Shooting at French Satirical Magazine
- Thread starter Westyfield2
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 3,331
- Location
- Orpington.
And the cause.
Pointless drivel, even if it was FF, no one but the omnipresent CTheos knows apparently, seemingly?
To establish Islamic dominance across the world.
Sadly that's not going to happen, the sooner we realise that the better. We need to get smart and get tough, at the moment it's just victory after victory for the terrorists. I can feel the country getting demoralised, we need a victory of our own.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,086
- Location
- Berkland
So what happened to the person who "escaped"?
It's about the usual bunch of crazies making rubbish up that gullible people fall for.
Iirc the human ear can't keep up with full auto so we hear less shots than are fired, I haven't seen the video.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2006
- Posts
- 5,786
This whole censorship debate makes me cringe so badly its hurts. Western media is now the last bastion of free speech and uncensored news, lol.
Show the average Joe what's really happening around the world and I guarantee you that public perceptions and support for certain policies will change pretty quickly. Oh, and please don't use the excuse that people don't need to see violence and gore, they can use their imagination. The average idiot in this country has no imagination, theyll never develop any sort of empathy and emotional connection to anything unless they see it directly.
Show the average Joe what's really happening around the world and I guarantee you that public perceptions and support for certain policies will change pretty quickly. Oh, and please don't use the excuse that people don't need to see violence and gore, they can use their imagination. The average idiot in this country has no imagination, theyll never develop any sort of empathy and emotional connection to anything unless they see it directly.
Tbh having read up on the subject over the years imho the British police are the best in the world even when having to work under thick British politicians who also scrimp the budget.
I noticed your joking intent but still thought it worthy of mention.
We have had victories of our own; Afghanistan, Iraq, Osama Bin Laden, Mali to name four.
ISIS are being pushed back and I doubt will last more than a couple more years as a holder of serious amounts of land at least.
Unfortunately stopping "lone wolf" attacks is very difficult, whether they be Islamic Terrorists or school shooters. Luckily only a very small number of people are likely to ever try it, especially in western countries where Muslims are generally very moderate/relaxed.
How we deal with those people without eroding our civil liberties (see snoopers charter I mentioned earlier) is the very big question. I doubt these people would ever listen to the majority of muslims, who they would class as non muslims or infidels.
Stopping extremist preaching is something we can try and crack down on for home grown terrorists. That can certainly be where the majority of muslims can (and are) help(ing), unfortunately like most things the majority will just sit back and say it's someone else's problem (while not supporting the extremists).
I'v seen the slow mo video, its hard to decide whether he was actually hit by the 'execution' round
Do you honestly think that Afghanistan and Iraq were allied victories? Afghanistan might have been but by going into Iraq at the same time we managed to snatch a probable defeat from the jaws of victory. The assassination of Osama bin Laden is our only real victory I think imo.
personally I think he is going semi auto, thought that since I saw the first vid half an hour after it happened.
I shot an ak47 fully auto in vietnam on holiday and no trained soldier aiming at range would use one in that manner.
Surgical also works, but "civil" is a reasonable word to use. Why? Because of the way they carried out their attack.
I think they believed they were civil, upstanding members of society, they attacked only those they saw as the enemy. They didn't go in to kill as many as possible, they went in and killed people they thought had wronged them. The fact they called people not of the Charlie magazine "civilians" would indicate they thought they were soldiers fighting their war, and wanted to complete their "mission", killing only those they saw as the enemy, while still feeling like they were good people by not killing those they saw as not involved.
Note again i'm not saying they were civil, rather they thought they were civil, upstanding people. Personally I think they are totally deluded murderers, however I'm trying to understand why they did what they did and why they attacked in a completely different way to most islamic extremists (which is generally along the lines of kill as many infidels as possible).
Unfortunately several people on here appear to want to shut any debate down before it is started and insist any questions or opposition to their anti muslim stance is a "glorifying" terrorism and islam.
No I didn't. Please read all the posts telling you this multiple times.
Also please tell me where I am praising these terrorists?
So because I used the "" rather than the '' and the * and explanation that the word I used wasn't actually what I meant I'm obviously glorifying their actions?
I pointed it out yes, like several people previous to my post. It's a very different tactic in Islamic terrorism (and terrorism in general) and quite rightly should be pointed out. It doesn't mean anyones glorifying anything. Shutting down discussion on topics such as this is part of the reason so many in this thread are so vehemently anti muslim, they can't be challenged.
I think they know exactly what you mean, as your first post was pretty clear, but it doesn't fit in with the narrative they want hence them playing polemics with the words and meanings. No need to feel you have to explain yourself multiple times, as its a waste of your time.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
The press stopped reporting lies.
Now can anyone answer, were there three gunmen in the original attack as originally reported? One of which surrendered to police after being named on social media, or were there only two original gunmen, the brothers?
Apparently the supposed 3rd man in the original attack was supposed to be the driver, but IIRC when the two masked men went into the car to escape I swear they both got in at the front so one of them would have been the driver?
From that video looks like a few of the hostages were already dead before they went in.
Also shows why that guy behind the car opened up like he did and tends to confirm he was firing full auto given the situation (putting down a charging target who might have been a suicide bomber). That guy must have taken like ~100 rounds.
Last edited: