Islamic Terrorists France: 12 dead, police gunned down

[Nazaroo]

Once again it turns out that not only are these terrorists KNOWN TO POLICE,
but they were already arrested on terrorism charges and given a slap on the wrist:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/charli...-linked-to-attacks-turns-himself-in-1.2892151 Charlie Hebdo Paris shooting: Man linked to attacks turns himself in ... one man sought in the deadly shooting at a French satirical paper has turned himself in to police. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing, said the man surrendered voluntarily. The 18-year-old suspect turned himself in at a police station in Charleville-Mézières, in northeastern France at around 7 p.m. ET, according to a report in Reuters. Early Thursday, French police released images of the two other suspects, named as Cherif Kouachi and Said Kouachi, saying they should be considered armed and dangerous. Said Kouachi was born in 1980, two years older than his brother. ... One of the police officials said they were linked to a Yemeni terrorist network, and Cedric Le Bechec, a witness who encountered the escaping gunmen, quoted the attackers as saying: "You can tell the media that it's al-Qaeda in Yemen." The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the sensitive and ongoing investigation. Previous terrorism charges Cherif Kouachi was sentenced to 18 months in prison after being convicted of terrorism charges in 2008 for helping funnel fighters to Iraq's insurgency. He said he was outraged at the torture of Iraqi inmates at the U.S. prison at Abu Ghraib near Baghdad. Two undated handout pictures released by French Police in Paris show Cherif Kouachi, left, and his brother Said Kouachi, 34, suspected in connection with the shooting attack at the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo headquarters. (French Police/EPA) The masked, black-clad men with assault rifles stormed the offices near Paris's Bastille monument in the Wednesday noontime attack on the publication, which had long drawn condemnation and threats — it was firebombed in 2011 — for its depictions of Islam, although it also satirized other religions and political figures. Shouting "Allahu akbar!" as they fired, the men used fluent, unaccented French as they called out the names of specific employees. France's prime minister, Manuel Valls, said the two suspects in the Charlie Hebdo shootings were known to intelligence services and the fear that they could carry out another attack "is our main concern." Valls told RTL radio there had been several detentions overnight. One of the suspects, Cherif Kouachi, had a history of funnelling jihadist fighters to Iraq and a terrorism conviction from 2008. He and his brother, Said, should be considered "armed and dangerous," French police said in a bulletin early Thursday, appealing for witnesses after a fruitless search in the city of Reims, in French Champagne country.

How did these murderers who were already convicted terrorists
get out of prison, get machine-guns,
and do this right under the noses of police?

 

[Desert Reign]

My comments on JP are being moderated. Which probably means they won't appear. So I thought I would post them here. Apologies if it appears slightly out of context.

Europe's problem generally is that they don't talk straight.
Look at this piece of journalism from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30717728
"Today, mainstream Muslim organisations in the UK and France have unequivocally condemned the killings, saying that terrorism is an affront to Islam."
Elsewhere in the article , terrorist attacks in Europe are described as perpetrated by extremist or radical elements.
Why can't they stop assuming the conclusion that they want to prove? These are not mainstream Muslim organisations. The organisations that condemn these killings are not mainstream within Islam. They are the minority view.
The article describes the problem as 'radical Islamism'. The problem is not Islamism. The problem is Islam. There will be no solution in Europe to this issue if they can't stop apologising on behalf of a corrupt and bankrupt religion in the name of political correctness and they can't recognise the problem for what it is.

 

[Nazaroo]

 

[Nazaroo]

Another Police officer shot Thursday morning in South Paris also dies:

A French police union official says a policewoman shot in an early morning attack on the southern edge of Paris has died. The officer was stopping to investigate a traffic accident when an assailant opened fire, hitting her and a street sweeper. Emmanuel Cravello of the Alliance police union said she later died of her injuries. French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve says the attacker in the shooting Thursday remained at large. He and Cravello cautioned against jumping to any conclusions about the attack, which has not been linked to the assault on the newspaper Charlie Hebdo, which left two police officers among the dead. Police are still hunting for two heavily armed men, one with possible links to al-Qaeda, in the methodical killing of 12 people at a satirical newspaper that caricatured the Prophet Muhammed. The prime minister said the possibility of a new attack "is our main concern" and announced several overnight arrests.

 

[This Charming Manc]

OK so Europe is wrong based upon what?

What evidence do you have to suggest the majority of Muslims are jhadists?

Current estimates put 3,000,000 Muslims in the UK, of that it is estimated that 2,000 are involved in jihad at home or abroad.

That is 0.06% who are involved, if there are 50 supporters for everyone actively involved in jihad, that still puts the number at 3% hardly a majority.

I have deep seated issues with Islam, I would agree with you that it not a religion of peace, but that does not mean that Muslims per say are jihadists.

