|
|
30-40 impact on Coulibaly's corpse
|
On January 10 2015 03:05 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
so female suspect escape confirmed or not? also would that be other dudes gf or another so far unknown?
Not.
Interesting fact: The supermarket terrorist made a call with the shop phone but badly hung up. The RAID was able to listen to some of his actions. They apparently decided to attack when he was making a prayer.
|
On January 10 2015 03:07 VelJa wrote:
30-40 impact on Coulibaly's corpse
from TF1 ?
|
On January 10 2015 02:56 Grettin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 02:49 Nouar wrote:On January 10 2015 02:45 Grettin wrote:On January 10 2015 02:43 Nitro68 wrote:
You can see a cop shooting from outsider while they are opzning the door. There is also explosion on the left right at the start. The police is most likely shooting blanks. I can't see a professional shooting real bullets from an angle like that. What ? Lol. The policemen were on either side of the door, with the middle open to let one or two guys fire through hidden by the car but having a better view. Shooting blanks ? Wtf how can you think that... They communicate via radio, voice and hands, and have clear procedures on how to move and when to shoot/wait/storm through... It would be way too risky to shoot through your fellow policemen from that angle. ESPECIALLY while they are kicking the glass and door down. Sure, we cannot see the whole situation clearly enough to know how much space there is to shoot through. This is common knowledge to anyone that has done any military training what so ever, or even if you'd use your common fucking sense.And why blanks? Well, first off, you don't need live ammunition for every fucking man when there is dozens of them around the entrance. Secondly, i'm sure its more common than you think to create some kind of diversion using blanks. Thus in a situation like this, it seems more likely than reckless shooting through your friends. Tell me why would someone be shooting from there, if the guys next to the door could shoot inside just as well, SAFELY.
I am a fucking soldier. The door was a 3-panels door so it's at least 2m wide. The guys shooting from behind know how to shoot and when their mates will go forward or stay on the sides. Diversions are made through disorienting grenades fucking up your ears and equilibrium.
They are in a situation they trained and drilled, and thought about it before the assault. Coordination.
Stop spouting bullshit you know nothing about.
|
Canada13407 Posts
On January 10 2015 03:12 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 02:56 Grettin wrote:On January 10 2015 02:49 Nouar wrote:On January 10 2015 02:45 Grettin wrote:On January 10 2015 02:43 Nitro68 wrote:
You can see a cop shooting from outsider while they are opzning the door. There is also explosion on the left right at the start. The police is most likely shooting blanks. I can't see a professional shooting real bullets from an angle like that. What ? Lol. The policemen were on either side of the door, with the middle open to let one or two guys fire through hidden by the car but having a better view. Shooting blanks ? Wtf how can you think that... They communicate via radio, voice and hands, and have clear procedures on how to move and when to shoot/wait/storm through... It would be way too risky to shoot through your fellow policemen from that angle. ESPECIALLY while they are kicking the glass and door down. Sure, we cannot see the whole situation clearly enough to know how much space there is to shoot through. This is common knowledge to anyone that has done any military training what so ever, or even if you'd use your common fucking sense.And why blanks? Well, first off, you don't need live ammunition for every fucking man when there is dozens of them around the entrance. Secondly, i'm sure its more common than you think to create some kind of diversion using blanks. Thus in a situation like this, it seems more likely than reckless shooting through your friends. Tell me why would someone be shooting from there, if the guys next to the door could shoot inside just as well, SAFELY. I am a fucking soldier.
Try to relax. I can understand emotions may be high, but try to take a more calm tone.
|
On January 10 2015 03:12 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 02:56 Grettin wrote:On January 10 2015 02:49 Nouar wrote:On January 10 2015 02:45 Grettin wrote:On January 10 2015 02:43 Nitro68 wrote:
You can see a cop shooting from outsider while they are opzning the door. There is also explosion on the left right at the start. The police is most likely shooting blanks. I can't see a professional shooting real bullets from an angle like that. What ? Lol. The policemen were on either side of the door, with the middle open to let one or two guys fire through hidden by the car but having a better view. Shooting blanks ? Wtf how can you think that... They communicate via radio, voice and hands, and have clear procedures on how to move and when to shoot/wait/storm through... It would be way too risky to shoot through your fellow policemen from that angle. ESPECIALLY while they are kicking the glass and door down. Sure, we cannot see the whole situation clearly enough to know how much space there is to shoot through. This is common knowledge to anyone that has done any military training what so ever, or even if you'd use your common fucking sense.And why blanks? Well, first off, you don't need live ammunition for every fucking man when there is dozens of them around the entrance. Secondly, i'm sure its more common than you think to create some kind of diversion using blanks. Thus in a situation like this, it seems more likely than reckless shooting through your friends. Tell me why would someone be shooting from there, if the guys next to the door could shoot inside just as well, SAFELY. I am a fucking soldier.
