest determining the author's point of view, then?


What about their basic human right of having their beliefs respected?

The people who did this aren't muslims. They're extremists and evil.

Are you saying if someone disrespects what I Beleive I can attack them? Tolerance is something every needs to learn. Even if someone hates returning you are be tolerant, no matter how hard it is that it's their right.

[Living For Love]

I don't quite get how this relevant. Would you mind explaining? Thank you.
I though you had stated previously that, since other religions don't commit terrorist acts like this (in a general way), Muslims shouldn't do it as well. I think I misunderstood what you said, sorry about that, let's just ignore this point.

Context.

Charlie Hebdo is a satirical magazine which has been undiscriminatory in its attacking of everything, alongside it's history of anti-racism.
You're talking about the magazine itself, not about the authors/caricaturists.

I think you are the only person here who believes this right should exist.

I don't think people have a right not to be offended anyway.
What you think is, once again, not relevant. But since you mention it, do you think I should have the right to insult whoever I want, and the other person shouldn't have the right to feel offended?

Are you saying if someone disrespects what I Beleive I can attack them?
I'm saying you shouldn't disrespect them in the first place.

[thatcountrykid]

I though you had stated previously that, since other religions don't commit terrorist acts like this (in a general way), Muslims shouldn't do it as well. I think I misunderstood what you said, sorry about that, let's just ignore this point.


You're talking about the magazine itself, not about the authors/caricaturists.


What you think is, once again, not relevant. But since you mention it, do you think I should have the right to insult whoever I want, and the other person shouldn't have the right to feel offended?


I'm saying you shouldn't disrespect them in the first place.

Well that's the glorious thing of free speech. They should be civil instead of killing innocents. Have you seen the video where they executed the police officer? Huh? They certainly don't deserve respect.

[Living For Love]

Well that's the glorious thing of free speech. They should be civil instead of killing innocents. Have you seen the video where they executed the police officer? Huh? They certainly don't deserve respect.
I have, but what kind of civil reaction were you expecting towards the magazine's attitude? They couldn't just walk into their HQ and say: "Hey, we're offended by those caricatures, would you mind stopping publishing them?"

[thatcountrykid]

I have, but what kind of civil reaction were you expecting towards the magazine's attitude? They couldn't just walk into their HQ and say: "Hey, we're offended by those caricatures, would you mind stopping publishing them?"

Yes that's exactly what you expect! Not to murder a bunch of fucking innocent civilians!

[Vlerchan]

You're talking about the magazine itself, not about the authors/caricaturists.
Yes. Of course I'm referring to the magazine since it's the the legal producer of the speech and is so responsible for it as far as Hate Speech laws go.

If you want to know about the staff:

"This is a satirical paper produced by left-wingers and when I say left-wingers that goes all the way from anarchists to communists to Greens, Socialists and the rest. Above all it is a secular and atheist newspaper," Charbonnier told Reuters at the time.

http://www.voanews.com/content/charlie-hebdo-renowned-for-publishing-prophet-caricatures/2588803.html

It's very unlikely that these people are racists.

What you think is, once again, not relevant.
Lol.

OK. I'm confident enough to let other people figure the relevance of my responses and then judge this themselves.

But since you mention it, do you think I should have the right to insult whoever I want, and the other person shouldn't have the right to feel offended?
I think you should have the right to insult whoever you want.

It's fine if they are offended. I never said they can't be.

[Living For Love]

Yes that's exactly what you expect! Not to murder a bunch of fucking innocent civilians!
Do you realise how they would simply be laughed at if that even happened? It's like sending an atheist to hell...

I think you should have the right to insult whoever you want.

It's fine if they are offended. I never said they can't be.
Then I guess I'm just wasting your time here.

[Vlerchan]

Then I guess I'm just wasting your time here.
I'm happy to discuss the law as it current stands, as long as it's on the basis that we understand I disagree with it.

[orchadork]

I'M GONNA TAKE WHOEVER DID THIS AND TURN THEM INTO INK AND USE IT IN THE NEXT ISSUE OF THE SCHOOL NEWSPAPER!

