"Muslim" terrorists attack French magazine in Paris

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 ‘conspiracy theorists[/url]‘

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

Agreed. I have no issue with criticising anyone or anything I think deserve it.

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’

A large part of the media seem preoccupied with trying to blame anyone but Muslims.

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 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?

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 Jewish 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 – all 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 not 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.

http://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.

9
all depends really , many of each group consider the other to be subhuman.

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….

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.

Carehomes and schools eh?

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?[/quote]Well, thinking about why I feel uncomfortable with it, more that it just seems a bit “too good to be true” really. It’s being spun nicely anyway.

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:

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.

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:

Clever bugger though, fished me in