My comments on JP are being moderated. Which probably means they won't appear. So I thought I would post them here. Apologies if it appears slightly out of context.

Europe's problem generally is that they don't talk straight.
Look at this piece of journalism from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30717728
"Today, mainstream Muslim organisations in the UK and France have unequivocally condemned the killings, saying that terrorism is an affront to Islam."
Elsewhere in the article , terrorist attacks in Europe are described as perpetrated by extremist or radical elements.
Why can't they stop assuming the conclusion that they want to prove? These are not mainstream Muslim organisations. The organisations that condemn these killings are not mainstream within Islam. They are the minority view.
The article describes the problem as 'radical Islamism'. The problem is not Islamism. The problem is Islam. There will be no solution in Europe to this issue if they can't stop apologising on behalf of a corrupt and bankrupt religion in the name of political correctness and they can't recognise the problem for what it is.

 

[Nazaroo]

OK so Europe is wrong based upon what?

What evidence do you have to suggest the majority of Muslims are jhadists?

Current estimates put 3,000,000 Muslims in the UK, of that it is estimated that 2,000 are involved in jihad at home or abroad.

That is 0.06% who are involved, if there are 50 supporters for everyone actively involved in jihad, that still puts the number at 3% hardly a majority.

I have deep seated issues with Islam, I would agree with you that it not a religion of peace, but that does not mean that Muslims per say are jihadists.

Here, read this article and respond to that:

http://www.theblaze.com/contributio...rld-but-lets-keep-calling-it-peaceful-anyway/

 

[Desert Reign]

OK so Europe is wrong based upon what?

What evidence do you have to suggest the majority of Muslims are jhadists?

Current estimates put 3,000,000 Muslims in the UK, of that it is estimated that 2,000 are involved in jihad at home or abroad.

That is 0.06% who are involved, if there are 50 supporters for everyone actively involved in jihad, that still puts the number at 3% hardly a majority.

I have deep seated issues with Islam, I would agree with you that it not a religion of peace, but that does not mean that Muslims per say are jihadists.

I am not looking at Britain or Europe. I am looking at the world. Islam originated in Saudia Arabia. The Middle East is the yardstick for evaluating Islam, not Britain or Europe. Don't think that the current cycle of violence is a historical accident. Muslims have been slogging away at each other and the rest of the world since they first existed.

The politically correct like to think that Muslims in Britain or France are genteel, peace-loving folk and they hold them as an icon of Islam everywhere. They like to think that Western Europe is the pinnacle of civilisation and they think of Muslims here as the duly evolved Islamic norm. But all they are doing is massaging their own egos. You just need to look around you to see that this is a lie. If you want a representative picture of Islam you should look at the Middle East, not Great Britain.

Here, read this article and respond to that:

http://www.theblaze.com/contributio...rld-but-lets-keep-calling-it-peaceful-anyway/

Well I'll be darned. Said exactly what I did.

 

[This Charming Manc]

I think the article fails to be consistent in its ability separate the issue of people and idea.

I oppose the idea of Islam completely.

However Muslims themselves are a mixed bunch, i'm not opposed to Muslims i'm opposed to Islam.

I can't successfully oppose Islam buy shooting or blowing up Muslims, its an ideas and you cant defeat idea by violence.

Sometimes people who hold an idea behave in a way which means they have to be defeated, such as the nazi's in WWII and I would put jihadists in that camp.

However Islam cannot be defeated that way.

Here, read this article and respond to that:

http://www.theblaze.com/contributio...rld-but-lets-keep-calling-it-peaceful-anyway/

 

[This Charming Manc]

I don't disagree wildly with much of that analysis.

I think id probably be more nuanced in my view of middle eastern Islam than yourself, but yes I accept your basic point.

Can you agree there is vast difference between the principles of Islam and the nature of the average muslim?

Can i ask have you travelled at all in the middle east, do you know many muslims?

I think where we probably disagree is what next?

I am not looking at Britain or Europe. I am looking at the world. Islam originated in Saudia Arabia. The Middle East is the yardstick for evaluating Islam, not Britain or Europe. Don't think that the current cycle of violence is a historical accident. Muslims have been slogging away at each other and the rest of the world since they first existed.

The politically correct like to think that Muslims in Britain or France are genteel, peace-loving folk and they hold them as an icon of Islam everywhere. They like to think that Western Europe is the pinnacle of civilisation and they think of Muslims here as the duly evolved Islamic norm. But all they are doing is massaging their own egos. You just need to look around you to see that this is a lie. If you want a representative picture of Islam you should look at the Middle East, not Great Britain.



Well I'll be darned. Said exactly what I did.

 

[Desert Reign]

I don't disagree wildly with much of that analysis.

I think id probably be more nuanced in my view of middle eastern Islam than yourself, but yes I accept your basic point.