HEY, SHOOTER! YEAH GUESS WHAT MESSED WITH THE WRONG DAMN MEDIA PUBLICATION!

He killed 12 people and yet france has no death penalty, the most legal thing is life imprisonment.

[thatcountrykid]

Do you realise how they would simply be laughed at if that even happened? It's like sending an atheist to hell...


Then I guess I'm just wasting your time here.

So a fucking terrorist attack is the answer? These people didn't do it simply because they got butthurt over a picture. They killed these people, not even involved with the paper, because they worship some guy long fucking dead and these people didn't. That's why. And you support them. Did these people deserve to die?

[Vlerchan]

He killed 12 people and yet france has no death penalty, the most legal thing is life imprisonment.
It's nice over here in civilisation. You should try it some time.

:)

[Exocet]

The guillotine is a better solution. (but....)

[Hideous]

https://33.media.tumblr.com/6efe1a4525106f74fb6545517269ce43/tumblr_nhtgo7GkId1r83d7lo1_1280.png

What’s really offensive about the Charlie Hebdo attack.

[Exocet]

breaking : The RAID is right now intervening in Reims.
The terrorists could be there.

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

Death and destruction, terrorism and fear. It so fucking WONDERFUL to know that the world is such a chaotic place when you're trying to curl up in a ball for warmth in sub-freezing temperatures.

[Living For Love]

So a fucking terrorist attack is the answer? These people didn't do it simply because they got butthurt over a picture. They killed these people, not even involved with the paper, because they worship some guy long fucking dead and these people didn't. That's why. And you support them. Did these people deserve to die?
I don't support the terrorists, and I don't support the cartoons either. I'm just trying to say freedom of expression, like everything else, has its limits. It can be consider humour, it can be considered a joke, it can be considered a blatant provocation after the bomb attack in 2011, it can be considered many things, but I'm pretty sure if people just stopped criticising Muslims and started having a bit of respect, maybe this kind of stuff wouldn't happen so often. It's not like worshipping Mohammed was hurting anyone.

[thatcountrykid]

I don't support the terrorists, and I don't support the cartoons either. I'm just trying to say freedom of expression, like everything else, has its limits. It can be consider humour, it can be considered a joke, it can be considered a blatant provocation after the bomb attack in 2011, it can be considered many things, but I'm pretty sure if people just stopped criticising Muslims and started having a bit of respect, maybe this kind of stuff wouldn't happen so often. It's not like worshipping Mohammed was hurting anyone.

No body said worshipping Mohammed was bad but if you read my earlier posts you would see how I said that these people aren't muslims. These are extremists?

What are we supposed to do? Bend over and cry like babies? Let them win?

[Thunderstorm]

Why people arguing? People get brutally massacred and all people care about is their opinions!
Prayers for the families of the victims, the French citizens and the World.
If anyone wanted to know, the shooters have been identified and they are of French descent.

[orchadork]

What pisses me off is that people get angry at the muslim people when they did NOTHING wrong. Most Muslims are nice, I know tons, and all are very nice, it's just a few who are extremists and go all blowey upy on the world.

Why people arguing? People get brutally massacred and all people care about is their opinions!
Prayers for the families of the victims, the French citizens and the World.
If anyone wanted to know, the shooters have been identified and they are of French descent.

Actually they're just suspects

[Dennis98]

Shame ... For all that innocent people . I hope that God's justice will punish that terrorists and non humans ... They killed people that probably had someone who was waiting them home , wives , kids , even grand children ... Solidarity for French journalists , stop Islam's fundamentalists !!! Every normal Muslim should be shame on this kind of "brothers" ... Anyway , on other side , they shouldn't act like that , I mean , Prophet caricatures naked and others ... It is not the way we should make fun ... We are losing our human sense for moral . All this could finish on quiet way , they could sue them for violating rights of one religious group . But , I would not be surprised if CIA or American government are involved in all this , like the 11th September and others ... We can make thousands of conspiracy theories based on this event , but nothing can brought them alive , which is sad truth ...

