[Closed] "Muslim" terrorists attack French magazine in Paris

How about googling "Greater Jihad"? What does that refer to?

http://www.justislam.co.uk/product.php?products_id=2

As a start.

Oh ok I've found it now - it's full of unsubstantiated opinion.

I'd always understood Jihad to mean "struggle" - of course the word "struggle" may be interpreted in different ways too. "Struggle" as a word had a certain meaning in Ireland for centuries depending on the context of the conversation/article/book. How can a religion be blamed for its myriad of followers' myriads of interpretations?

Given that the Muslim faith has different interpretations of jihad, your conclusion might need some revising?

A lot of people on here seem to be denying a link between religion/Islam and encouragement of terrorism - including the author of grums article. The data in that article quite clearly shows this is not the case. For example, levels of religious observance is associated with terrorism - to a far greater degree than for example a US military presence.

Now who are we to tell Muslims, who the right Muslims are and who are the bad wrong-uns that we don't want?

I went to Trafalgar Square this evening, sang the Marseilles which I don't do too often, it's a war song but quite appropriate to stand against tyranny.

Spent some time catching up on the thread.

In terms of condemnation I've seen a few variants, a number of British spokespeople / preachers who've made quite inflammatory statements including one on bail for prior incitement. Even demonstrations supporting the terrorists in Palestine, Afghanistan and Lebanon. However in Holland the mayor of Rotterdamn who is a Muslim echoed what Cougar posted earlier, "if you don't like it leave" the picture in France has been quite different too. On BFMTV (the channel the terrorist in the supermarket called) an Imam made a few interesting points, firstly he said the lack of a central controlling authority in Islam meant there was little or no control of the interpretation of the
Quran allowing it to be twisted by "self appointed" Imam and also that there was an issue with parents indoctrinating their kids as at one school when asked to observe a minutes silence the kids (just 10 years old) asked why as the cartoonists had insulted the Phrophet. France's senior Imam also pointed out that the biggest victims of Islamist extremism where other Muslims, highlighting the irrationality of their behaviour.

A lot of people on here seem to be denying a link between religion/Islam and encouragement of terrorism - including the author of grums article.

I don't think many people have claimed there is no link, and the author of the article specifically said that it's not correct to say they are completely unrelated. You're straw-manning yet again.

denying a link between religion/Islam and encouragement of terrorism - including the author of grums article. The data in that article quite clearly shows this is not the case.

Ok two points

1. the article clearly does not show that Islam encourages terrorism even your own cut and past shows that they say the more "extreme a muslim you are they more likely you are to support terrorism - that like saying the more patriotic you are the more likely you are to support/justify your country in a war. neither "encourage" war or terrorism and its not casual is it

2. It is a poor study COuld you tell us why they used another survey and not original research. Can you explain why they cherry picked from certain countries from within that research?

FFS he edited again and did not say and the new bit

levels of religious observance is associated with terrorism

not sure what is worse your trolling or your data intepretation

Does anyone think the Hebdo attack was a false flag?

[img] [/img]

I thought the link I posted was interesting because it is satire which is being lauded as a great thing, but also illustrates the fair point that different societies in the West have different traditions. Charlie Hebedo does not sit as well with our traditions. Accordingly societal norms can limit to an extent free speech and it makes this point. French satire is renowned for being particularly hard hitting, likewise their libel laws are much looser, yet privacy is more respected. All that can be concluded is we are all a bunch of contradictions.

Vice News have the complete video from the supermarket terrorist. It also claims he was responsible for a car bomb, French TV mentioned this as events unfolded as it exploded near a Synagogue. Press have now also picked up on the fact the shooting of a policeman took place near a Jewish School which was likely the intended target. A jogger shot and wounded by him has yet to be identified, another incident which got lost in the overall coverage

[url= https://news.vice.com/article/video-claims-to-show-gunman-in-paris-terror-attack-pledging-allegiance-to-the-islamic-state ]Vice News[/url]

It is a poor study COuld you tell us why they used another survey and not original research. Can you explain why they cherry picked from certain countries from within that research?

Public Health researchers do this all the time. You don't need to use your own datasets in academics.

the article clearly does not show that Islam encourages terrorism even your own cut and past shows that they say the more "extreme a muslim you are they more likely you are to support terrorism - that like saying the more patriotic you are the more likely you are to support/justify your country in a war. neither "encourage" war or terrorism and its not casual is it

Not really, religious observance doesn't need to mean extremism.

I don't think many people have claimed there is no link, and the author of the article specifically said that it's not correct to say they are completely unrelated. You're straw-manning yet again.

