Terrorist attack on french satirical magazine.

Paleocon wrote:

It actually makes a lot more sense that the officers at the deli were regular police. I will preface what I am thinking by saying that I am not a law enforcement officer, but what I saw from the video didn't seem to comport with SWAT/breach doctrine much at all.
It appeared from the video that they established a single point of entry (the garage door), which they opened slowly due to the limitation of the door. With the exception of a single officer who exploited the breach and the four returning fire from the doorway, the army of other officers were completely out of the fight and entirely unutilized. Against a single gunman, this still amounts to a numerical superiority, but the fact that he was inside and able to utilize cover and hostages (and, most crucially, can keep all hostiles inside his covered arc) allows him to overcome a great deal. If he had, for instance, an armed accomplice, a hand grenade, or, gods forbid, the RPG they reported earlier, I could see this going tragically differently.
As I said, it all worked out in the end and it is hard to argue with the result, but I would be very curious to see the comments from actual law enforcement professionals on this as it looks, at least to me, like an example of how not to handle a breach.

Actually, they used two points of entry at the supermarket:

They also had civilians hiding out in the meat locker who had provided the police with information (that's how they knew he was operating alone and wasn't carrying an RPG). The man himself also called the press, incoherently raving about how he'd been sent by Al Quaeda and Yemen.
And everyone has been saying that it was the GIGN in Vincennes at the kosher supermarket and the RAID at Dammartin, we even had one of the highest ranking officers on the GIGN explaining how they coordinated the attack.

At least, that's what I've been hearing on the local news channels.

Eleima wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

It actually makes a lot more sense that the officers at the deli were regular police. I will preface what I am thinking by saying that I am not a law enforcement officer, but what I saw from the video didn't seem to comport with SWAT/breach doctrine much at all.
It appeared from the video that they established a single point of entry (the garage door), which they opened slowly due to the limitation of the door. With the exception of a single officer who exploited the breach and the four returning fire from the doorway, the army of other officers were completely out of the fight and entirely unutilized. Against a single gunman, this still amounts to a numerical superiority, but the fact that he was inside and able to utilize cover and hostages (and, most crucially, can keep all hostiles inside his covered arc) allows him to overcome a great deal. If he had, for instance, an armed accomplice, a hand grenade, or, gods forbid, the RPG they reported earlier, I could see this going tragically differently.
As I said, it all worked out in the end and it is hard to argue with the result, but I would be very curious to see the comments from actual law enforcement professionals on this as it looks, at least to me, like an example of how not to handle a breach.

Actually, they used two points of entry at the supermarket:

They also had civilians hiding out in the meat locker who had provided the police with information (that's how they knew he was operating alone and wasn't carrying an RPG). The man himself also called the press, incoherently raving about how he'd been sent by Al Quaeda and Yemen.
And everyone has been saying that it was the GIGN in Vincennes at the kosher supermarket and the RAID at Dammartin, we even had one of the highest ranking officers on the GIGN explaining how they coordinated the attack.

At least, that's what I've been hearing on the local news channels. :)

Okay, that makes WAY more sense.

So it looks like they video above was of the breach team entering the building. They, likely, would have swept the building and flushed him toward the other exit -- where he ran into the Polish firing squad.

Thanks for the explanation.

Actually, the civilian from the meat locker who was able to provide information about the situation inside, the layout of the place, and the location of the other civilians in the meat locker volunteered to try to escape to give the police information. (And was held as a suspect for some time before convincing the police he was who he claimed to be.)

Muslim Hero Held 90 Minutes Before Cops Believed He'd Saved Hostages
(Madeleine Davies, Jezebel, 2015-01-12)

Why We Must Resist Simple Explanations of the ‘Charlie Hebdo’ Massacre[/url]]Two men in balaclavas burst into Charlie Hebdo’s office in Paris and opened fire on the editorial staff, killing five cartoonists, a columnist, a maintenance worker, an economist, a visitor, a copy-editor and two police officers.

To make sense of the senseless, we tell ourselves stories. The story is that this is the latest salvo in an ongoing clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. The story is that the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo was the last bastion of free thought in a cowed press, a press that has bowed to political correctness and is now too afraid to criticize Islam. The story is that Muslim leaders remain silent about this atrocity. The story is that France has failed to integrate its Muslim citizens, descendants of immigrants from its former colonies. The story is that France has sent troops to fight in Muslim countries. The story is that there are double standards.

None of these stories will do, at least not for me. I find myself reading them in different guises in the national press, hoping they will enlighten or satisfy me, but something is always missing.

Eleima wrote:

That was very well written, thank you for sharing that with us, LarryC.