[phuckphace]

I have, but what kind of civil reaction were you expecting towards the magazine's attitude? They couldn't just walk into their HQ and say: "Hey, we're offended by those caricatures, would you mind stopping publishing them?"

that's pretty much what everyone else who takes offense does, more or less loudly. I don't even think they needed to be civil about it - by all means be as mad and hateful as you want, just don't pick up a gun and start shooting the people who offended you. that's where I'm drawing the line - we expect satire to irk some people but we don't attack and murder those who offend us.

[David_L2]

So sad...RIP to all the victims. Hope there can be unity in France

[Jason The Great]

I'm a Muslim and these things doesn't offend me but it's not cool to humiliate religion leaders!!!!

[Living For Love]

What are we supposed to do? Bend over and cry like babies? Let them win?
Don't say "Let them win", this is not a war or a tournament. And you act like Muslims offended us first, in this particular case. And you mean what are we supposed to do after the attacks or what we should have done to prevent them of happening?

that's pretty much what everyone else who takes offense does, more or less loudly. I don't even think they needed to be civil about it - by all means be as mad and hateful as you want, just don't pick up a gun and start shooting the people who offended you. that's where I'm drawing the line - we expect satire to irk some people but we don't attack and murder those who offend us.
You easily draw the line when distinguishing between an acceptable reaction and a barbaric one, but what about drawing a line distinguishing what's humour and what's offensive? It's so easy to judge when we don't understand the other person's side, since Mohammed doesn't mean anything to us, isn't it?

[amgb]

I don't think this is about freedom of speech. No matter what kind of people were involved or why they did what they did, the overall facts are that three Frenchmen shot 12 civilians dead. My heart goes out to the families of those 12 deceased and I pray for the safety of the French civilians and I just hope that these murderers will be caught and locked up so they can never escape and harm or kill anyone ever again. Humanity really, really needs to stop all the killing and destroy all weapons so we can live in peace for at least one day.

[Exocet]

The suspects.

http://s3.lprs1.fr/images/2015/01/08/4428181_kouachi_545x460_autocrop.jpg

Chérif and Said Kouachi.

[Pilyk]

I was etremely shocked when I hear about that. Never thought this kind of thing may happen in my country. It's not just men that die, it was those who fighted against obscurancism, racism etc.. It's ominous for free speech. More than before, we have to protect this kind of values now. It's an attack against all what is linked with liberty and democraty. Not such thing occured in France since the Algerian War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
Real day of mourning and sorrow here. Messages everywhere, people are gathering, puting small candlelights.
Tribute to the victims and condolences to the families.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSpzY2h-UoWVpsXudDoBggC6m49jQjIp-eB6Y09U-DeOYZLhzy73pfOjSRR
The Pope resigns - At last, we're free !
http://s-www.ledauphine.com/images/118EAB05-C90E-434E-824A-6BED4B999A67/LDL_V0_12/l-un-des-derniers-dessin-de-charb.jpg
Still no terror attack in France - Wait ! We have until the end of january to present our wishes !

-Je suis Charlie-

[Exocet]

the two terrorists were spotted near Villers-Cotterêts

http://cdn3.spiegel.de/images/image-796756-galleryV9-pliw.jpg

[Left Now]

First of all,I feel really sorry for those who were killed in that shooting and their family members who were surely waiting for their return;Rest In Peace.

Now would someone please tell me what's happening in this thread?All these talks about "Hate Speech","Caricatures" and ...

