Paris Shootings

Problem is the red tops going OTT on the barbarism and trying to stir people over here into attacks on peaceful Mulims is the sort of response the extremists are after.


I don't agree with that at all. How are they going Ott? Supposed to play it down and say it was just a bit of a barney?

frankly the left play this line a lot as a way of suppressing any criticism of their islamist friends. The old islamophobia rubbish.

If they are stirring uo attacks why in a country of 55 million and numerous mosques haven't there been any then? Not exactly doing a good job are they.
 
I don't agree with this. The media should be totally free to report how it sees fit. What happened last week cannot be underplayed for a whole host of reasons.

Not sure, there was an American study done on this which tried to correlate the rise of terrorism, and the strongest coefficient that came out was media reporting, not any of political issues (you might of course suggest that political issues being aired in the media fuel things one step further back as people develop grievances they weren't necessarily aware of)

How many of our free press though did publish the cartoons? Not many, it was a point made by Julia Hartley Brewer on QT this week. She accussed the print press of "bottling it" whilst also acknowledging she was too scared to wear a t-shirt with a cartoon emblazoned on it. I also note the Danish magazine from 10 years ago came out with an explanation that they were to scared to publish this week as well and in doing so admitted that they'd be cowed in the face of violent threats
 
People died for free media last week. No one should be calling for censorship by the government or islamists at any time let alone niw

it has always amazed me how on an internet forum so many are so tickled by authoritarianism and suppressing the media. Its come up time and again here
 
The Red tops don't count as media, they are sensationalist rags read by lazy people who should be searching other avenues for their news and/or gossip. ISIS and the like are executing hundreds of their own kind on a daily basis but that won't make the front pages.
 
I think you need to be careful Clive, and I would like to think the word "responsible" appears at the front of any debate in this direction. I wouldn't confuse inflamatory or sensational reporting with responsible reporting in the name of everything being 'free' and an open season. Personally, I'm not terribly appreciative of a 'free press' winding people up that could result in us being killed unless their is good reason to do so (challenge that is, not kill me)

I think Nick Clegg was skating on thin ice incidentally with his freedom to offend argument which verges very close towards justifying incitement and hate preaching. If Clegg believes this, then presumably he has no issue with Finsbury mosque?

I was wondering - on a completely different track, how long it is before we see Charlie Hebdo on a racetrack? or Je Suis Charlie?
 
I think your missing my point Clive. I'm all for free media reporting, but I think there is a line to be drawn when any element of our media steps over the line in terms of potentially stirring things up or escalating problems. I don't level this at the BBC or Sky I would add.

I fear elements of our media could potentially inadvertently provoke attacks on innocent people just because of their ethnic background because of pieces that border on propaganda.

The problems at home will escalate if this scenario should happen, and I fear it is a very real possibility. What happens if this takes us back to the dark days of Brixton and Toxteth with the current issues at the heart of it? I fear its a genuine possibility, and I fear the consequences.
 
Last edited:
For mine, there are more important issues knocking around these days than just having a 'free press'.

The Leveson inquiry showed up a lot of the journalistic practices of some our leading papers.

I am in favour of some form of regulation, moreover...the old press complaints commission, where the press regulated the press was well past its sell by date.

Recent claims about 'the fake sheikh' have only reaffirmed my view that people who overstep the mark should be slapped down.
 
Last edited:
I think your missing my point Clive. I'm all for free media reporting, but I think there is a line to be drawn when any element of our media steps over the line in terms of potentially stirring things up or escalating problems. I don't level this at the BBC or Sky I would add.

I fear elements of our media could potentially inadvertently provoke attacks on innocent people just because of their ethnic background because of pieces that border on propaganda.

The problems at home will escalate if this scenario should happen, and I fear it is a very real possibility. What happens if this takes us back to the dark days of Brixton and Toxteth with the current issues at the heart of it? I fear its a genuine possibility, and I fear the consequences.

I just can't agree with this. For a start I flicked through the suns first few pages of coverage when out today and it was striking that the words islam and Muslim were nt used once. I challenge anyone to show me anything from that coverage which is designed to "inflame"

secondly are we supposed to water down negative coverage because certan minorities are involved? No way. Not on. That is every bit as bad as ony highlighting criminal acts by certain minorities

thirdly its only a low circulation broadsheet paper that has produced fawning articles over those that preach hate.
 
"Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible."

Nothing inflammatory about that.

Would you care to show us some of these articles which fawn over hate preachers?
 
thirdly its only a low circulation broadsheet paper that has produced fawning articles over those that preach hate.

The same one that donated a six figure sum to the victims relief fund?