He clearly states that Islam doesn't inherently cause violence, nor does it inherently promote peace, I think that paper proves him wrong - the higher the religious observance the more likely you are to support terrorism. Now all we need is comparison study versus other theological beliefs (also, I need to see more papers coming to the same conclusion) in order to drive the point home. The author of Grums article manages to come to this wonderfully neutral conclusion that Islam doesn't affect the politics of the muslim world and neither does it inherently encourage peaceful or violent behaviour, which I think is a bollocksie postmodernist hand-wringing conclusion. It either does, or it doesn't and that question can be answered by psychologists.

If those psychologists came up with an answer that you didn't like, would you listen to them?

Nice to know the Leaders were marching with the people:

[img] [/img]

Oh, errr, hang on:

[img] :large[/img]

Camera tricks eh...

Does anyone think the Hebdo attack was a false flag?

No. The fact you're reposting from DavidIcke.com says a lot. In any case, the clip is just some woman saying she supposedly heard that someone said something. Until the unnamed journo comes forward, I'd not be inclined to believe it.

What is the UK/EU reaction on the lack of a US representative in Paris?

IMO, Vice President Biden should have been there, no question. If President Obama had gone, the message would have been magnified 10x. That may or may not have been appropriate. For instance, he could have been seen as trying to overshadow the French, which the VP would not. The Secretary of State (John Kerry) was in India, and isn't a head of state anyway.

Eric Holder, The Attorney General? From what I saw he was in Paris for s meeting, but wasn't in the march. But the AG is the head of US law enforcement and really has no role in representing the US government to other countries.

The Obama administration really dropped the ball on this one, IMO. 😡

What is the UK/EU reaction on the lack of a US representative in Paris?

No one noticed.

To be honest, most people I know seem to think that there was more than a whiff of "jumping on the bandwagon" by the leaders who did turn up for the photo opportunity.

Three things you (probably) don't know about islam:

Maybe bull, as its on the internet.....which never lies. Also may have already been posted. But if its true.....

No one noticed.

To be honest, most people I know seem to think that there was more than a whiff of "jumping on the bandwagon" by the leaders who did turn up for the photo opportunity.

I can't imagine the U.S. security services would have been happy to accept such a short notice, high risk appearance. Obama surely must be the worlds highest profile assassination target?

Similar thinking goes towards 'world' leaders marching with the people.

If your so obsessed with Muslims with high religious observance why don't you find your nearest mosque and do a little field work. It will be open all day or at least five times a day . Just go down and observe nobody will stop you Tom and report back your findings.

Would it be inappropriate to drop a Parklife! into this most serious of threads?

An interesting piece by Nick Cohen in yesterdays Observer, regarding freedom of speech, intimidation and the resulting self-censorship

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/11/paris-attacks-we-must-overcome-fear-or-selfcensorship-will-spread ]We must overcome fear or self-censorship will spread[/url]

Binners - that article makes the point that western liberals fall into the trap of not wanting to criticise illiberal aspects of Islam. Maybe sometimes true but you and many others are falling into the same trap - you're defending indefensible bigotry and racism/hatred in the name of 'free speech'.

Can you explain to me how drawing a cartoon of the prophet is, in your words 'defending indefensible bigotry and racism/hatred in the name of 'free speech'?

I'm not very bright, but I don't see the link. Could you run me through this trap I've apparently fallen into please?

Does anyone think the Hebdo attack was a false flag?

So far only those who nobody would expect anything more sensible from.

What's are your thoughts, you didn't say.

Binners - while i understand where you're coming from with regards to your view on the freedom of speech and agree with certain aspects of it, i wonder how you would react if say for instance one of your kids came home upset because someone had said something highly insulting and offensive to them or had taken the piss out of them publicly using a cartoon or other image? would you still state that the other individual had the right to free speech and tell your child to MTFU? or would you go off on one? i'm not saying go and shoot them with an AK-47 as the cartoons by charlie hebdo justified the killing of those people...but i suspect you would be angry that one of your children had been offended/insulted/upset.
in relation to the use of cartoon in the form of political/religious satire....i dont see it as an issue as demonstrated by the cartoon a few pages back...one which you posted about the killers of those people
there is nothing wrong in depicting them as fools, monsters or anything else...but there is no reference to the prophet. when you bring in that which nearly 2 billion people across the globe hold sacred into the equation in an insulting and derogatory manner then it allows extremist/fundamentalist nutjobs to raise their ugly faces above the parapets to promote the type of violence that has unfolded.
it would be different if say the muslim world and its media had drawn images of its own prophet and ridiculed him in some way as then it would set a precedent for others to do the same...but that is not the case...you might find that the vast majority of muslims can tolerate cartoons etc that question,criticise or mock their faith but there are certain things that are strictly off limits.
things may be different in that in the west and christian society it is seen as more acceptable to satirise jesus and christianity...but that does not mean to say that "we take the piss out of our religion so should be able to do it with others"
especially when you look at your arguement from the point of view that if freedom of speech should be allowed without any restrictions then why is it so difficult to criticise say judaism without being accused of anti-semitism whereas criticism of islam is seen as freedom of speech?
as for apologising for the events that have taken place in paris...if i have to apologise on behalf of muslims across the world then so be it...i apologise to the families of the victims and those affected by the tragedies that unfolded in paris. these individuals who carried out the attacks may claim to be muslims but their actions prove otherwise. their actions and justifications do not represent islam and nor should it be condoned. islam condemns their actions and rejects them as muslims.

would you still state that the other individual had the right to free speech and tell your child to MTFU?