Yesterday, the Marche républicaine took place. I've never seen so many French gathering for anything. And France has a reputation for taking to the streets every time they so much as change a schedule or alter taxes, or whatever. Seriously, we ourselves joke about how the public transportation is on strike more often than not.
But this, yesterday... It was incredible, a pure sense of togetherness and tolerance, a symbol of tolerance and co-existence. I've never seen its like before. People were polite, calm, quiet, and alternated between applause and song (specifically the national anthem, La Marseillaise). Truly a historical, unique moment. I only hope the rest follows through.

Every respect to the French citizens who marched. Here's a list of the dubious world leaders who have a less than shining record regarding freedom of the press who joined you.

http://mashable.com/2015/01/11/world-leaders-freedom-of-speech-paris-march/

Some of those are a bit tenuous, but most are quite egregious.

That piece is fantastic. Thank you for sharing it.

BBC PANORAMA

If you can find a way to watch it in US/Canada.

The cover of the latest edition of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has been published in French media, and depicts the Prophet Muhammad.

The cover shows the Prophet holding a sign reading "I am Charlie", below the words "all is forgiven".

Let's hope it doesn't lead to some feeling they ought cause yet more violence.

I'm in France, Slupczynski, and I can't watch it. Shame, BBC usually has high quality stuff, my Dad is always watching BBC world over local news.

krev82 wrote:

Let's hope it doesn't lead to some feeling they ought cause yet more violence.

Why would anything have changed? Why would the same extremists feel any differently now about someone portraying their prophet?

That's a great, great find, Strangederby, thank you for posting. It illustrates what I've been saying much less eloquently. A few excerpts:

Many smart people are getting a flawed picture of Charlie Hebdo. They are concluding, based on simplistic and misleading analysis, that many of the magazine covers and cartoons promoted racist views. In fact, as I will show, some of the covers elaborately lampooned racist views of right wing parties, like Front National, by imitating some of their imagery, inserting snarky comments, and even posting mock party logos next to the images. Therefore, it would be clear to pretty much any French readers that they were making fun of these things.
I would like to conclude by honoring free speech, in all it forms, and say that perhaps the Charlie Hebdo massacre is a warning for Americans--and especially liberal Americans--that we may not be quite as free and tolerant as we think. In many ways, freedom of expression is more strongly protected in countries like France. I have relied heavily on discussions from French commentators to write this article and I owe them a debt of gratitude. One of these people, an American who grew up in France, had some particularly insightful comments that I would like to excerpt from to provide some closing thoughts:

"I don't think Americans in particular appreciate how intellectually free French culture is. Their thought is an open space populated by fewer sacred cows.

One of the levels of freedom they have that we Americans often don't is a strong respect for others' privacy and a tolerance of intellectual independence. They seem to lack the overwhelmingly moralizing, missionary tone that suffocates American political debate just when it starts to get interesting. Also, you are allowed to defend your opinions without placating others. I feel they do a better job with respectful disagreement. As US culture polarizes and inequality increases here, Americans risk becoming a people ever less capable of this.

Just because we think it offensive and we are not free enough to publish it doesn't mean it has the intent that we ascribe to it, or that in France people should also lack the freedom to publish it."

That last bit was particularly interesting to me as a French who grew up in the US.
Sorry for the walls of text, but I really wanted to put those passages in unedited. Count yourselves lucky, I'd initially put in the bit on their cover mocking the Front National's blunder (if you can even call it that...) when they photoshopped Christiane Taubira's head on a monkey.

Finally, despite all that has happened, Charlie Hebdo will still be published tomorrow Wednesday. And here's the cover:
http://www.liberation.fr/societe/2015/01/13/en-une-mercredi-charlie-hebdo-tient-tete-aux-terroristes_1179440

Thanks for that article, OG. That was on point.

And in today's news:

Paris attacks aftermath: French police arrest 54 people for 'defending or glorifying terrorism'

So much for that free speech thing.

Several people called for those using the hashtag to be arrested or even tracked down and killed by a drone strike.

LarryC wrote:

Several people called for those using the hashtag to be arrested or even tracked down and killed by a drone strike.

Yes, because nothing says "we're fighting terror with free speech" like calling for people to be shot.

Maq wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Several people called for those using the hashtag to be arrested or even tracked down and killed by a drone strike.

Yes, because nothing says "we're fighting terror with free speech" like calling for people to be shot.

Countdown to those people unironically hiding their statements behind the 1st amendment...

Freedom of speech is one thing, but there's a law here in France against incitement to ethnic or racial hatred. And that's what these people and more specifically Dieudonné, are doing. Spewing hate speech.