Just reading a high circulation broadsheet today and discovered that the well trained jihadist appears to have phoned a local radio station and failed to hang up properly thus leaving the line open. Suffice to say when police heard him praying they took their chance. I mean honestly, this is hardly some crack cell of Jihadi commandos is it? I know Clive tends to the view that they're disaffected youths who've fallen through the net, but if ever that description could be applied by way of an explanation then surely it's to this group. Even Clive conceeded, there is an element of victimhood about the way they've been brainwashed and manipulated (whilst seemingly in prison in one case), and the good old Telegraph went perilously close to offering this up as their explanation too. These were pretty low IQ individuals (as partly evidenced by the hamfisted way they did everything).

That's not to demeen anything incidentally, it's with more of a sense of apprehension I draw these conclusions. What if they start supplying intelligent terrorists?

I did flick at some of the American networks last night, and that means taking in godawful Fox. In between the woman talking about not having used any shampoo for month, they did cover Paris and reported that their man in MI5 was being attributed as having told them that this is just the start of a wave of campaigns in Europe, and the UK and US are next. Now whereas this might very well be true (MI5 appeared to be getting their excuses in early last week) but in terms of reporting I can't think of anything much more designed to cause panic and ferment paranoia than running a story to the effect of "coming to you soon - secret Jihadi to blow your street up" - all brought to you in a fair and balanced way of course
 
I just can't agree with this. For a start I flicked through the suns first few pages of coverage when out today and it was striking that the words islam and Muslim were nt used once. I challenge anyone to show me anything from that coverage which is designed to "inflame"

I don't think the Sun is the benchmark any longer Clive. I don't think it has been for a decade now. In terms of inflamatory reporting and trying to manage people's emotional reactions to news items (many of which are out of date anyway) the Daily Mail is the worst offender, followed by the Express and Metro

The Sun's actually quite interesting. They call homosexuals and gays just that now. You'll recall that during the 1980's they'd use phrases like 'gender bender'. They used to routinely refer to the French as 'Frogs' and Germans as 'Sauerkraut' all of that kind of stuff was phased out at least ten years ago.
 
These were pretty low IQ individuals (as partly evidenced by the hamfisted way they did everything).
Hamfisted? They set out with a specific aim to eliminate the editorial staff of Hebdo -- and achieved it. They then succeeded in escaping Paris and managed to elude 88,000 security personnel for over 36 hours. Maybe not showed an Andy McNab level of expertise, but this pair demonstrated a decent amount of competence. That they died eventually, would not be for them a failure. They knew this was the inevitable conclusion when they started down their route.

they're disaffected youths who've fallen through the net, but if ever that description could be applied by way of an explanation then surely it's to this group.

Have to take issue with this also.
Round my way, disaffected youth get stoned on weekends and might also get arrested for nicking a child's trike and joyriding on it. They don't get tooled up with Kalashnikov's, a dozen 7.62mm magazine clips, and a rocket-launcher. Neither, usually, have they attended combat training camps in Yemen.
This pair were more than your average disaffect youth; they were a part of a unit that was as close as possible to being defined as a "cell". This cell had as its primary actors the Kouachi brothers; a back-up man (Coulibaly); and it now appears a co-ordinator (Boumedienne). They were organised and sadly proved to be lethal; a far more dangerous combo than any average neighbourhood disaffected "crew".
 
For mine, there are more important issues knocking around these days than just having a 'free press'.

The Leveson inquiry showed up a lot of the journalistic practices of some our leading papers.

I am in favour of some form of regulation, moreover...the old press complaints commission, where the press regulated the press was well past its sell by date.

Recent claims about 'the fake sheikh' have only reaffirmed my view that people who overstep the mark should be slapped down.

Agreed but there's slapping down and there's slapping down and thats where the problem lies

[video]http://video.foxnews.com/v/3976707999001/radical-imam-anjem-choudary-on-charlie-hebdo-attack/?playlist_id=trending#sp=show-clips[/video]

This guy does not represent the views of all Muslims and maybe he should be censored but unless the millions of Muslims that do share his views are woken up to the fact they are a race of uncivilised barbaric uneducated cavemen the world will never be a safe place.

In the west governments aren't founded on any particular religion but in these Muslim countries religion is everything. So from day 1 children are taught laws that belong in the middle ages. We stopped burning witches in 1682 these animals are still stoning women to death in countries like Syria, Afghanistan,Iran etc You disown the religion you die non muslims are infidels gays who have sex must also die and so on and so forth.

Everyone of these countries need re-educated and the Quran rewritten in such a way it can not be misinterpreted.

That of course will never happen and eventually these terrorist will do something that will make 911 look like a picnic in comparison.
All it takes to cause massive destruction is a critical mass type bomb the size of a grapefruit

Then all hell will break lose............That is one scary thought and it's only a matter of time before these lunatics get a hold of one.
 