Yes.

As I've stated god knows how many times: you do not have the right not to be offended. I don't. you don't. Nobody does. You either believe in freedom of speech, or you don't. People saying things that might upset you is something you simply have to accept, I'm afraid, whatever your deeply held reliefs, religious or otherwise.

The only restrictions placed on freedom of expression are placed on us by our democratically elected government, and enforced through a fair and open judicial system. We all know what these restrictions are. They're the ones we decided on, democratically, as a free society

What you're suggesting is exactly what Nick Cohens article suggests. That we self-censor for fear of upsetting people who have a track record of intolerance. So effectively we're being intimidated into being told what we can and cannot say. And where do you think that would end? We'll be sat waiting for their next set of demands. Thats where!

We just can't have that, I'm afraid.

but that does not mean to say that "we take the piss out of our religion so should be able to do it with others"

They are subject to the same laws as everyone else. So we're quite within our rights to specify that the rule of law is tolerated above everything, including religion, as that is the cornerstone of any free democratic society. We are all equal under the law. Some people aren't more equal than others because 'their' god said they are.

It amazes me how some people fail to grasp this. Or think that we should abandon this hard-won situation, in order to placate people making unreasonable demands based purely ion religious beliefs. Its ridiculous!!

These things are the fundamentals of our society. Its about time we started asserting the rights and responsibilities of living in a free society, as enthusiastically as some people assert their religious beliefs, and the enhanced rights this is somehow meant to afford them!

why is it so difficult to criticise say judaism without being accused of anti-semitism whereas criticism of islam is seen as freedom of speech?

Because for historical reasons (long predating anything to do with the holocaust) connected with their movement across Continents and origin from a small ethnoreligious group in the near East, allied with their social and political relationship with and treatment by other communities over many generations, Jews are accepted as being a distinct race, in much the same way that Romany Gypsies are (and although there is some debate, there seems to be an acceptance that this is largely borne out in DNA studies)

Whereas Islam, like Christianity, is a religious belief system with a much wider ethnic and social spread, and a much less clear ethnic or racial connection (see for example the large Christian and Muslim communities in Africa and Indonesia)

@jive leaders walked separately for security and they walked behind the friends and family of those killed giving them the honour/priority of leading the parade.

If your so obsessed with Muslims with high religious observance why don't you find your nearest mosque and do a little field work. It will be open all day or at least five times a day . Just go down and observe nobody will stop you Tom and report back your findings.

I don't really care for anecdotal reports - anyway why are so many of you offended by papers that use empirical data? So many of you are happy when studies back up issues like global warming, not so happy when they clash with your own ideological beliefs?

Think of the Koran as a drug, if public health researchers found that if a sizable minority of people interpreted their drug the wrong way and then exploded in cafes - it would be pulled would it not?

why is it so difficult to criticise say judaism without being accused of anti-semitism whereas criticism of islam is seen as freedom of speech?

It isn't. You are free to criticise whoever you like. There are lines you cannot cross, such as where it becomes incitement. But these same rules and restrictions apply to everyone, no matter what religion or ethnic group you are from. Again, and at the risk of being very, very repetitive... this is why we rely on the law to set our boundaries, rather than the perception of different ethnic and racial groups, with different sensitivities. It means we all know where we stand. No exceptions.

Somebody can call you an anti-semite for criticising Judaism. In the same way they can accuse you of being Islamophobic for criticising Islam. That is their right. Just as it is your right to criticise in the first place. Its called dialogue. Its what we do in democracies

so you're saying that no-one has the right to be offended...so if i walked into a room full of people and someone shouted out at me "here comes the muslim bastard" i should be ok with this as it was their right to express themsleves freely...would i then be able to exercise my right to expression to then go and kick 10 shades of shit out of them? i think not. while there is a freedom of speech and expression and i fully accept and respect that...you and i know that there are rules regulating this. in instances where there are no rules, there are unwritten ones that are governed by human decency and respect...so that while i might have the right to say or express something, it may be seen as disrespectful or upsetting to some therefore a little distasteful and should either be avoided or another way should be found to make the same point.
the magazine could have taken the piss out of islam as much as it wanted without using the prophets image...especially as it knew that doing so may put them at risk of some form of reprisal...but it claimed in doing so that it was freedom of expression and not an incitement to religious hatred...its a shame that it didnt claim a freedom of expression whine this happened in 2009
http://www.worldbulletin.net/news/152585/charlie-hebdo-fired-cartoonist-for-anti-semitism-in-2009

binners - Member

These things are the fundamentals of our society.

