Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    In NO way am I saying that what the terrorists did is justified

    But They did kind of bring this upon themselves. Everyone know how protective muslims are when it comes to prophet Muhammad SAW, and to make a satirical magazine about is obviously going to cause some sort of reaction. Especially as extremist terrorism is rising and is so dominant in the media

    however, saying that the terrorists shouldn't have reacted in that way...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Their names are Saïd and Chérif K. 34 and 32yo, two brothers from Paris, and Hamyd M., 18yo high school pupil in Reims.
    Chérif set a jihadist network leading to Irak ten years ago and was sentenced to three years in prison.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jemner01)
    Exclaiming that Islam is the problem and not extreme fundamentalism coupled with the willingness to act on extreme fundamentalism in an extreme way is eaxtly what people in this thread, including you, are doing. In this case, you're not blaming the two actual gunmen,
    i am blaming those men ( as well as all others) and i also blame other influencing factors. rarely is any case black and white as you try to make it seem. im also saying if that influence put in their heads from perhaps their sheikh or whoever was not there, they may not have done this ( they may have still been waste of space criminals, but perhaps more petty crime) so the islamic 'cause' has given their criminal tendencies more opportunity. it is the case also for many islamic converts in prison, who came out and then committed a major crime. the problem france has is simlair to uk, but more in that france s muslim population are even more under-educated and poorly integrated than here, and more prone to crime, so its perfect breeding ground for islamists to recruit.

    and the fact that this has happened in more places than just paris, proves the link, not randomness. its just another cause ( along with many) to add to the list, which we dont need do we.

    (Original post by Jemner01)

    You're correct in saying the numbers are neither all nor none, but it's closer to none than all, otherwise the problem of Islamic extremism would be much greater than it is now. Support for IS or extremism is different than acting out the extremism. The two are extremely close, but all the Muslims who may support extremism but do not say anything or do anything are not a problem, because they're not doing anything.
    thats not entirely true either - they are a problem, but not as direct as these two today. people who raise money for IS for example directly have blood on their hands for the people they shoot with the guns paid for by their donations. many people also have the same ideas, but not the mental state or perhaps too much fear, for now, to actually undertake these sorts of attrocity. Finally there are others that dont directly get involved, but recruit others that do, and spur them on, in fact some islamic groups deliberatly recruited mentally ill people to undertake acts such as this, by filling their heads with ideas of 'jihad' and the like.. the list is almost endless, and doesnt start and stop with simply 'isolated two guys in paris acting 'randomly' and alone' - noone beleives that, it would be pure ignorance.

    (Original post by Jemner01)
    They're not acting on it. If they were, like you say, funding extremism or showing support for the extremism then the debate on what the consequence of that support should be can be had. You're assuming I'm stupid with the racism analogy- I understand you can hold a beleif without acting upon it. But that's the problem- acting upon it.
    the differnce between holding a belief and acting on it may jsut be a matter of time, or a change of mood, personal circumstance. its the ideology thats the fundamental probelm, not the eventual action- same with racism. it has never been tackled in the islamic world, in some places its been encouraged (whereas efforts to tackle racism in the west have been made) . there is a fundamental problem witha generation of muslims who live in europe but have allegience in whatever large or small way, to a doctrine that comes from Arab groups rather than european values and laws. its quite ****ed up

    (Original post by Jemner01)
    If you consider bombing pro-active then you'll have to look again, beacuse it seems intervention has caused the adverse effect and created more extremists. You're harking for more intervention, for the problem to be solved, but the way the UN have been "solving" it isn't working if more are being created.
    extremists where there long before intervensions please do your research. the islamist idea of international diplomacy is kill people till host country does what you want. The difference is in the past usa funded and latter ignored their activities in other countries ( pure ignorance on usas part) now at least they are making direct action to deal with an issue they should have 20 years back. it is not straightforward, but the rest of the world is united behind usa on this subject, even countries that hate usa like russia and china will support the war on islamism becuase its also a problem they deal with too. and yes the USA has to do it, becuase all the players in the islamic world have never even bothered to eradicate islamic extremism, they grew it for their own goals.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Many inhabitants of the Middle East have a remarkable ability to ignore crimes committed by their own leaders and only rev up the outrage machine when it involves non-Muslims committing so-called crimes.