Last edited:
Hamfisted? They set out with a specific aim to eliminate the editorial staff of Hebdo -- and achieved it. They then succeeded in escaping Paris and managed to elude 88,000 security personnel for over 36 hours. Maybe not showed an Andy McNab level of expertise, but this pair demonstrated a decent amount of competence. That they died eventually, would not be for them a failure. They knew this was the inevitable conclusion when they started down their route.


Have to take issue with this also.
Round my way, disaffected youth get stoned on weekends and might also get arrested for nicking a child's trike and joyriding on it. They don't get tooled up with Kalashnikov's, a dozen 7.62mm magazine clips, and a rocket-launcher. Neither, usually, have they attended combat training camps in Yemen.
This pair were more than your average disaffect youth; they were a part of a unit that was as close as possible to being defined as a "cell". This cell had as its primary actors the Kouachi brothers; a back-up man (Coulibaly); and it now appears a co-ordinator (Boumedienne). They were organised and sadly proved to be lethal; a far more dangerous combo than any average neighbourhood disaffected "crew".

Half the battle is getting hold of the weapons. Once you've got those, anyone becomes dangerous. They could have killed the entire Charlie staff - but didn't. They could have killed a whole lot more if they'd stayed mobile on a shooting spree but failed. They didn't even know what their victims looked like despite their photos being on the internet. They rounded them up and called out their tag names it seems (Daily Telegraph). They hadn't packed any food, didn't take any money, and didn't even equip themselves with petrol or a syphon kit. That's before one of them left his ID card in the car, and another one didn't even hang up a phone correctly. Why they didn't go hungry or even attempt to shoplift I don't know. They could have packed a lunch, but holding up a petrol station to get some food later than afternoon wasn't exactly Andy McNab as you say.

Now all this sounds flippant, it isn't, it's very serious. Since we've used Andy McNab's name, hypothetically, how many do you suppose a 4 man special forces team could kill?

As regards their backgrounds, I'll try fast type from today's Telegraph as they've moved the web link now. Even I don't fancy retyping and whole article so I'll break it down now and then

"A closely knit network of Islamist extremists who would meet in a suburban park was responsible for the the three days of bloody mayhem" (Buttes Chaumont)

"The network radicalised youngsters in the early 2000's and sent several to fight in Iraq. Like the Kouachi brothers, Coulibaly was also an associate of Djamel Beghal an Al-Qaeda terrorist once based at Finsbury Park Mosque, North London, where he learnt at the feet of Abu Hamza" (a separate article explains that Beghal - who is the organiser and influencer here, not the girlfriend of the terrorist - Beghal's wife currently lives on benefits in Leicester. She had wanted to bring her children up in a more Islamic community and didn;t feel she could do that in France, so moved to Leciester!)

"Coulibaly was one of 10 children and the only boy. He became delinquent at 17 and a repeat offender for petty thefts and drugs crimes, moving onto armed robbery in Sept 2002 in Orleans, in the Loriet, before being radicalised. In 2009, while working at a coca cola factory, he was one of a group of young people who met Nicholas Sarkozy at the Elysee Palace" (not sure if the Telegraphs trying to link his radicalisation with this!!)

"In 2013 he was sentanced to five years in prison for his involvement in a botched prison break-out of Sman Ali Belckcaam, a former member of the Algerian Islamist Group GIA... The Kouchai brothers were detained for involvement but released due to lack of evidence"

"Coulibaly and Boumeddiene were in a relationship in 2010 when he was arrested over the jail break attempt..... The pair reportedly visited Beghal in Cantal southern France where he was under house arrest. That yera French surveillance officers photographed Beghal playing football with Cherif Kouchai"

"The Kouchai brothers spent their teenage years at a centre for troubled and vulnerable youngsters. In 1994 following the deaths of their parents, the boys then 14 and 12 were sent by Paris social services to live at the centre des Mondieres"

"Cherif Kouchai was recruited by Beghal 10 years ago while both were serving sentances for terrorism offences"
 
Warbler, have you ever -to your knowledge-been known as the pub/office bore? Just wondered.
 
They could have killed the entire Charlie staff - but didn't. They could have killed a whole lot more if they'd stayed mobile on a shooting spree but failed. They didn't even know what their victims looked like despite their photos being on the internet. They rounded them up and called out their tag names it seems (Daily Telegraph). They hadn't packed any food, didn't take any money, and didn't even equip themselves with petrol or a syphon kit. That's before one of them left his ID card in the car, and another one didn't even hang up a phone correctly. Why they didn't go hungry or even attempt to shoplift I don't know. They could have packed a lunch, but holding up a petrol station to get some food later than afternoon wasn't exactly Andy McNab as you say.
But you do understand that this was their specific modus operandi? Their killing spree was not about body count; it was target-driven -- eliminate those who had "insulted the Prophet". They even are on record as saying "we do not kill civilians" as they allowed the hostage in the printing company to go free. Twisted thinking, I know, but there you have it.