Being a **** to people you've never met isn't a fundamental of any functioning society. It's a very unpleasant side effect of free speech. People talk like "self-censorship" is an issue but it's just manners and civility- which [i]are[/i] fundamentals of all societies. It's bad if people feel they can't be a **** due to being afraid of the consequences- much better if they just don't want to be a **** in the first place.

There are lines you cannot cross

Hang on now, I thought it was [i]"all or nothing".[/i]

Being a **** to people you've never met isn't a fundamental of any functioning society.

But it is your democratic [b]right[/b] to be, if thats what you choose, I'm afraid. As long as you do so within the law. Same applies to everyone else.

Because for historical reasons (long predating anything to do with the holocaust) connected with their movement across Continents and origin from a small ethnoreligious group in the near East, allied with their social and political relationship with and treatment by other communities over many generations, Jews are accepted as being a distinct race, in much the same way that Romany Gypsies are (and although there is some debate, there seems to be an acceptance that this is largely borne out in DNA studies)

Whereas Islam, like Christianity, is a religious belief system with a much wider ethnic and social spread, and a much less clear ethnic or racial connection (see for example the large Christian and Muslim communities in Africa and Indonesia)

what??????

Hang on now, I thought it was "all or nothing".

Within the law, yes.

Laws are set by our democratically elected governments, and enforced by an open and accountable judicial system. If you act within these clearly defined guidelines, fine. If not, then there are (again, clearly defined) consequences.

Its not that difficult to get your head around, surely?

A society is more than just the aggregation of its laws. It is its traditions, its culture, and in particular its culture of civility - this extends to the notion of taboos.

If you watch any comedy show on channel 4 on a saturday evening, the acts/contestants/presenters are having to go increasingly down the route of complete filth, as there are no taboos left to attack anymore.

A society without a strong culture of civility, of knowing how to act in various situations, of avoiding a direct insult, is a better society than one which relies on the weight of the law to regulate everyday affairs (except for the lawyers, that is).

[url= https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/charlie-hebdo-attacks-not-so-much-a-false-flag-as-a-free-hand/ ]This[/url] is an interesting take on matters:

THE SEVEN DEADLY DOUBTS THAT SHOULD LEAVE EVERY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER PUZZLED

I still think the morons who carried out the various Paris attacks were “genuine” terrorists (see Slogpost of last week) but that doesn’t stop one from amassing a body of evidence to suggest that the authorities both knew the attack was going to happen….and turned a blind eye when it did. Some of the facts pointing in that direction have been completely ignored by a Western press set that has adopted the usual robotic Stepford Wife unanimity from Day 1. In the light of what follows, it’s hard to see why they should be believed:

Doubt 1: The security cop who killed himself

The Charlie attack began around 11.30 am (CET) on 7 January 2015

Immediately, a specialist cop with relevant experience – Helric Fredou – was assigned to the case. He had been an anti-terrorist Special Branch (SRPJ) police officer since 2011.

He worked all day assessing film, recordings, identity details. He stopped for neither lunch nor dinner, but (I’m told) did phone one family member and “express concerns” about some of the stuff he’d seen. Just after 1 am the next morning, he died from a bullet wound to the head. He had “a history of depression” the authorities quickly established. The verdict was suicide.

Just two months earlier, he’d found an immediate colleague dead in similar circumstances.The verdict was suicide.

Doubt 2: The missing frames from the France 24 video of cop being ‘killed’

This clip of film was clumsily edited before publication. The missing bit in slowmo and close-up looks to me conclusive: the killer who ‘finishes off’ officer Ahmed Merabet with an AK47 from close range misses the cop, the bullet ricochets off the pavement. From that range, a successful shot to the head would’ve blown Merabet’s brains up and down the street. There is no sign of any such effect.

We’ve been told Ahmed Merabet died from that shot. He didn’t. Do we have a body? Will there be an autopsy?

Doubt 3: Flak jackets on the roof.

One Paris contact says some of this film too has been edited since the incident. This person (and others on French blogs) claim they can clearly discern flak jackets on some of the observers.

That too suggests pre-warning of the attack.

Doubt 4: Establishment of terrorist identity

Although I’ve tried already to establish that the two perpetrators were near brain-extinct, not even a martyr with an IQ in single figures would leave his identity card in the getaway car for the cops to find: frankly, anyone with an ounce of sense would leave all IDs at home (or destroy them) and rip all tabs out of their clothing.

Doubt 5: They were already under surveillance

At the risk of pressing a tad too hard on the sarcasm pedal, having terrorists under surveillance kind of loses its attraction as a policy if they’re still free – in broad daylight, in the capital city – to mosey on downtown to the offices of the most offensive BD-mag in France, don face balaclavas, enter the wrong address, take a hostage – and then gain effortless access to the building.

