Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Deadly gun attack in Paris: Global reactions & discussion watch

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You think that these people were at the World Trade Centre attack? Surely your tinfoil hat has slipped?

    I'm clearly not referring to the paris attackers
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elhm1800)
    So two highly trained personel smoothly execute a extremely complex mission then evade the police force of paris with a rpg....not the day to bring your wallet with you is it? Not something such highly trained individuals such as themselves would do...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    its bull**** man.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HarryBarney)
    They are able to smuggle a rpg ak47s and kill 12 people in execution manner and escape the police. But they leave behind their I.d cards.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    lol funny aint it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by matthewduncan)
    its bull**** man.
    Ikr. Something doesnt add up.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elhm1800)
    Well if I was really mistaken then I apologise. It just seems dodgy that anyone apart from a selafi should use Anjem Chaudry as an example of a conservative muslim in the west.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You still haven't googled "no true Scotsman fallacy", have you? It really isn't worth you discussing Anjem Choudary's value in this discussion any more until you have done so and understood why I introduced him. Then you can come back and prove he isn't a western-born and educated Moslem.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You still haven't googled "no true Scotsman fallacy", have you? It really isn't worth you discussing Anjem Choudary's value in this discussion any more until you have done so and understood why I introduced him. Then you can come back and prove he isn't a western-born and educated Moslem.
    I get the fallacy. However his views are abnormal. No muslim period (forget about true or not) who is educated preaches the ****e anjem does.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by G8D)
    What's extremely complex about walking into an office and shooting at people?
    How about the bit where they 'happened' to know there was general meeting being held where all the staff were at. The bit where they managed to avoid the police completely while getting the building. The bit where they 'escape' paris and its entire police force while dressed all in black with heavy weaponry....are you that dumb??

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by G8D)
    They 'happened' to know that staff would be at... their office?!

    They didn't avoid the police while at the building... they killed and injured them.
    All the staff were conveniently all together in a meeting. . And as for the police that was as they left. Nobody was warned as they went through security on their way up...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by G8D)
    What false flags are you referring to, if you don't mind me asking.
    The Mukden Incident

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukden_Incident

    A former Italian prime minister admitted that Nato, with the help of the CIA carried out terror bombings in Italy and other EU countries in the 50s and blamed the communists so that they could gather support for their governments in fighting against communism.

    http://web.archive.org/web/200511300...o/synopsis.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension


    American agencies planned to commit terrorist acts on their own soil in order to blame Cuba... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
    Here are the apparent official documents: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/2...northwoods.pdf

    The NSA admits that it lied about an event in the Gulf of Tonkin Incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
    and that they manipulated data to make it look like Viatmanese fired on the US first so as to justify the Vietnam war


    http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB...ss20051201.htm


    There's more but I really cba going through them

    Btw Im not saying this is a false flag, just that the ID card seems far too convenient. Maybe they're panicking under the pressure to find these guys?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by G8D)
    They accidentally went to the wrong office building and let off a few rounds before making it to Charlie Hebdo...

    Do you not think that a weekly newspaper often has meetings considering they're always nearing print?
    Cba to argue with you im sorry. Believe in the news 100% fine ,ill be objective for you

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by G8D)
    I'm unconvinced this shows me anything.

    You seem to be under the impression that all so-called false flags have to be identical.
    What? You obviously haven't read any of them. Perhaps you should do your own research into false flags and see what you find?

    Where have I said false flags have to be identical?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by G8D)
    I'm just confused as to why you think those events are relevant.

    I feel that you want this to be a false flag and you will just take anything that comes to you as proof.
    I think you need to go back to school to sharpen up on your reading comprehension. You asked for examples of false flags and I gave you examples of false flags.