[dirtyboxer55]

I don't think this is about freedom of speech. No matter what kind of people were involved or why they did what they did, the overall facts are that three Frenchmen shot 12 civilians dead. My heart goes out to the families of those 12 deceased and I pray for the safety of the French civilians and I just hope that these murderers will be caught and locked up so they can never escape and harm or kill anyone ever again.

i agree

Humanity really, really needs to stop all the killing and destroy all weapons so we can live in peace for at least one day.

this part makes no sense. did you even think while writing this? literally anything can be used as a weapon, i could beat someone to death with a tree branch. but you were probably just talking about guns and bombs and knives and such. even then you can still kill with your bare hands, and if those things were all destroyed somehow it wouldnt be hard at all for people to replicate them. the fact is that now that these things exist, we need to accept them and be aware of them because no matter what anyone does they arent going anywhere

[orchadork]

First of all,I feel really sorry for those who were killed in that shooting and their family members who were surely waiting for their return;Rest In Peace.

Now would someone please tell me what's happening in this thread?All these talks about "Hate Speech","Caricatures" and ...

A newspaper was attacked in Paris France by Islamic Extremists. They attacked because (I think) there was a caricature of Muhammad, and they got angry about it (understandable), so now it's just a large debate on where freedom of speech starts and where it ends

[Left Now]

A newspaper was attacked in Paris France by Islamic Extremists. They attacked because (I think) there was a caricature of Muhammad, and they got angry about it (understandable), so now it's just a large debate on where freedom of speech starts and where it ends

Well now I got what is happening here.Actually that caricature wasn't depicting Muhammad,but Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi the head of Daesh or as you guys have heard,ISIL.

Also those who Charlie Hebdo's paper (Did it write it correctly?) was attacked by were two Al-Qaeda linked individuals who recently had pledged their allegiance to al-Baghdadi,so they were unofficially ISIL members.So it does not have anything to do with Islam,does it?Since ISIL is not an Islamic Group and as I have heard major Muslim communications throughout France and Europe and World have already condemned these attacks too.By the way I am a Shia Muslim myself.


Now about Freedom of Speech:Can't we just have it without insulting and disrespecting others?I mean without "Hate Speech"?


(By the way thanks for explaining the conditions to me.)

[thatcountrykid]

Well now I got what is happening here.Actually that caricature wasn't depicting Muhammad,but Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi the head of Daesh or as you guys have heard,ISIL.

Also those who Charlie Hebdo's paper (Did it write it correctly?) was attacked by were two Al-Qaeda linked individuals who recently had pledged their allegiance to al-Baghdadi,so they were unofficially ISIL members.So it does not have anything to do with Islam,does it?Since ISIL is not an Islamic Group and as I have heard major Muslim communications throughout France and Europe and World have already condemned these attacks too.By the way I am a Shia Muslim myself.


Now about Freedom of Speech:Can't we just have it without insulting and disrespecting others?I mean without "Hate Speech"?


(By the way thanks for explaining the conditions to me.)

What they were supposedly angry at wasn't even hate speech. It was a satire comic and really simply a joke. Baghdadi really isn't a saint to be respecte anyway so really it's a joke.

[Left Now]

What they were supposedly angry at wasn't even hate speech. It was a satire comic and really simply a joke. Baghdadi really isn't a saint to be respecte anyway so really it's a joke.

That's right,he is just a man with a real inhell ideology which he thinks is Islamic while he even doesn't follow the most basic principals of Islam.However we were not talking about Baghdadi anymore...I meant hate speech in general.

[RemxEatU]

Hi, I'm French and I thank you for this support. For us French, it's like the bombing of the twin towers.

[Left Now]

Hi, I'm French and I thank you for this support. For us French, it's like the bombing of the twin towers.

And for us it is exactly like many terrorist attacks which have been done by MEK.Such a shame that France doesn't consider them as a terrorist group anymore,while they are and they have always been.But don't take me wrong,France is a really good country.

Nice to meet you my friend!France is a very great country,I like its culture!

[Stronk Serb]

The magazine was satirical, making fun of everything as I heard. I heard that some French media are like 'we had it coming'. This kebab remover says it's time to remove evil kebab which makes good kebab look evil too. I know a Muslim guy who's eating pork and drinking as far as I know and he's cool. I think all sorts of extremism are bad and should be weeded out, hell, islamists were more tolerant in the Middle Ages than now which I find sad.