There are only two conclusions possible here: either the French security services are at a level in the basement below ‘useless’, or they turned a blind eye. For reasons that both precede and follow, I favour the latter.

Doubt 6: No idea of the address, but fully briefed on it being weekly editorial meeting from 11am onwards

Turning this same coin over, we are being asked to believe that two slogan-screaming idiots (who didn’t even case the joint before driving there) nevertheless had an espionage network capable of discovering the exact time of Charlie Hebdo’s weekly editorial meeting….but not which floor it took place on.

I think there’s a very good chance they were helped on the timing information.

Doubt 7: Mass rally of world ‘leaders’ in three days flat

It’s obvious to most people (with the probable exception of Con Coughlin) that the Hypocrisy Happening in Paris at the weekend was – given the nature of censorship applied by these sociopaths across the planet these days – likely to result in a rush on anti-seasickness pills, what’s less obvious is how Hollande managed to round up almost every Swinging Dick on Earth to turn up that quickly.

The whole event seemed to me carefully orchestrated.

[i]Again, and at the risk of being very, very repetitive... this is why [b]we rely on the law to set our boundaries[/b], rather than the perception of different ethnic and racial groups, with different sensitivities. It means we all know where we stand. No exceptions.[/i]

Nope! Sharia law, anyone?

why is it so difficult to criticise say judaism without being accused of anti-semitism whereas criticism of islam is seen as freedom of speech?

badnewz - I'm not advoating being a *! Far from it. But if you want to, you can. Our laws let you know where the limits are. Lets take two competing, but equally *ish examples. Anjem Choudry preaching his vile, intolerant hatred on Twitter? Or Nick Griffin spouting his racist bile at some meeting of loathsome headcases.

Both equally as offensive to most decent people. I doubt many people would defend either of their beliefs. But our free and tolerant society permits them to express their view, no matter how poisonous. Within clearly defined legal limits

And in return, we can mock them for being the idiots they both clearly are. And ridicule them for their ridiculous beliefs

This is an interesting take on matters

Oh the irony.

Pointing out supposed inconsistencies and making out the story isn't what it has been portrayed as.

Such a short time after you posted the world leaders pictures and claimed they were trying to fool everyone with camera tricks.

Was that deliberate misinformation from you ?

Or where you just fooled into believing something because it suited your prejudices.

@jive, do I really have to dig out the video of ISIS executing captured soldiers, all of whom where kneeling, to show that shooting someone in the head from close range with a high velocity weapon need not create any blood or "blow off" someone's head. As for the address, they went one door down from the Charlie Ebdo office, easy to make that mistake I you are high on adrenalin (or coke as has been rumoured is frequently used by ISIS - vice news have some film from Syria on this). The security forces are monitoring 1000's of suspects, they cannot follow everyone around and our western values mean we don't wish to lock them up based purely on suspicion

Cameron is meeting Obhama on Thursday in the US. IMO clearly a security related meeting and much guess is one topic will be the release of information by social media companies following a legitimate security request. There are strong rumours that Twitter in particular is quite obstructive and on occasion Facebook also. The UK government cannot compell these companies to release information, Obhama can.

Our laws let you know where the limits are.

Indeed they do. The point I'm making is the fundamental importance of a culture of civility to a functioning society. Many people think we don't need to promote such a culture, as the laws are there as a backup. I think this is misguided.
Political satire since the 1960s (Peter Cook led the way) has mercilessly attacked the old taboos which were an intrinsic part of ancient culture of civility (particularly religious taboos). As a consequence most of us now live and participate in a non-taboo society (although the left has started to rebuild its own taboos - it is increasingly taboo to disagree with multiculturalism, or gay marriage for instance - and no comedian bothers attacking them for some strange reason).
To my mind, what we are witnessing now is not a clash of civilsations but a clash of a secular Western taboo-less culture and a religious culture which still has a firm structure of taboos. I would argue that for peace and order these cultures need to meet in the middle - the secular West needs to remind itself it is dealing with a sensitive Islamic culture and the Islamic culture needs to learn to agree to disagree amicably.
Of course we wouldn't have to compromise had our governments not promoted mass immigration and multiculturalism (but then I guess it was taboo to attack it at the time).

And in return, we can mock them for being the idiots they both clearly are. And ridicule them for their ridiculous beliefs

thats a very valid point Binners but if i were to mock Anjem Choudry i'd mock his studidity, i'd question his moral fibre as a human being, i'd question his religious understanding and interpretation...if i were to mock/insult or criticize his beliefs i wouldnt use derogatory images of the prophet.
its the same with Nick Griffin...he's spouted religious bollocks during his time...but at no point would i think its acceptable to take the piss out of his religious beliefs by insulting Jesus

You wouldn't, fine - but that's not the same thing as saying that other people should not be allowed to, is it?