    I said I didn't necessarily think that this was a false flag, just that some of the methods of attaining evidence against the suspects have been suspect so far
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elhm1800)
    All the staff were conveniently all together in a meeting. They dont usually sit all together u dumbass.
    You don't seem to have read much about this incident, or about Charlie Hebdo. They did generally just sit around a table together. Their mode of working was very democratic and involved exchanging jokes, drafting cartoons and then deciding (at the end of the week) which were the best for publication.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-30722009

    Why do you descend to pure insult? Surely you can do better than that?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zander01)
    some of the methods of attaining evidence against the suspects have been suspect so far
    What suspect methods do you have in mind? Searching a crime scene, carefully examining abandoned cars and looking at telephone logs all seem pretty standard to me.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elhm1800)
    However his views are abnormal. No muslim period (forget about true or not) who is educated preaches the ****e anjem does.
    Again, you are wrong. An Islamic Indian party leader has supported the attackers:

    http://www.firstpost.com/world/paris...h-2034863.html

    You really should learn to avoid such sweeping generalisations.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thuggee)
    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.
    Firstly, if the US and Britain hadn't supported Saddam Hussein in the first place, there would have been no need for sanctions. Secondly, the sanctions were not designed to produce regime change at all.

    And no, it wasn't Saddam himself responsible for those hundreds of thousands of deaths. For instance, Madeline Albright, the then US Ambassador to the United Nations, said that the deaths of half a million children was "worth it". In short, the West imposed these sanctions knowing full well that hundreds of thousands of people, many children, were dying.

    (Original post by young_guns)
    It's a dictatorship that has the support of the majority of the population. Are you saying we should have overthrown them?
    How do you know that it has the support of the majority of the population when dissent is not tolerated. For a start, we could stop trading with them and cut diplomatic ties.

    (Original post by young_guns)
    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.
    It wasn't at the hands of Saddam Hussein at all. If the sanctions hadn't been imposed, hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive today. The culpability lies with the West, I'm afraid. And, could you provide evidence for Saddam Hussein's "gaming" of the Oil-for-Food programme?

    And, a few unfortunate instances of torture? What about the hundreds of thousands of people who died as a result of the illegal war of aggression in Iraq, that was started by the West? What about the millions of refugees who suffered as a result of the war? The reason there was uproar was because the United States, Britain et al. illegally invaded a country for the purpose of gaining control over its oil fields, imposing their version of economics on the country under an occupation, all at the cost of the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

    (Original post by young_guns)
    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
    I've already demonstrated to you that there's very little uproar in the West when Western governments commit crimes. I could just as easily claim that the disproportionate response when it comes to the crimes of others compared with Western crimes tells me everything I need to know about your grievances against Islamists. However, I don't, because that would be a fallacious appeal to hypocrisy.

    (Original post by young_guns)
    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.
    They certainly wanted the majority, if not all, of historic Palestine. They stated this even in 1947, and ethnically cleansed 700,000 Palestinians in 1948.

    (Original post by young_guns)
    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
    No, Rabin was assassinated by a fanatical right-wing Zionist.

    (Original post by young_guns)
    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.

    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're presuming that the United States are a neutral party. They aren't, hence citing Condoleeza Rice's opinion is hardly evidence in favour of your position.

    The United States' official policy is that Israel should withdraw from the West Bank and end the effective control of Gaza. Furthermore, their official policy states that the Israeli settlements are illegal, in line with the international consensus.

    In reality, the United States and Israel have consistently rejected the international consensus on the two-state solution since the 1970s; that is, that Israel should withdraw from the Occupied Territories and that the State of Palestine should be formed based on the pre-1967 borders. In 1976, the United States vetoed a UN Security Council resolution which was calling for a two-state settlement on the internationally recognized border, the Green Line, with guarantees for the security of all states within secure and recognized borders. This pattern has consistently continued up until today, with other US vetoes including preventing resolutions from being passed calling on Israel to do the decent thing of abiding by the Fourth Geneva Convention. In 2011, the United States vetoed another UNSC resolution that condemned the illegal Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories.

    And, could you provide evidence in favour of your description of the 2008 proposals. The Palestine Papers show quite clearly that the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert proposed to annex 6.8% of the West Bank, in addition to large parts of East Jerusalem, in return for just 5.5% of West Bank-equivalent area to be annexed by the State of Palestine, without any indication as to the value of this land. Why should the Palestinians have accepted this proposal when Israel have an obligation to withdraw from all the Palestinian territories.