I was watching NBC this morning and they were touting the 3 million copy sellout and how great of a political statement it made then proceeded to tell me that they weren't going to show the cover of the paper. I don't think they really understand.....

Edit: Old news, looks like a bunch of media outlets aren't showing it.

I was listening to an item on BBC radio 4 and they went into what the Koran had to say about images of Allah or the Prophet Muhammad and there is nothing there that explicitly forbids images of either much less condemns to death those who create them.

What does the Koran, the holy book of Islam, say on the issue?

There is no specific, or explicit ban in the Koran on images of Allah or the Prophet Muhammad - be they carved, painted or drawn.

However, chapter 42, verse 11 of the Koran does say: "[Allah is] the originator of the heavens and the earth... [there is] nothing like a likeness of Him."

This is taken by Muslims to mean that Allah cannot be captured in an image by human hand, such is his beauty and grandeur. To attempt such a thing is seen as an insult to Allah.

The same is believed to apply to Muhammad.

Chapter 21, verses 52-54 of the Koran read: "[Abraham] said to his father and his people: 'What are these images to whose worship you cleave?' They said: 'We found our fathers worshipping them.' He said: 'Certainly you have been, you and your fathers, in manifest error.'"

From this arises the Muslim belief that images can give rise to idolatry - that is to say an image, rather than the divine being it symbolises, can become the object of worship and veneration.

That first interpretation seems to be an incredible leap to me.

Elsewhere I read that the prophet Muhammad spoke against images of himself but only because he thought that it could lead to him being worshipped which he didn't want.

Higgledy wrote:

I was listening to an item on BBC radio 4 and they went into what the Koran had to say about images of Allah or the Prophet Muhammad and there is nothing there that explicitly forbids images of either much less condemns to death those who create them.

What does the Koran, the holy book of Islam, say on the issue?

There is no specific, or explicit ban in the Koran on images of Allah or the Prophet Muhammad - be they carved, painted or drawn.

However, chapter 42, verse 11 of the Koran does say: "[Allah is] the originator of the heavens and the earth... [there is] nothing like a likeness of Him."

This is taken by Muslims to mean that Allah cannot be captured in an image by human hand, such is his beauty and grandeur. To attempt such a thing is seen as an insult to Allah.

The same is believed to apply to Muhammad.

Chapter 21, verses 52-54 of the Koran read: "[Abraham] said to his father and his people: 'What are these images to whose worship you cleave?' They said: 'We found our fathers worshipping them.' He said: 'Certainly you have been, you and your fathers, in manifest error.'"

From this arises the Muslim belief that images can give rise to idolatry - that is to say an image, rather than the divine being it symbolises, can become the object of worship and veneration.

That first interpretation seems to be an incredible leap to me.

Elsewhere I read that the prophet Muhammad spoke against images of himself but only because he thought that it could lead to him being worshipped which he didn't want.

As I noted in my snowman thread, I don't think it matters if the interpretation makes sense. What matters is that folks need to follow it.

Eleima wrote:

Freedom of speech is one thing, but there's a law here in France against incitement to ethnic or racial hatred. And that's what these people and more specifically Dieudonné, are doing. Spewing hate speech.

Some might say that's the same exact thing the staff at Charlie Hebdo were doing...

OG_slinger wrote:
Eleima wrote:

Freedom of speech is one thing, but there's a law here in France against incitement to ethnic or racial hatred. And that's what these people and more specifically Dieudonné, are doing. Spewing hate speech.

Some might say that's the same exact thing the staff at Charlie Hebdo were doing...

Then they'd be completely missing the point of Charlie Hebdo. Exhibit A. Charlie Hebdo aren't propagating hate speech, they're pointing out the closemindedness and lack of tolerance of other groups (amongst other things, since they also lampoon political figures).

And let me tell you, I certainly didn't see this coming: I never thought I'd one day be defending Charlie Hebdo, a gaucho satirical magazine.

You have a snowman thread!?

Edit: Found it

Eleima wrote:

Then they'd be completely missing the point of Charlie Hebdo. Exhibit A. Charlie Hebdo aren't propagating hate speech, they're pointing out the closemindedness and lack of tolerance of other groups (amongst other things, since they also lampoon political figures).

And let me tell you, I certainly didn't see this coming: I never thought I'd one day be defending Charlie Hebdo, a gaucho satirical magazine.

I read the piece. I just didn't agree with the author.

There's simply too much of a push to canonize the staff of Charlie Hebdo as saints of freedom of speech fighting against the evils of Islam.