    Their voices are often hauntingly silent when it comes to the crimes of their co-religionists
    I don't think this is the case at all. When Iraq committed crimes against humanity in the Iran-Iraq War, the Iranians were certainly outraged. Plenty of prominent Muslims, including some pretty conservative clerics, have also condemned Islamic State.

    As for their own leaders, I think this is false too. The Arab Spring is a massive counterexample. In Tunisia, Egypt and beyond, hundreds of thousands - millions, in fact, of inhabitants of the Middle East engaged in largely peaceful protests against crimes committed by their own leaders. It's also harder for them to criticise their own leaders when they're living in Western-backed dictatorships.

    There's no less criticism of crimes committed by their own leaders than there is, say, in the West, and this is largely due to propaganda by state power. How many people criticise or even ask for inquiries into the United States' drone terror campaign? How many people protested against the US backing of terrorists in Nicaragua, the bombing of a major pharmaceutical plant in Sudan; the murderous sanctions against Iraq? And, although the war of aggression against Iraq was opposed by the majority of people, some of these people didn't oppose it because of the crimes committed, but for isolationist reasons.

    (Original post by young_guns)
    What intervention caused 9/11?
    Reasons could have, and most likely did, include: the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, the sanctions against Iraq which caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, the lack of criticism of Israeli atrocities, and so on. Further into the past, but reasons which were likely to be less prominent, include: the West featured in turning Iraq into the tyranical state it became, they also supported Saddam Hussein while he was committing atrocities in the Iran-Iraq War, they supported a brutal dictator in Iran who had come to power after Britain and the US got rid of the democratically elected leader. And, so on.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    What an idiotic comment, you clearly know nothing about ballistics.

    An 7.62mm round only amputates an arm when the bullet tumbles, which it would not have done on such a short trajectory.

    By the way, if you are basing your belief in a conspiracy on the supposed lack of blood (you have up-close high res imagery do you?), you have clearly watched too many movies.

    Some people are pathetically desperate to believe everything is a conspiracy
    Oh so you are an ballistics expert. I don't believe everything is a conspiracy, I'm merely curious. Like HarryBarney pointed out there is no whiplash aswell and even if it was a glancing/grazing shot, some sort of sudden head movement is expected. Btw you don't need 'up-close high res imagery' to spot a dark red fluid, the filming distance is close enough for a naked eye to spot blood.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    the police were pretty useless, in america they would have dealt with them swiftly
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trupac)
    Like HarryBarney pointed out there is no whiplash
    How would his head whip back when there's pavement behind it?

    Re the blood, where would you expect it to come out in the seconds after?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Reasons could have, and most likely did, include: the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia
    At the invitation of the Saudi government

    the sanctions against Iraq which caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people
    Sanctions that would not have caused a single death from malnoutrition or lack of medicine if Saddam Hussein hadn't been gaming the oil for food programme.

    the lack of criticism of Israeli atrocities
    Which specific atrocity pre-2001 are you claiming the US failed to criticise?

    It's interesting the motives of Al-Qaeda that you don't mention, like the West's involvement in freeing East Timor from Indonesian control and their subjection to fanatical Muslim Javanese militias.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    At the invitation of the Saudi government
    Irrelevant to whether they're supporting a harsh dictatorship there.

    (Original post by young_guns)
    Sanctions that would not have caused a single death from malnoutrition or lack of medicine if Saddam Hussein hadn't been gaming the oil for food programme.
    It was perfectly obvious that these deaths were occurring, however.

    (Original post by young_guns)
    Which specific atrocity pre-2001 are you claiming the US failed to criticise?
    One particularly prominent one is the brutal occupation of Palestine itself, as well as the fact that the United States rejected (and continues to reject) the international consensus on the two-state solution for decades.