    In fact, it was, once again, the Palestinians who made the most concessions, which, under international law, they didn't need to make, as revealed by the Palestine Papers. The Palestinian Authority offered, in 2008, to give Israel “the biggest Yerushalayim in Jewish history”, permitting it to formally annex nearly all of East Jerusalem. Alongside this the Palestinian negotiating team outlined a deal in which Israel would annex 1.9% of the West Bank in the context of a landswap, permitting Israeli to incorporate into its future borders 63% of the illegal settler population. They also made massive concessions on the right of return of refugees, allowing for only 10,000 out of approximately 5 million refugees to return. The response from Tzipi Livni, the then leader of Israel’s ‘moderate’ opposition, was blunt: “we do not like this suggestion because it does not meet our demands”. In fact, they also show that Livni admitted that "the policy of the [Israeli] government for a really long time", has been "to take more and more land day after day and that at the end of the day we'll say that is impossible, we already have the land and we cannot create the [Palestinian] state".

    (Original post by young_guns)
    Yeah, that Suharto is the one your beloved Al-Qaeda supported
    Calling Al-Qaeda 'beloved' to me is an utterly false statement. You see, the difference is, I can condemn atrocities wherever they occur, including this appalling murder in Paris. You, on the other hand, are an ideologue - you'll defend the West at any and all costs.

    If they did support Suharto, then it's not the first time that murderous jihadists and the United States/Britain have had something in common.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    What baffles me about this tragic event, is the silence of the mainstream media on the hypocrisy of the French judicial system. When you say anything bad against the zionists, you will be charged to court, that you are anti-semetic. As we see what happened to Garoudi. But, when anyone speaks against Islam, they will bring up 'freedom of speech' blablabla.
    I agree with the right to Freedom of speech, but only when it is implemented for all. #JeSuisCharlie Name:  ImageUploadedByTapatalk1420738737.805526.jpg
Views: 140
Size:  135.4 KB
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by teenhorrorstory)
    What baffles me about this tragic event, is the silence of the mainstream media on the hypocrisy of the French judicial system. When you say anything bad against the zionists, you will be charged to court, that you are anti-semetic. As we see what happened to Garoudi. But, when anyone speaks against Islam, they will bring up 'freedom of speech' blablabla.
    I agree with the right to Freedom of speech, but only when it is implemented for all. #JeSuisCharlie Name:  ImageUploadedByTapatalk1420738737.805526.jpg
Views: 140
Size:  135.4 KB
    Well done for pointing this out. Good point...#jesuischarlie

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Anybody in Scotland who wishes to take part in a peaceful solidarity gathering, to support freedom of press whilst promoting greater cultural respect of minority groups and to remember the victims at Charlie Hebdo, one will be taking place this Sunday at 3pm in Edinburgh, to mirror a similar gathering being held in Paris at the same time. We are hoping to have a large turnout to show Paris that we are standing by their side. We are meeting at the French Consulate on Randolph Crescent at 3pm. Bring flowers and pens/pencils. #JeSuisCharlie

    https://www.facebook.com/events/3452...y_type=regular
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Frances history of treating Maghrebian and Africans like **** is similar to how the british treated pretty much every brown nation and how the Arabs treated the Africans.

    Its been a ticking time bomb for centuries.Just look at those stupid stupid cartoons.

    IMO this is all directly linked to the British/EU/US/Western/including israeli racist foreign policy of imperialism

    ISIS and their minions are all directly linked to such action.

    Muslims and the European West have been going at it for 1000 years, nothings changed

    both lying through their teeth its about religion or 'liberal freedoms' like the people in this thread banging on about "freedom of speech" when its just about political dominance for power.

    you have both left a trail of destruction wherever you lay your heads.

    just find an island and fight it out so the rest of us can live in peace
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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 I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
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.