And that push clashes remarkably with what the French government is doing by arresting people and charging them with ridiculous crime of saying the wrong thing. If it was entirely OK for Charlie Hebdo to piss people off then it should be entirely OK for others to do the same.

No one is canonizing anyone, and I find your characterization as "freedom of speech fighting against the evils of Islam" extremely off the mark and in fact, even offensive. Charlie Hebdo isn't fighting against the "evils of Islam", they're denouncing religious extremism. And the people arrested aren't pissing people off, they're sending up a call to arms. There's a difference between satire which mocks but is essentially peaceful and a rallying cry of "let's go out and kill all these people who aren't like us." Like I said, there's a specific law in this country against incitement to ethnic or racial hatred. Sed lex dura lex.

A friend posted this, I think it sums up the issue pretty accurately. I'll translate it on the fly as best I can.
Title: Saturation point
IMAGE(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dTY36ygatws/VLKzDJGGphI/AAAAAAAADbI/bvF-zlKvUzA/s1600/Saturation1.jpg)

Panel 1: F*ck, I can't take it anymore, all those stupid spats on "I am Charlie"! Those who are yelling at those who aren't saying it, those who are mocking those who say it! They're fighting about a f*cking SLOGAN!
Panel 2: And then there's those who are idealizing the magazine and those who are launching witch hunts of those who are criticizing it! As if the people who didn't like Charlie Hebdo weren't ALSO devastated by this awful tragedy!! F*ck, is that it?! We can't even grieve for those we didn't agree with?! But THAT's freedom of speech! The free trade of ideas between individuals!

IMAGE(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-w9-0L0FzfU4/VLKzDVJ-ooI/AAAAAAAADbQ/tlCz5lihE8Q/s1600/Saturation2.jpg)

Panel 3: And while they're all tearing each other to pieces to find out who's the more Charlie, no one cares that Muslims are already subjected to repercussions! Morons decided to target them AND NO ONE CARES!
Panel 4: We can't even stop and think TWO SECONDS about our society and what caused this escalation of hate and violence! There's a misrepresentation and a f*cking racist hodgepodge!

IMAGE(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HkS0mohrNyM/VLKzDRUwQPI/AAAAAAAADbM/p4A8Iyoh658/s1600/Saturation3.jpg)

Panel 5: And I fear that...
Eleima wrote:

Freedom of speech is one thing, but there's a law here in France against incitement to ethnic or racial hatred. And that's what these people and more specifically Dieudonné, are doing. Spewing hate speech.

I don't think I understand. Speech is free as long as it is not hate speech? But if we are truly defending free speech, we should defend the speech we find extremely distasteful as long as it doesn't include specific terroristic threats of harm.

So were these actual terrorist threats these people are being arrested for?

Speech that calls for physical violence ceases to be "just speech" because of the threat associated with it. Which is why freedom of speech doesn't cover it. It seems pretty straight forward to me but then I did grow up in France I guess the hard part is figuring out what speech promotes real physical threats. But the terrorist attack kind of solidified that.

IMO, you stand on that side, or on this side of it. Either you're against speech that incites violence (in which case, Hebdo's trolling content is anathema) or you're not in which case arresting people who side with the shooters verbally should be okay. If you pick and choose, best examine why you're picking and choosing, and which kind of people you're picking and choosing for.

LarryC wrote:

IMO, you stand on that side, or on this side of it. Either you're against speech that incites violence (in which case, Hebdo's trolling content is anathema)

Is the law against speech that incites violence or is it against speech that calls on people to commit acts of violence.

I could announce that pictures of kittens offend me and kill people who post them. You cound argue that the pictures incited violence but not that they called for violence.

How about #KillAllMuslims? That sounds pretty direct, doesn't it? Any actions by the police against that?

Docjoe wrote:
Eleima wrote:

Freedom of speech is one thing, but there's a law here in France against incitement to ethnic or racial hatred. And that's what these people and more specifically Dieudonné, are doing. Spewing hate speech.

I don't think I understand. Speech is free as long as it is not hate speech? But if we are truly defending free speech, we should defend the speech we find extremely distasteful as long as it doesn't include specific terroristic threats of harm.

So were these actual terrorist threats these people are being arrested for?

Worth reminding at this point that most countries don't have the same morally parsimonious response to "free speech" that the US does. The US tends to consider the US bill of rights to be the be-all and end-all of political expression but other countries don't have the same laws or cleave their national identity so close to them. One case in point is it's illegal in the UK to broadcast factually inaccurate material in a news broadcast which, I understand, is protected by the 1st amendment in the US. It's one reason people overseas look at Fox News with their jaws on the floor.

It's actually quite rare that you'll find hate speech protected.