They hadn't packed any food, didn't take any money, and didn't even equip themselves with petrol or a syphon kit. That's before one of them left his ID card in the car, and another one didn't even hang up a phone correctly. Why they didn't go hungry or even attempt to shoplift I don't know. They could have packed a lunch, but holding up a petrol station to get some food later than afternoon wasn't exactly Andy McNab as you say.
And you also appreciate that a jihadist on a martyrdom assignment won't have ticked on his pre-mission must-do list the preparation of a sandwich packed-lunch ? As the end-game of his earthly existence nears, he will not be concerned about how he gets his food or petrol, he won't care if he is recognised by ID card or if his face is seen. He is confident in his certainty that he is going to Jannah, anyway.
 
Incidentally, is it possible to be not only against the Paris murders but also against Charlie Hebdo ( and its "journalistic" style) ?

Like any normal person, I wholeheartedly condemn the killings, but, ............... Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie.
 
"Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible."

Nothing inflammatory about that.

Would you care to show us some of these articles which fawn over hate preachers?


Sure . I should be able to find the link to the fawning interview with quadari. The imam that described hitler as a gift from god. And of course the paper had a columnist who gloated about 9/11 and probably last week too
 
Warbler, have you ever -to your knowledge-been known as the pub/office bore? Just wondered.

I believe this is an example of the one sort of a comment that caused EC to leave. He often lamented why people with no interest bother to make a comment. Personally Wolf I don't read your celebrity fawning bilge, but I don't take to your pointless threads to tell you what dire dross they are. I'm more than happy yapping away with the small number of people who are interested
 
I believe this is an example of the one sort of a comment that caused EC to leave. He often lamented why people with no interest bother to make a comment. Personally Wolf I don't read your celebrity fawning bilge, but I don't take to your pointless threads to tell you what dire dross they are. I'm more than happy yapping away with the small number of people who are interested

:thumbsup:
 
But you do understand that this was their specific modus operandi? Their killing spree was not about body count; it was target-driven -- eliminate those who had "insulted the Prophet". They even are on record as saying "we do not kill civilians" as they allowed the hostage in the printing company to go free. Twisted thinking, I know, but there you have it.


And you also appreciate that a jihadist on a martyrdom assignment won't have ticked on his pre-mission must-do list the preparation of a sandwich packed-lunch ? As the end-game of his earthly existence nears, he will not be concerned about how he gets his food or petrol, he won't care if he is recognised by ID card or if his face is seen. He is confident in his certainty that he is going to Jannah, anyway.

I believe I made the observation originally that they didn't seem body count obsesseed and that this might be taken as evidence that they possessed a fair amount of western influence and weren't terrorist imports from another part of the planet? I was called a looney conspiracy theorist as I recall

The observation however is pertinent to the speculation game, (which whether we like it or not) everyone is now engaging in. I think the Mumbai attackers killed something like 150 and holed up for about 3 days, I'm sure the masterminds behind this must be looking for that kind of result sooner rather than later, and on this evidence it's possible. Even Michael Ryan killed about 20 people in the metropolis of Hungerford

Whereas I can accept that some Jihadis come from seemingly well off backgrounds, this little group don't. To use the political vunucular, they're much more consistent with the word "vulnerable at risk", which is normally a euphamism for not very bright. When this combines with a lack of direction in life, a lack of belonging, and lack meaningful purpose they become particularly impressionable to people who can prey on them and provide that.

I can also accept that in some cases as a new generation come to the fore, some of the original grievances that might have radicalised older terrorists might not apply quite so much in so far as the current world state of play is something that the under 20 has inherited, rather than something that evolved in their lifetime providing a somethign they could kick against. There doesn't seem to be much doubt however that Iraq was the touchstone that sparked this group off, or at least breathed oxygen into a vacuum that allowed someone else to exploit the situation. The supreme irony of course is that France stayed outside of the Iraq war, indeed, you could argue they led the world opposition.
 
Here we go...

the inevitable it's "all our own fault"

It was a cartoon that "set it off" not the removal of the glorious leader saddam. These people were ready to do the same during the Rushdie affair. Now when was that?

Why can't it finally be accepted that this jihadist stuff is drummed into them froma young age and is a cancer throughout the Islamic world whereby just about any so called provocation leads to violence. Have we got to frame our lives and political policy around not offended these fascists? No fcking way
 
I believe this is an example of the one sort of a comment that caused EC to leave. He often lamented why people with no interest bother to make a comment. Personally Wolf I don't read your celebrity fawning bilge, but I don't take to your pointless threads to tell you what dire dross they are. I'm more than happy yapping away with the small number of people who are interested

Maybe he's saying keep posts down a bit? Sometimes when a pertinent point is made (Cameron gay marriage on other thread) you come back with 5000 words which can look a bit like obsfucation. In fact I believe it is.

There are others more inclined to bait than wolf.
 
Back
Top