Charlie Hebdo: Gun attack on French magazine kills 12

The people responsible for the attack have only added fuel to the already-growing fire of resentment against their warped interpretation of a peaceful religion. They probably don't care either. Unfortunately it will be peaceful muslims to suffer because of it.

I'm sat in Starbucks now and I can't imagine what it would be like to have some nut burst in and start killing people. It's so surreal. Can't imagine how messed up this day will be for families of the victims.

I know I said this already, but...

Damn.

 

they have to spread the police among politicians, the public and other media groups. that makes resources strained. so the protection they had was what could be afforded.

but doesnt really excuse the shooters themselves. rather than treating the symptoms by policing the media (through censorship or protection), its the radical groups that need to be eliminated as the real problem.

 

Sounds reasonable, but let's see what info comes out in the aftermath.

Yes, it is inexcusable. However, if one engages in activities which they know can result in this sort of outcome, one should take adequate precautions. I know I keep harping on about this, but the way I see it is that if I walked out on to the street now, right outside my house, and started distributing information which a specific and large group will find offensive, I fully accept that someone will likely want to put me in the ground. Consequently, I would either not engage in such activity and negate the risk outright or I would take appropriate measures to protect myself. This publication did neither and now some of their staff are dead.

If the police or government or whoever didn't offer adequate protection, as is the case, there are other ways to ensure a higher level of staff safety, even simple things like multiple secure doors, alarms, etc, etc.

Some of the accounts I've read so far make it sound like these guys walked in there like it was a drive through. They even got the wrong address first and shot one of the builders which directed them to the publications office, or according to newsweek anyway.

 

The staff of Charlie Hebdo has been fearless in their pursuit of satire and lampooning those who take themselves too seriously. The fought a lawsuit back in 2006-7. They lived under threats. They were firebombed. These people stood up and ultimately died for freedom of expression. Words are inadequate to truly describe the courage that they demonstrated for years.

Je Suis Charlie! Cheers!

 

@ inthespirit - You're doing an exceptional job of blaming the victim. One can only imagine how you would respond to a rape case with that abysmal logic. :bang:

 

I did appropriate blame in relation to security failures on, as I said, "whomever was in charge of security", I hardly think you would have thought this to be the victims i.e. cartoonists and editors. Particularly, when I clearly stated the publication, in their capacity as employer, which implies duty of care to protect their employees. Likewise, I mentioned the police/government, who also have a duty of care to protect their citizens/public, particularly in view of previous attacks and ongoing threats.

I don’t understand what point you are trying to make? Should I, nor anyone else, be concerned with the safety of employees doing dangerous work? You have something against me bringing this up? Or are you deliberately misconstruing my argument to try to win popularity points on peoples ideological sympathies?

You got your free speech martyrs now, hope you’re happy, but I'm sure the families of the victims, as myself, would have preferred a different outcome - a few dead or captured terrorists who never made it past that first door and CH staff left alive and well to do what they do best. Surely, you don’t disagree? So again, why is it that you are attacking my attempts to pragmatically look at the security situation?

Nice straw man argument, but do keep your insulting assumptions to yourself.

 

Another police officer murdered

Jesus.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30721677

 

I'm pretty sure that is the whole point of these attacks. Attack a major ideological principle held in high regard by your claimed enemies, with maximum air time and shock value. The consequence being more negativity from the general populace towards Islam and moderate Muslims, causing more divisions and conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims and ultimately resulting in more funding and more recruits for their warped ideologies.

Likewise, such events benefit the rising right wing leaning parties in Europe, which further promotes the terrorists agenda.

It will be interesting to see if these cowards were so called "lone wolfs". Personally, I think it is unlikely, as they seemed well trained and well armed as well as likely adhering to a larger strategic goal.

EDIT: A few interesting reads:

Wider implications of this event: http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/sharpening-contradictions-satirists.html

Some background on the perps: http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/terrorist-radicalized-torture.html

I fear that the mental state of the perpetrators is now so far gone, that they will aim for maximum damage until they are killed which is likely what their goal is, 72 virgins and all that nonsense. Hopefully, they are stopped before they do any more damage.

 

In a country that doesn't allow guns, similar to the UK. Having a couple of officers on continuous watch is more than enough. When two blokes turn up with assault rifles there isn't much you can do, unfortunately.

They can't employ continuous watch with the armed police. They will be needed to out doing crime fighting stuff rather than waiting for an event, which before this, would be highly unlikely.

 

I don't know why so many people (particularly Americans) blame the lack of armed police for not preventing more casualties.

America has nothing but armed cops and that still doesn't stop mass killings happening.

Terrorists will always find a way around an obstacle (look at 9/11).

If there was a known credible threat, no doubt armed police would have been stationed outside Charlie Hebdo.

 

I do believe that Rush Limbaugh came out with a very similar comment recently. I get the feeling some of the pro-gun crowd in America are using this as a demonstration point for their arguments.

To be honest, I think taking this tragedy and using it to push pretty much any political agenda right now is just disgraceful.

 

American commentators, or at least some of them are never above using any tragic event to push their agenda. The shrieking tone of many so-called journalists is over the top on a good day.

 

Thank God for the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30773297

 

I think the French police do carry guns. I'm pretty sure I've seen the municipal police in Paris carrying a gun in a hip holster and the gendarmerie carrying machine guns.

 

I was just in France for a day, and the first thing I noticed was military guys walking around with machine guns. Regular cops were wearing handguns.

 

French policemen routinely wear a pistol in a holster, just like American ones. I can't remember what the gendarmes carry, but I would imagine it's much the same. Obviously both forces have heavier weaponry when it's required, and there are the equivalents of 'Swat' teams etc.

To suggest that any of this happened due to lack of police weapons is laughably ignorant.

 

You better hope Ero doesn't see that^^!

 

If there were True Patriots with concealed weapons on board, 9/11 would not have happened. These things keep happening where people ban firearms. Coincidence?

 

Yeah, why solidarity protests were so high for these victims and not for other victim in the past

Not some-ALL. It is about ratings