The whole event seemed to me carefully orchestrated.

Or like the plot of a bad* Dan Brown novel

(*Is there any other kind?)

The plot thickens

Blimey, even the BBC seems full of '[url= http://bbc-news.co.uk/doubts-raised-over-authenticity-of-charlie-hebdo-footage/ ]conspiracy theorists[/url]'

It isn't. You are free to criticise whoever you like.

You wouldn't, fine - but that's not the same thing as saying that other people should not be allowed to, is it?

yes it does actually. it all boils down to having a bit of moral decency and respect and telling yourself "i can go there but i wont".

Personally I think that was fatally wounded when we made offending someone's religion a criminal offence!

but according to you so long as its not anti-semetist its ok...
after all in your eyes judaism has gone from being a religion to becoming a race.

and to raise something you said earlier to further demonstate your hyprocisy...

if Israel kills a terrorists its " war" but if these people respond its not "war" but " terrorism"....makes sense to me.
Perfect sense

The deliberate targeting of and killing of enemy combatants or facilities, even if in the process you inadvertently cause civilian casualties is a legal and justifiable act of war

The deliberate targeting of and killing of civilians who are not directly connected to the enemy war effort would not be.

so how do you explain firing rockets at 4 palestinian boys playing football on a beach?

This 'false flag' cobblers. Seriously?

This 'false flag' cobblers. Seriously?

So it would seem

Either the beeb are heading down Tabloid Street or you all owe JHJ an apology 🙂

Jivey has shown he's not above a bit of misinformation himself with the world leaders pics.

If we can't trust him to be honest and not twist the story, who can we trust ?!? 😥

Blimey, even the BBC seems full of 'conspiracy theorists'

Sigh....

The BBC simply reports the news. Sometimes the news involves a group of paranoid delusional people, connected by the interweb, with too much time on their hands, as they sit in their fetid bedrooms at their mums house with the curtains drawn, who in the absence of friends or a social life, and in between bouts of furious masturbation, conjure up increasingly preposterous theories that fly in the face of both common sense and evidence.

The BBC aren't endorsing any crazy theories. Or disputing them. They're just reporting, somewhat predictably, that ... surprise, surprise... theirs a conspiracy theory out there, doing the rounds of suburban, kleenex strewn back bedrooms

I'm not sure (and hey, I got drawn in too a few pages back) bringing the Israel-Palestine conflict into the thread helps that much, while I very much sympathised with you on the last one gonzy.

yes it does actually. it all boils down to having a bit of moral decency and respect and telling yourself "i can go there but i wont".

It's very difficult to legislate to make people "morally" decent. Morality is so bloody subjective. We would have to have the kind of legislation which would make binners explode, leaving behind nothing more than a white sticky mess afterwards...and noone wants to have to clean that up. Thus, we have to set some lines in the sand...possibly set for the lowest common denominators and punish those who cross those lines with consistency and fairness.

Unfortunately, and it can be seen in a microcosm on this forum, when lines are drawn in the sand (the rulez of the forum), lots of folk will happily dance on that line and that means sometimes, we're going to have to be upset by it but not lose our rag. I've had loads of digs concerning my nationality over the years, and I've had to read lots of bigotry-bordering-on-racism-but-perhaps-not-enough-to-get-banned from a few contributors in particular, some of whom have posted on this thread.

So yeah, we have to have lines in the sand, but accept that sometimes people will sort of cross them, but then jump back to the right side before you can do anything about it...and you can't always expect someone to be prosecuted because you're upset by something.

jivehoneyjive - Member
Blimey, even the BBC seems full of 'conspiracy theorists'

I smell a rat with regard to the hero in the Kosher supermarket. Undoubtedly, he did save people, but it just seems [i]odd[/i], incongruous even, that a Muslim would choose to work/be employed by a Jewish shop.

I smell a rat with regard to the hero in the Kosher supermarket. Undoubtedly, he did save people, but it just seems odd, incongruous even, that a Muslim would choose to work/be employed by a Jewish shop.

I reckon you'd find that there are shedloads of Muslims and Jews who can get along quite well with one another even to the extent of employing each other, crazy as it might sound.

This thread certainly uncovers some dark prejudices...

Indeed it does. I never knew Bravissimo was responsible for Mrs Browns Boys. I now loathe the bastard with every fibre of my being

I used to work for a [i]Jewish[/i] IT company - and I'm not religious in the slightest!

It certainly was an eye opener into the world of a very tight nit community - [i]all[/i] our clients and business deals were with other Jewish companies, from care homes to schools, to business centres, to telecoms, to supermarkets....

The money just flowed round and round within the Jewish community.

Funnily enough nobody I met ever had a problem with me [i]not[/i] being Jewish.

JiveHoneyJive

Blimey, even the BBC seems full of 'conspiracy theorists'

See, here's where your swivel eyed loon theories fall down.

If there is some underhand conspiracy going on, the level of collusion, planning, secrecy etc that would have to go on is simply staggering. Yet through all the planning they accidentally forgot about one CCTV camera pointing at the exact location where they faked the murder of a policeman? 😆

EDIT: The link to the BBC news site you posted appears to be a fake.

www.bbc-news.co.uk???

The only conspiracy I see here is someong conspiring to make fake news articles

Sigh....

The BBC simply reports the news. Sometimes the news involves a group of paranoid delusional people, connected by the interweb, with too much time on their hands, as they sit in their fetid bedrooms at their mums house with the curtains drawn, who in the absence of friends or a social life, and in between bouts of furious masturbation, conjure up increasingly preposterous theories that fly in the face of both common sense and evidence.

The BBC aren't endorsing any crazy theories. Or disputing them. They're just reporting, somewhat predictably, that ... surprise, surprise... theirs a conspiracy theory out there, doing the rounds of suburban, kleenex strewn back bedrooms

Have you been in my house?

You either believe in freedom of speech, or you don't.

This is patently bollocks. There's a large grey area between acceptable criticism and harassment, bullying, inciting racial hatred etc.

To use gonzys school analogy - if large numbers of kids in a school were all consistently picking on your kid, insulting him and ridiculing him all the time - you're saying that would be fine with you? Bollocks it would.

Charlie Hebdo consistently mocked and denigrated lots of people, but immigrants/descendants of immigrants and particularly Muslims were their favourite target. Depicting the prophet (in a racist caricature of an Arab) was only the tip of the iceberg. Bullying marginalised groups in society is not something that should be supported - which is why all this 'je suis Charlie' stuff (mostly posted by people who never even looked at what it was they were supporting) is so misguided.

Believe it or not it's possible to oppose Islamic terrorism AND bigotry against Muslims, it's not one or the other.

EDIT: The link to the BBC news site you posted appears to be a fake.

http://www.bbc-news.co.uk???

The only conspiracy I see here is someong conspiring to make fake news articles

I'll admit it, I was duped... still food for thought regardless

I reckon you'd find that there are shedloads of Muslims and Jews who can get along quite well with one another even to the extent of employing each other, crazy as it might sound.

[i]It certainly was an eye opener into the world of a very tight knit community - all our clients and business deals were with other Jewish companies, from care homes to schools, to business centres, to telecoms, to supermarkets....[/i]

There's integration for you.

http://www.bbc-news.co.uk/???

More misinformation from jivey.

Far too quick to believe stuff that matches your prejudices and spread it around to misinform others.

The boy who cried wolf strikes again.

...still food for thought regardless

No it's not.

Not even close.

[url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/what-the-bbc-news-now/page/2 ]Carehomes and schools eh[/url]?

Quick, change the subject! You've been caught talking bollocks ! 🙄

it's not one or the other.

It's all or nothing grum! 🙂

all depends really , many of each group consider the other to be subhuman.

Lots of folk from lots of backgrounds, races, cultures, blah blah blah will consider someone or some people sub-human. It was ever thus. I was simply making the point that it wouldn't be that hard to find Jews and Muslims that get along together.

This is patently bollocks. There's a large grey area between acceptable criticism and harassment, bullying, inciting racial hatred etc.

No there isn't. Look at the law. Its clearly defined. Theres a line. Cross it into incitement, and its unacceptable.

Your overly dramatic analogy with a bullied child is just daft.

Charlie Hebdo consistently mocked and denigrated lots of people, but immigrants/descendants of immigrants and particularly Muslims were their favourite target

They mocked everyone, irrespective of race, colour, or religious persuasion. Thats the job of satirists. And they were pretty good at it. I can't imagine that immigrant community ,you feel so fiercely protective over, were anywhere near as mocked or ridiculed as the (predominantly white, christian) political class in Paris

I have Sunnis, Shias, combinations of both, Jews, Christians (Anglican and RCs), agnostics and atheists all working in my office. Get along very well. Always have done.

The original CH set out to be "inane and nasty" - FWIW

is just daft

you feel so fiercely protective over

Mocking post is mocking.

torsoinalake - Member

I smell a rat with regard to the hero in the Kosher supermarket. Undoubtedly, he did save people, but it just seems odd, incongruous even, that a Muslim would choose to work/be employed by a Jewish shop.

Seriously?

To reiterate, the lad's actions were heroic.

is the link to the BBC false why and how do you know ?

the expert appears to be false "ballistics expert David Mayhew" produces lots of hits on google but only to this story in the bbc format otherwise an expert who I could not identify in 5 mins on google.

No food for thought in any of what he says. It is fairly 101 obvious why a terrorist contemplating an attack that would result in his own death may wish to take an id document that would get him through routine checks with him.

just to add I also know quite a few Muslims who work in Jewish businesses I could probably find a Jew in a Muslim business without too much effort.