    (Original post by young_guns)
    It's interesting the motives of Al-Qaeda that you don't mention, like the West's involvement in freeing East Timor from Indonesian control and their subjection to fanatical Muslim Javanese militias.
    You mean the Indonesia, under the genocidal dictator Suharto, that was supported by the West for decades, despite his genocide of around 700,000 people over his reign and his occupation of East Timor? That, incidentally, is another crime which inhabitants of the West almost universally failed to criticise.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Reasons could have, and most likely did, include: the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, the sanctions against Iraq which caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, the lack of criticism of Israeli atrocities, and so on. Further into the past, but reasons which were likely to be less prominent, include: the West featured in turning Iraq into the tyranical state it became, they also supported Saddam Hussein while he was committing atrocities in the Iran-Iraq War, they supported a brutal dictator in Iran who had come to power after Britain and the US got rid of the democratically elected leader. And, so on.
    your arguments seem contradictory when you complain first about "anctions against Iraq which caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people" then also about initial support for Saddams regieme. btw it was more likely saddam himslef responsible for those hundreds and thousands of deaths.

    not to absolve usa (and uk) of all blame for their froegin policy in the 80s and 90s which was frankly moronic - but it was largely in favour of these islamic groups and their pre-cursors. 9/11 didnt occur becuase of any specific usa action, and in fact there were other attacks on US interests long before. 9/11 was simply kicking off in a big way the islamists war v the modern world, to try and put islam on the map as a colonial power once again
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dexa)
    Who else think that the newspaper was stupid to almost bring this onto themselves? Why do something that you know will provoke a reaction from extremists? My sympathies to those who suffered for this.
    Whoever liked this comment ought to be ashamed of themselves. Do you really think that in 2015 one shouldn't dare criticise an organised religion for fear of being gunned down in cold blood?!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aty100)
    Im sure Christians wouldn't like horrible and disrespectful images and cartoons made of Jesus. Its completely wrong to do such a thing in the first place. However he had it coming and knew it.
    Charlie Hebdo has published TONS of anti-christian caricatures - some of them very crude - since their creation at the end of the 1960s. They never had a problem. They have only published anti-islam drawings since 2005, and they have been burnt and slaughtered.

    Christians don't care.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aty100)
    very disrespectful towards Islam and in a way deserves it. However he had it coming and knew it.
    Please no hate comments i hope you just understand where im coming from,
    Thanks
    You're not ****ing serious are you? So Islam is a peaceful religion but you can kill someone for just making a cartoon. **** logic right?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trupac)
    You're not ****ing serious are you? So Islam is a peaceful religion but you can kill someone for just making a cartoon. **** logic right?
    Okay i was being harsh but i was watching the news and they had been attacked before, they should have not made such stupid mistakes again and again or all these innocent people wouldn't be dead or wounded. They had been told several times to remove the cartoons.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Irrelevant to whether they're supporting a harsh dictatorship there.
    It's a dictatorship that has the support of the majority of the population. Are you saying we should have overthrown them?

    It was perfectly obvious that these deaths were occurring, however.
    Occurring at the hands of Saddam Hussein, in addition to the hundreds of thousands of other deaths. Including thousands of executions in Abu Ghraib prison. Isn't it interesting that you have a few unfortunate instances of torture in Abu Ghraib under American command (torture that was pretty tame by Middle Eastern standards) and the whole Arab world is in uproar.

    How much uproar was there over Saddam Hussein thousands of executions, his hundreds of thousands of victims? The disproportionate response between the two tells you everything you need to know about the legitimacy and genuineness of these grievances against the United States


    One particularly prominent one is the brutal occupation of Palestine itself
    A "brutal occupation" that Israel didn't even want in the first place and only occurred when, despite Israel begging King Hussein not to join Egypt and Syria in the 1967 war, he threw his troops in and Israel responded, taking the West Bank.

    And then in 1968 Israel offered a land for peace deal under UN Resolution 242. The Arab World gathered in a conference, and the Palestinians declared that they would never treat with the Israelis, they would not accept any deal and they would drive them into the see. The only instance in history I can remember where the victorious power immediately offers to give up land to the losers.

    And then in 1994/95/96, the Israelis put a deal on the table and Rabin would have seen a reasonable peace agreement. Hamas then proceeded with a campaign of mass murder that pushed the Israelis to elect Netanyahu and pushing peace back for another decade

    And then in 2008 Olmert offered a deal so advantageous to the Palestinians that Condoleeza Rice quote "couldn't believe her eyes" (all Israeli settlers moved onto settler blocks in 4% of the West Bank, the Palestinians keep 96% of the West Bank and are compensated with equivalent 4% land from Israel, an underground tunnel linking Gaza and WB, $50 billion in development aid, Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem and the Jerusalem Holy Sites). And yet they turned it down, thinking they would get a better deal under the next US President

    That occupation?

    as well as the fact that the United States rejected (and continues to reject) the international consensus on the two-state solution for decades.
    What on earth are you talking about? The United States official policy favours a two-state solution; the last time it was genuinely on the table in 2008 the Palestinians turned it down.

    You mean the Indonesia, under the genocidal dictator Suharto, that was supported by the West for decades, despite his genocide of around 700,000 people over his reign and his occupation of East Timor? That, incidentally, is another crime which inhabitants of the West almost universally failed to criticise.
    Yeah, that Suharto is the one your beloved Al-Qaeda supported
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aty100)
    Okay i was being harsh but i was watching the news and they had been attacked before, they should have not made such stupid mistakes again and again or all these innocent people wouldn't be dead or wounded. They had been told several times to remove the cartoons.
    The mistake of what exactly?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aty100)
    Okay i was being harsh but i was watching the news and they had been attacked before, they should have no made such stupid mistakes again and again or all these innocent people wouldn't be dead or wounded. They had been told several times to remove the cartoons.
    sorry you sound entirely clueless on the sbujects here, or maybe confused- you do know this is not about 1 guy called Charlie right?

    and you seem to suggest that islam promotes murder and mindless rabid rage as a reaction to satire, which i would think in itself be an insult . fyi the magazine made satire of the Pope too, but to date no catholic has firebombed or stormed their office with guns like retards.
    i wouldnt want to promote this form of satire i dont find it funny, but satire is not an accetable motive for murder - so there is a problem with out mindset and ideology if you think it is
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trupac)
    You're not ****ing serious are you? So Islam is a peaceful religion but you can kill someone for just making a cartoon. **** logic right?
    What are you talking about? The attack didn't happen according to you, the video showing the policeman being killed was just a CGI fake and the "facts", according to you, showed this was a Western conspiracy to justify "Muslim bashing" in your words.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trupac)
    Not gonna lie so yeah I am basing it on movies. But still someone getting shot with an Ak47 at point blank, there should be little bit of blood no?
    (Original post by matthewduncan)
    after just watching the video of the execution this doesnt seem like such a crazy idea
    who gets shot in the head and theres no blood??
    (Original post by matthewduncan)
    yeah.
    and the fact that he got shot multiple times before the headshot and not an ounce of blood for me says its 100% a false flag..
    (Original post by matthewduncan)
    bruh its clearly fake.
    CLEARLY.
    he got shot multiple times before the headshot and theres no sign of blood.
    even after the headshot theres no blood...
    Anyone who knows anything about ak47s or has seen someone get shot knows that when someone gets shot blood goes splatter.
    (Original post by matthewduncan)
    exactly mate. the evidence is there.
    No blood,no whiplash effect after the headshot.
    These are ak47s lol
    what makes you say that the rifles are ak47? are you just basing that on the video of the police officer being shot? if so then you have a remarkably good eye for weaponry.

    as far as i can see either of those rifles could be possibly hundreds of different guns.
    most likely akm but also a good chance one or both are chinese variants of kalashnikov.

    they're also not necessarily rifles firing 7.62x39mm. the rifles could be 5.45x39mm or even 5.56x45mm, 7.62x51mm or 6.5x39mm.

    entry wounds do not produce much blood, usually a very fine spray which is invisible to the eye unless you're very close to it.
    neither will a 7.62x39mm necessarily exit a skull and if it does then it is likely that blood will not start flowing out of the exit wound in significant amounts until afew seconds afterwards.

    (Original post by HarryBarney)
    You do have a point. With an AK47 a weapon that has been used to amputate people on single shots and literally destroy heads from close and far range there is a significant lack of blood. Which raises suspicions and takes us into the world of conspiracy. The 'headshot' also seems as it hit the pavement unless it exited and then hit the pavement. His head did not have the whiplash effect either from the force of the shot. :/

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    the force from a small arm's bullet doesn't cause any noticeable movement to a person.
    a person may move backwards or even go flying backwards and spin or tumble or roll over after being shot but that is the person reacting to the bullet much like with an electric shock.

    shooting a person's skull from the opposite side of where it is against the floor who is already in shock or unconscious on the floor isn't going to move it a noticeable amount.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Oh look, what a surprise.

    Let me guess- nothing wrong with Islam though? :rolleyes:

    When was the last time Sikhs/Hindus/Jews did something like this? Oh thats right, back in I-cant-****ing-remember!
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 22, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.