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

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://singletrackworld.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]

Clever bugger though, fished me in

Clever bugger? Not really. It was immediately obvious that it was a fake, yet you're so determined to find the hidden answer that you'll immediately jump on any source to back up your "theories".

Zero credibility...

If it was immediately obvious, why were you the only one to point it out?

We're none of us infallible, but, like the babies in incubators incident, or GCHQ/NSA and the wealth of lies and half truths in between, questioning Government and media is certainly a credible path.

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.

the reason i brought it up was to show that ninfan is a bit of a hypocrite in saying that its ok to kill innocent people during times of war especially as they can be counted as collateral damage...but it would be wrong if they had been targeted deliberately...hence the question about the boys on the beach.
he then went onto allude that making offensive comments on religion should not have been outlawed but is more than happy to state that any criticism towards judaism is anti-semitism.
he later stated that islam and christianity dont count as they are religions and that judaism has transcended both these religions and is now a race...and therefore anti-semitism should be punishable but not islamophobia or christophobia

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.

i agree

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

Well that's a well thought-out and convincing argument.

Have you actually looked up many Charlie Hebdo cartoons? Many of them are full of witless racism that the BNP might think twice about. I'm not sure how that's being good at satire or why you're so 'fiercely protective' of it.

And poking fun at the rich and powerful is a bit different to bullying the marginalised, don't you think?

If it was immediately obvious, why were you the only one to point it out?

Because I'm the smartest guy in the room 8)

What am I wearing?

Am I right in thinking its original target was mainly the Catholic church/establishment (which was more intertwined at the time)?

that's what i had read too...i also read that the catholic church had successfully sued them on 12 occasions...so maybe they had started to pick new targets to insult as a result

Is this one of your favourites binners?

[img] [/img]
'Hands off our benefit cheques'

Nice.

Or perhaps this charmer:

[img] [/img]

Grum - the bullying charge doesn't really stand, as we're talking about a publication with a tiny readership (until this week, obviously). If you were talking about a national newspaper with a circulation in the millions, then maybe. But a readership in the tens of thousands against a muslim population of millions? Not really bullying, is it? Hardy a lynch mob.

I'm not doubting that some of it is tasteless, ill-conceived or offensive. Its satire? Isn't that the point? Most satire is pretty hit and miss, to say the least. Have you read Private Eye recently. A large percentage of it is twoddle.

But if they'd crossed any legal boundaries they could be taken to task legally. Having spent quite a bit of my career working in publishing, I can tell you that their output, like any other publications, would be run past a lawyer before it went to print. Anything that crossed the lines we as a society have deemed unacceptable would never have made it to print. Simple as that.

EDIT: Once again gum. My personal opinion is irrelevant. Theres a lot of things i find offensive. Should I therefore have the right to decree that therefore they shouldn't be allowed? Of course I shouldn't! I don't have the right not to be offended. Neither does anyone else.

What am I wearing?

A tinfoil hat 😉

This week's Charlie Hebdo features cartoons of Mohammed...

until this week, obviously

Something for jivehoneyjive to go after there...

What exactly are they 'satirising' in the above cartoon about the benefit cheques binners?

EDIT: Once again gum. My personal opinion is irrelevant. Theres a lot of things i find offensive. Should I therefore have the right to decree that therefore they shouldn't be allowed? Of course I shouldn't!

I didn't say it shouldn't be allowed, I said it shouldn't be supported/encouraged - which is what you and many others are doing.

If the one showing bullets going through the koran was reversed, and was published by an Islamic magazine, showing the bible/christians - you'd be quite happy to use it as an example of the twisted evils of Islam inciting violence/hatred I'm sure.

With Grum here much of what they did was puerile rather than brilliant cutting satire and done just to offend. See also the prophet as a porn star - again what is the bitign satire there and the point?
Its like turning up at someones wedding and shouting that the bride is a dirty fat slag then talking about your right to free speech and how they dont have the right to not be offended rather than address the fact you have just been an offensive ****.