Can you agree there is vast difference between the principles of Islam and the nature of the average muslim?

Can i ask have you travelled at all in the middle east, do you know many muslims?

I think where we probably disagree is what next?

Why? No disrespect to you but this is an ad hominem approach. I am either right or wrong. I didn't use my experience with Muslims as evidence of my point of view so I don't see why it should be brought into the argument.

And no I don't agree there is a vast difference between the idea and the people behind the idea. Ideas don't exist in a vacuum. That is the liberal deception. It's a way of avoiding responsibility for your actions. It's actually a Platonic deception and is hardly new but I'm in no mood to turn a blind eye to it at the moment for all that we must live with it.

There is a simple where next that is practical. Let's be clear we need to be practical. A load of academics arguing whether Islam is responsible or politicians making statements of condolence or regret doesn't quite cut it.

That step is to support Israel politically. While Western Europe have been busy focusing on Israel's supposed war crimes, the thief has been given free rein. Let's just admit we were wrong and that this is the kind of terrorism that Israel has to deal with every day. Not just once a year, not just once a month, but every day.
OK, I know you don't believe it. But somewhere in the clouded grey matter of the EU there must be something that is capable of understanding this simple proposition.
Let's make Israel strong, help them to believe in themselves. Comfort them in their daily tensions with the terrorists, the riots, the stone throwing, the car attacks, the knife attacks, the political attacks, the lies, the whining, the demands.

 

[bybee]

Why? No disrespect to you but this is an ad hominem approach. I am either right or wrong. I didn't use my experience with Muslims as evidence of my point of view so I don't see why it should be brought into the argument.

And no I don't agree there is a vast difference between the idea and the people behind the idea. Ideas don't exist in a vacuum. That is the liberal deception. It's a way of avoiding responsibility for your actions. It's actually a Platonic deception and is hardly new but I'm in no mood to turn a blind eye to it at the moment for all that we must live with it.

There is a simple where next that is practical. Let's be clear we need to be practical. A load of academics arguing whether Islam is responsible or politicians making statements of condolence or regret doesn't quite cut it.

That step is to support Israel politically. While Western Europe have been busy focusing on Israel's supposed war crimes, the thief has been given free rein. Let's just admit we were wrong and that this is the kind of terrorism that Israel has to deal with every day. Not just once a year, not just once a month, but every day.
OK, I know you don't believe it. But somewhere in the clouded grey matter of the EU there must be something that is capable of understanding this simple proposition.
Let's make Israel strong, help them to believe in themselves. Comfort them in their daily tensions with the terrorists, the riots, the stone throwing, the car attacks, the knife attacks, the political attacks, the lies, the whining, the demands.

Amen Brother! Well and truly stated.

 

[Jose Fly]

Religion is one motivator, it isn't the only one. It's tied in with a lot of other motivators, primarily it's a different value system. Different people can have different value systems within the same religion.

Yep.

People believe plenty of nonsense sans religion. See therapeutic touch, and a variety of types of alternative medicine. See a family member of mine who chose vitamin C infusions to treat her cancer. You can guess how that one turned out.

Yep.

Idiocy is not limited to the right wing or religion. Don't kid yourself.

I have no idea why you would think I said religion is the only source of human stupidity.

It's almost a little bit of fundamentalist-esque black/white thinking on your part, where when I point out that religion is a source of human stupidity, you take that as me saying it's the only source of human stupidity.

You should try and avoid that.

 

[Alate_One]

I have no idea why you would think I said religion is the only source of human stupidity.

It's almost a little bit of fundamentalist-esque black/white thinking on your part, where when I point out that religion is a source of human stupidity, you take that as me saying it's the only source of human stupidity.

You should try and avoid that.

Heh, I guess I'm used to certain groups essentially claiming it's virtually the only or that major source of human stupidity. Funny thing is, we don't know if it's the actual religious ideology that motivated these people or a more general intolerance of being made fun of. A variety of religions and leaders have had that characteristic in the past and present.

It's like what I posted in the other thread:

Islam doesn't have a monopoly on intolerance to free speech. Nor does secularism necessarily go with valuing freedom of expression.

 

[rexlunae]

There is a simple where next that is practical. Let's be clear we need to be practical. A load of academics arguing whether Islam is responsible or politicians making statements of condolence or regret doesn't quite cut it.

That step is to support Israel politically. While Western Europe have been busy focusing on Israel's supposed war crimes, the thief has been given free rein. Let's just admit we were wrong and that this is the kind of terrorism that Israel has to deal with every day. Not just once a year, not just once a month, but every day.

There's pretty much nothing that should ever give any state unequivocal support, and certainly the actions of a few French Muslims don't do it for me. The fact that Israel has been allowed to annex land that isn't theirs and treat people as foreigners in their own homes should not be tolerated by anyone on any pretext.