[amgb]

this part makes no sense. did you even think while writing this? literally anything can be used as a weapon, i could beat someone to death with a tree branch. but you were probably just talking about guns and bombs and knives and such. even then you can still kill with your bare hands, and if those things were all destroyed somehow it wouldnt be hard at all for people to replicate them. the fact is that now that these things exist, we need to accept them and be aware of them because no matter what anyone does they arent going anywhere

No I don't think when I say things because I literally just say whatevers on my mind. I did mean weapons like guns and bombs and knives etc. Its definitely true that anything can be a weapon. All I want is for people to stop all their ill intentions and to get along in peace, which I know won't be possible for a long, long time. One day we might just get there, and I'm just hoping for that one day. But for now we do need to accept things for what they are.

[darkwoon]

Also those who Charlie Hebdo's paper (Did it write it correctly?) was attacked by were two Al-Qaeda linked individuals who recently had pledged their allegiance to al-Baghdadi,so they were unofficially ISIL members.So it does not have anything to do with Islam,does it?
That's stretching it a bit far. It has a lot to do with islamic extremists. And the killers clearly shouted "we avenged the Prophet!" and "Allah akbar". They obviously strongly believed that what they were doing was somehow related to defending Islam and its values. So yes, of course it obviously has a direct relationship with religious islamic fundamentalism.

Since ISIL is not an Islamic Group
Unless I'm mistaken, they openly want to establish a theocratic state based on whatever twisted interpretation of Islam they have in mind. So yes, it is an extremist islamist group.

and as I have heard major Muslim communications throughout France and Europe and World have already condemned these attacks too. By the way I am a Shia Muslim myself.
Yes, and that's very important, because most muslims are not extremists, and are strongly opposed to such things. My fear now is that nationalists, racist politicians use those events to push their islamophobic agenda.

Now about Freedom of Speech:Can't we just have it without insulting and disrespecting others?I mean without "Hate Speech"?
There was no "hate speech" in Charlie Hebdo against muslims. Never.

[RemxEatU]

Since this morning the terrorists have a hostage. There are negotiation with the French strengths.

[World Eater]

They want to die as martyrs it seems. Hopefully that hostage can be saved first though.

[Body odah Man]

Poor victims :(
So much hate

[Lovelife090994]

There are over 1.2 billion Muslims in the world and yet no one wants to connect the slightest idea that just some of them are terrorists. Even If only 5% were terrorists (not counting the other 5-15+ minority who'd support them) that is around 6,000,000 people worldwide. Some estimates are too large to even comprehend because the numbers seem too scary to acknowledge. It's funny how despite all of this people still blame the Jews and Americans for all of this but I doubt they want it too. Rule number one to sabotage, you do not put yourself in the crossfire, so I doubt America and the Jews have anything to do with it. Some Americans and Jews are extremist and joining terrorists but they are no longer for the people and for terror. The day people own up to the atrocities and quit tip-toing around the issue, the better. This won't stop until we stop and question those which the world refuses to question. People are dying and getting kidnapped by Islamic terrorists everyday yet the world twiddles its thumbs. It'll take a world war to get rid of this threat. Not even animals are so low.

[Exocet]

Breaking news : The assault has been launched,and the terrorists killed.

[Left Now]

That's stretching it a bit far. It has a lot to do with islamic extremists. And the killers clearly shouted "we avenged the Prophet!" and "Allah akbar". They obviously strongly believed that what they were doing was somehow related to defending Islam and its values. So yes, of course it obviously has a direct relationship with religious islamic fundamentalism

Yes that's right that those two armed men have shouted something related to Islam,and it is obvious that it was related to Islamic Extremism,but it's not related to Islamic Fundamentalism;that's what I'm saying.Since Islamic Fundamentalism at its worst,encourages Muslims to complain about insulting their religious holy things,not trying to terrorize a society for it.


Unless I'm mistaken, they openly want to establish a theocratic state based on whatever twisted interpretation of Islam they have in mind. So yes, it is an extremist islamist group.

They don't want to establish a theocratic state,they want to establish a Caliphate.