The original CH set out to be "inane and nasty" - FWIW

Am I right in thinking its original target was mainly the Catholic church/establishment (which was more intertwined at the time)? I have no idea of the percentages of the content that were aimed at different cultures, races, religions etc. I have no doubt hardly anyone posting "Je suis Charlie" on twitter or as their Fb profile pic knows either.

Quick, change the subject! You've been caught talking bollocks !

I stand by this being interesting; no bollocks talked, though I admit I was taken in by the false BBC link:

[url= https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/charlie-hebdo-attacks-not-so-much-a-false-flag-as-a-free-hand/ ]This[/url] is an interesting take on matters:

THE SEVEN DEADLY DOUBTS THAT SHOULD LEAVE EVERY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER PUZZLED

I still think the morons who carried out the various Paris attacks were “genuine” terrorists (see Slogpost of last week) but that doesn’t stop one from amassing a body of evidence to suggest that the authorities both knew the attack was going to happen….and turned a blind eye when it did. Some of the facts pointing in that direction have been completely ignored by a Western press set that has adopted the usual robotic Stepford Wife unanimity from Day 1. In the light of what follows, it’s hard to see why they should be believed:

[b]Doubt 1: The security cop who killed himself[/b]

The Charlie attack began around 11.30 am (CET) on 7 January 2015

Immediately, a specialist cop with relevant experience – Helric Fredou – was assigned to the case. He had been an anti-terrorist Special Branch (SRPJ) police officer since 2011.

He worked all day assessing film, recordings, identity details. He stopped for neither lunch nor dinner, but (I’m told) did phone one family member and “express concerns” about some of the stuff he’d seen. Just after 1 am the next morning, he died from a bullet wound to the head. He had “a history of depression” the authorities quickly established. The verdict was suicide.

Just two months earlier, he’d found an immediate colleague dead in similar circumstances.The verdict was suicide.

[b]Doubt 2: The missing frames from the France 24 video of cop being ‘killed’[/b]

This clip of film was clumsily edited before publication. The missing bit in slowmo and close-up looks to me conclusive: the killer who ‘finishes off’ officer Ahmed Merabet with an AK47 from close range misses the cop, the bullet ricochets off the pavement. From that range, a successful shot to the head would’ve blown Merabet’s brains up and down the street. There is no sign of any such effect.

We’ve been told Ahmed Merabet died from that shot. He didn’t. Do we have a body? Will there be an autopsy?

[b]Doubt 3: Flak jackets on the roof.[/b]

One Paris contact says some of this film too has been edited since the incident. This person (and others on French blogs) claim they can clearly discern flak jackets on some of the observers.

That too suggests pre-warning of the attack.

[b]Doubt 4: Establishment of terrorist identity[/b]

Although I’ve tried already to establish that the two perpetrators were near brain-extinct, not even a martyr with an IQ in single figures would leave his identity card in the getaway car for the cops to find: frankly, anyone with an ounce of sense would leave all IDs at home (or destroy them) and rip all tabs out of their clothing.

[b]Doubt 5: They were already under surveillance[/b]

At the risk of pressing a tad too hard on the sarcasm pedal, having terrorists under surveillance kind of loses its attraction as a policy if they’re still free – in broad daylight, in the capital city – to mosey on downtown to the offices of the most offensive BD-mag in France, don face balaclavas, enter the wrong address, take a hostage – and then gain effortless access to the building.

There are only two conclusions possible here: either the French security services are at a level in the basement below ‘useless’, or they turned a blind eye. For reasons that both precede and follow, I favour the latter.

[b] Doubt 6: No idea of the address, but fully briefed on it being weekly editorial meeting from 11am onwards
[/b]
Turning this same coin over, we are being asked to believe that two slogan-screaming idiots (who didn’t even case the joint before driving there) nevertheless had an espionage network capable of discovering the exact time of Charlie Hebdo’s weekly editorial meeting….but not which floor it took place on.

I think there’s a very good chance they were helped on the timing information.

[b]Doubt 7: Mass rally of world ‘leaders’ in three days flat[/b]

It’s obvious to most people (with the probable exception of Con Coughlin) that the Hypocrisy Happening in Paris at the weekend was – given the nature of censorship applied by these sociopaths across the planet these days – likely to result in a rush on anti-seasickness pills, what’s less obvious is how Hollande managed to round up almost every Swinging Dick on Earth to turn up that quickly.

The whole event seemed to me carefully orchestrated.

Of course, your history of consistently flaming my posts is of no consequence to this debate...

is the link to the BBC false why and how do you know ?

Apparently so:

[url= http://www.nominet.org.uk/whois/lookup?query=bbc-news.co.uk ]Clever bugger though, fished me in[/url]