 

[Desert Reign]

There's pretty much nothing that should ever give any state unequivocal support, and certainly the actions of a few French Muslims don't do it for me. The fact that Israel has been allowed to annex land that isn't theirs and treat people as foreigners in their own homes should not be tolerated by anyone on any pretext.

It's not just the actions of a few French Muslims. As I said, terrorism is a daily occurrence. Today there was a stabbing there. This sort of thing rarely gets reported. The western media act as if we are supposed to think that Israel deserves it. When the Gazans lob hundreds of missiles onto Israeli towns, we are supposed to think that Israel is wrong to retalliate because when they do, Gazans get killed whilst Israelis are protected by shelters and Iron Dome. The way it is reported you are supposed to think that Israel is being unfair by being so well protected and really should allow the Gazans to kill more of them. Israel hasn't annexed the West bank; I have no idea what you are talking about. Israel annexed the Golan heights, a sparsely populated area crucial to Israel's defence. Israel partially controls the West Bank under what is surely now the defunct Oslo agreement. Israel kept the Oslo agreements. The Palestinians went back on them time and again.

 

[glorydaz]

It's not just the actions of a few French Muslims. As I said, terrorism is a daily occurrence. Today there was a stabbing there. This sort of thing rarely gets reported. The western media act as if we are supposed to think that Israel deserves it. When the Gazans lob hundreds of missiles onto Israeli towns, we are supposed to think that Israel is wrong to retalliate because when they do, Gazans get killed whilst Israelis are protected by shelters and Iron Dome. The way it is reported you are supposed to think that Israel is being unfair by being so well protected and really should allow the Gazans to kill more of them. Israel hasn't annexed the West bank; I have no idea what you are talking about. Israel annexed the Golan heights, a sparsely populated area crucial to Israel's defence. Israel partially controls the West Bank under what is surely now the defunct Oslo agreement. Israel kept the Oslo agreements. The Palestinians went back on them time and again.

:e4e:

 

[Jose Fly]

Funny thing is, we don't know if it's the actual religious ideology that motivated these people or a more general intolerance of being made fun of.

You can look through the literature and rhetoric of these folks and they make it pretty clear they are motivated by religion.

Islam doesn't have a monopoly on intolerance to free speech.

It sure doesn't. But religions definitely have a monopoly on the idea of blasphemy.

Nor does secularism necessarily go with valuing freedom of expression.

Agreed. But don't try and go the route of the fallacy of false equivalency here.

 

[Granite]

It appears that they tend not to if you don't use them. lain:

I don't know why that cop was either unarmed at the time or wasn't able to use his weapon...He was moving around....Maybe he was in shock or something? :idunno:



*EDIT: It appears that the French Municipal Police don't always carry arms....According to some eyewitness accounts the first two responders to show up were unarmed police who, understandably so, fled the scene when they saw what they were up against. :sigh: Maybe he was the third to show up and didn't get a chance to get out of there.

He was in fact armed, and a Muslim to boot.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/08/ahmed-merabet-mourned-charlie-hebdo-paris-attack

 

[Repentance]

You can look through the literature and rhetoric of these folks and they make it pretty clear they are motivated by religion.


It sure doesn't. But religions definitely have a monopoly on the idea of blasphemy.

Even being a Muslim I don't deny that a valid interpretation of Islam was the sole or the main motivator behind this attack. Blasphemy from a Muslim or non-Muslim of this magnitude is punishable by death in any sharia court, there is no difference in opinion in this matter. Anyone who disagrees with sharia law when there is a consensus should check his faith.

The only way I reckon Muslims could condemn this attack is to argue that it tarnishes the image of Islam and actually backfires against the Muslims in a real bad way (overall harm outweighs the benefit) or that they should be first tried in a sharia court or be living under sharia law. No Muslim can defend blasphemy or the right to blaspheme - that is the end of one's faith. There is a time, place, audience and methodology for criticism and Islam welcomes criticism, arguments and debates that take place in the correct platform.

 

[Granite]

Even being a Muslim I don't deny that a valid interpretation of Islam was the sole or the main motivator behind this attack. Blasphemy from a Muslim or non-Muslim of this magnitude is punishable by death in any sharia court, there is no difference in opinion in this matter. Anyone who disagrees with sharia law when there is a consensus should check his faith.

The only way I reckon Muslims could condemn this attack is to argue that it tarnishes the image of Islam and actually backfires against the Muslims in a real bad way (overall harm outweighs the benefit) or that they should be first tried in a sharia court or be living under sharia law. No Muslim can defend blasphemy or the right to blaspheme - that is the end of one's faith. There is a time, place, audience and methodology for criticism and Islam welcomes criticism, arguments and debates that take place in the correct platform.

So you're not condemning this.