A Caliphate is not a Theocratic state,an Islamic Theocracy is a type of government established and supported by most natives of the area which it exists in,which religious jurists and modern day lawyers are ultimate heads of its Juridical System (mostly chosen by majority of an area's population).

A Caliphate is something like monarchy and the ultimate head of government is Caliph and jurists and lawyers don't have too power in comparison with him.

A Caliphate is only a new type of Absolute Monarchy,while a theocracy can be either a Republic,or a Conditional Monarchy,not an Absolute Monarchy.

You know actually it is something like this:

Caliphate laws ==========Absolute things which Caliph and the jurists whom he has appointed interpret of Quran,they don't have any constitution.

Theocracy law ========== Quran's teachings and Prophet-line traditions are basics of constitution,and other laws are made by jurists and lawyers and other representatives of people according to the cultural and day conditions which that certain Islamic nation has.

No principal of Islam approves a Caliphate,but Theocracy is approved only if the most majority of people of a country accept it too.

Totally,this so called "Islamic State of Iraq and Levant" or as they call it,"Islamic Caliphate" has none of the conditions above:Neither approval of people nor approval of Islamic principals;so even if they call themselves Islamic,they are not...That is what I was talking about.

Also,a Theocracy is a real nation with its own people,while ISIL is not a real nation at all;since most of its members and people are not natives of the lands which are under their control right now.They just have imported them from other countries including Saudi Arabia,Gulf Emirates and Kingdoms,Caucasus,Libya,Jordan,Turkey,Egypt and from western countries.

Yes, and that's very important, because most muslims are not extremists, and are strongly opposed to such things. My fear now is that nationalists, racist politicians use those events to push their islamophobic agenda.

Unfortunately,that's right.However,France itself is some kinda responsible for this mess too.All these things began with FSA allying itself with other opposition groups of Syria which most of them were radical extremist al-Qaeda linked groups like Al-Nusra Front and ISIL.If France and some other western nations and Turkey would cut their aids and supports for Syrian Opposition groups when this happened,ISIS could never gain this much power.

Fortunately right now they are losing their power in here,by Iraq solving most of its internal and political problems and its army push ISIS back with the help of Peshmarga and others,but the greater problem is its European resident members' return to their countries and causing such troubles like this.

Plus : You know there is something which I really don't understand about policies of European and Western Countries,would you please help me with it?


There was no "hate speech" in Charlie Hebdo against muslims. Never.

I wasn't talking about Charlie Hebdo anymore,I meant "Hate Speech" in general.

This is my post after that post:
However we were not talking about Baghdadi anymore...I meant hate speech in general.

[orchadork]

Now about Freedom of Speech:Can't we just have it without insulting and disrespecting others?I mean without "Hate Speech"?

I was able to guess so from the calligraphy :P

any way, Freedom of speech is VERY touchy, especially since it comes to Hate Speech. I didn't see an issue with it mainly because I'm not a very religious person. But I can also see why they were offended.

What I'm trying to say is that people will always get offended by something. For example I'm not offended by German swear words, but some Germans might be. It all depends on your POV.

[Left Now]

I was able to guess so from the calligraphy :P

any way, Freedom of speech is VERY touchy, especially since it comes to Hate Speech. I didn't see an issue with it mainly because I'm not a very religious person. But I can also see why they were offended.

What I'm trying to say is that people will always get offended by something. For example I'm not offended by German swear words, but some Germans might be. It all depends on your POV.

That's right.This is why "Every people must be talked by its own most simple language"

[Exocet]

The assault of the GIGN in which the terrorists that killed 12 persons 2 days ago were killed.
One men of the GIGN has been lightly injured.

watch?v=yS57T5A0CIE#t=28

[RemxEatU]

A new taking of hostage ! This time, it's in a jewelry store ! :/

[Exocet]

A new taking of hostage ! This time, it's in a jewelry store ! :/

The negotiations are still ongoing between the men of the GIPN and the hostage taker.
Just probably a criminal.