EDIT:
Your I dont have the right to be not offended is tiresome not least because no has asserted the right to be "not offended" - see wedding above example.

I'm not doubting that some of it is tasteless, ill-conceived or offensive. Its satire? Isn't that the point?

* insert poster of choice and no offence meant just satire innit

I have Sunnis, Shias, combinations of both, Jews, Christians (Anglican and RCs), agnostics and atheists all working in my office.

I stand by this being interesting; no bollocks talked

Did you manage to type that with a straight face ?

Because I laughed when I read it.

The world leaders pictures you "exposed" and posting fake news websites certainly seems like posting bollocks.

though I admit I was taken in by the false BBC link:

Fair enough, but have a think about why you were taken in by it.

Because you are blinded by your point of view, you do zero analysis of anything that backs it up.

As it happens, I didn't spot the fake domain either, but the first thing I did when I looked at the article was Google the name of the "expert" to see who he was.

And as stated above, he isn't anybody.

(plus. The BBC News YouTube channel has a few hundred thousand videos. Not 31)

What am I wearing?

A tinfoil hat

Good guess, but it was actually a momentary frown...

Smiling again now though 😉

My personal opinion is irrelevant. Theres a lot of things i find offensive. Should I therefore have the right to decree that therefore they shouldn't be allowed?

obviously not you're just one fella..

But when it's offending a quarter of the world's population, surely there's a difference?

I didn't say it shouldn't be allowed, I said it shouldn't be supported/encouraged - which is what you and many others are doing.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm merely stating that the law sets the limits of what is acceptable. We all live within those same guidelines. Unless it crosses these lines, they're free to do that. It might upset some people.

I don't have an opinion on it one way or another. Not being an authority on French domestic politics, I have no idea what they're satirising. My opinion is irrelevant anyway.

People publish stuff all the time that other find offensive. Heres an example for you. I'm a designer and illustrator. So, as you've seen I do a graphic for our weekly pub ride. A few weeks ago i did this, for our 'Songs of Praise' christmas night ride, and posted it up on't interweb

[img] [/img]

Is it tasteless? Yes. Is it disrespectful to some peoples deeply held beliefs? Of course it is. Puerile? Tick. Will some people be offended by it? No doubt. Should I be somehow have to consider all this. Well... yes. Up to a point. Everything relative innit?

Theres a lot of things i find offensive. Should I therefore have the right to decree that therefore they shouldn't be allowed? Of course I shouldn't! I don't have the right not to be offended. Neither does anyone else.

but you should be Binners...you have as much right to be offended as you have to offend....it should work both ways
do you think you would find it accepteble if someone was being offensive towards a family member? i dont think so...thats the point i made and its the same point Grum is making.
its about having the right to be able to freely express yourself and balancing that with the equal right to be able to challenge it if you think it wrong.

Here is food for thought why is a popular conspiracy theory (popular as in widely quoted by conspiracy theorists) being presented on a fake BBC link ? why was that link address set up some time ago not for this hoax. are conspiracy theories themselves a conspiracy. If so by who and why ? does David Ike have a financial interest in perpetuating this never ending cycle of doubt and paranoia?

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm merely stating that the law sets the limits of what is acceptable.

So when you were praising them for being 'pretty good' at satire, you weren't supporting them. Oh ok then.

BTW your graphic may offend some but at least has a little wit/humour/inventiveness to it.

I bet the sunni is the brightest.

IGMC (and bulletproof vest).

Is it tasteless? Yes. Is it disrespectful to some peoples deeply held beliefs? Of course it is. Puerile? Tick. Will some people be offended by it? No doubt. Should I be somehow have to consider all this. Well... yes. Up to a point. Everything relative innit?

that depends.....is that a 29er?

My opinion is irrelevant anyway.

Still waiting for you to explain the freedom of speech right to hurl abuse at weddings- not illegal after all.

That bride has no right to not be offended on that special day after all.

Cmon whose with me ?

[i]is that a 29er? [/i]

It's worse than that.

It's an Orange.