Good, then you should know better.
|
On January 10 2015 02:55 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 01:56 farvacola wrote:
So, for a small change of pace, much of my social media is full of radicals and other folks fighting over exactly what kind of publication Charlie Hebdo is, with some arguing that its hypocritical and a front for conservatism and others saying that they are just really big fans of extremely biting satire. I was wondering if TL's French posters could give us their opinion on the magazine? I'm trying to get a sense for what it is the paper does, and I don't trust pretty much anyone who isn't "around" the magazine regularly. What I just replied to a friend who posted an article saying Charlie Hebdo was racist: The point that the article you linked to seems to completely miss is that Charlie Hebdo cartoons only represent racism and xenophobia to fight them and ridicule them - that's the entire point of satire. Their targets were notably racism, xenophobia, religious extremism and religious symbols, but they did NOT target religious people. Mocking religious symbols and institutions (such as the Pope, Jesus, Mahomet, etc.) is NOT racist or xenophobic. Attacking religious people (muslims, christians, jews, etc.) is, and that is NOT what Charlie Hebdo was doing. All of the covers cited in the article mock religious symbols, religious extremists (see the one where Mahomet is weeping, the "cons" he refers to are the extremists, as highlighted in the text next to the picture, not the muslims in general), or mock right-wing xenophobic fantasies about the Other (the drawing on the final "welfare queens" cover does NOT attack muslim women asking for welfare but the exact opposite: it is there to ridicule right-wing fantasies about immigrants profiting from welfare). The message of the cartoons is the OPPOSITE of racist, it is antiracist and works through satire, irony and ridicule. The author of your article completely misunderstands this and reads them at face value (au premier degré), which is not at all how they work. Also, contrary to what is asserted in the article, Charlie Hebdo did not only target Islam and islamic extremists but all religions and religious extremism in all forms.
Regarding this:
What i have always wondered is why do people "give ammunition" to groups like islamic and other extremists? Like i get the freedom of speech and yadda yadda everything but there are people who do not believe in freedom of speech. If there is a guy with a short temper and a gun ready to use it, you do not go call him an idiot (not even through satire) because you can get shot. That's just.. plain stupid. Why do people do this? Like, what's the point? I have never understood it because it just begs extremists to have / create a reason to do something like what's going on in France.
That being said what's going on is really sad and i hope the situation gets solved as soon as possible -- without any new victims.
|
On January 10 2015 03:14 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:12 Nouar wrote:On January 10 2015 02:56 Grettin wrote:On January 10 2015 02:49 Nouar wrote:On January 10 2015 02:45 Grettin wrote:On January 10 2015 02:43 Nitro68 wrote:
You can see a cop shooting from outsider while they are opzning the door. There is also explosion on the left right at the start. The police is most likely shooting blanks. I can't see a professional shooting real bullets from an angle like that. What ? Lol. The policemen were on either side of the door, with the middle open to let one or two guys fire through hidden by the car but having a better view. Shooting blanks ? Wtf how can you think that... They communicate via radio, voice and hands, and have clear procedures on how to move and when to shoot/wait/storm through... It would be way too risky to shoot through your fellow policemen from that angle. ESPECIALLY while they are kicking the glass and door down. Sure, we cannot see the whole situation clearly enough to know how much space there is to shoot through. This is common knowledge to anyone that has done any military training what so ever, or even if you'd use your common fucking sense.And why blanks? Well, first off, you don't need live ammunition for every fucking man when there is dozens of them around the entrance. Secondly, i'm sure its more common than you think to create some kind of diversion using blanks. Thus in a situation like this, it seems more likely than reckless shooting through your friends. Tell me why would someone be shooting from there, if the guys next to the door could shoot inside just as well, SAFELY. I am a fucking soldier. Try to relax. I can understand emotions may be high, but try to take a more calm tone.
tell that to the guy telling me to use my "fucking common sense".
I say that because I was trained like every soldier in close quarters shooting and urban assaults, through doors etc. You'd be amazed at the ratholes we can shoot through as regular soldiers, and now realize these guys are the best professionnals we have, with even more coordination and drill.
Giving these guys blanks would risk their life for nothing and leave them unable to defend in case something unexpected happen.
|
On January 10 2015 03:16 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 02:55 kwizach wrote:On January 10 2015 01:56 farvacola wrote:
So, for a small change of pace, much of my social media is full of radicals and other folks fighting over exactly what kind of publication Charlie Hebdo is, with some arguing that its hypocritical and a front for conservatism and others saying that they are just really big fans of extremely biting satire. I was wondering if TL's French posters could give us their opinion on the magazine? I'm trying to get a sense for what it is the paper does, and I don't trust pretty much anyone who isn't "around" the magazine regularly. What I just replied to a friend who posted an article saying Charlie Hebdo was racist: The point that the article you linked to seems to completely miss is that Charlie Hebdo cartoons only represent racism and xenophobia to fight them and ridicule them - that's the entire point of satire. Their targets were notably racism, xenophobia, religious extremism and religious symbols, but they did NOT target religious people. Mocking religious symbols and institutions (such as the Pope, Jesus, Mahomet, etc.) is NOT racist or xenophobic. Attacking religious people (muslims, christians, jews, etc.) is, and that is NOT what Charlie Hebdo was doing. All of the covers cited in the article mock religious symbols, religious extremists (see the one where Mahomet is weeping, the "cons" he refers to are the extremists, as highlighted in the text next to the picture, not the muslims in general), or mock right-wing xenophobic fantasies about the Other (the drawing on the final "welfare queens" cover does NOT attack muslim women asking for welfare but the exact opposite: it is there to ridicule right-wing fantasies about immigrants profiting from welfare). The message of the cartoons is the OPPOSITE of racist, it is antiracist and works through satire, irony and ridicule. The author of your article completely misunderstands this and reads them at face value (au premier degré), which is not at all how they work. Also, contrary to what is asserted in the article, Charlie Hebdo did not only target Islam and islamic extremists but all religions and religious extremism in all forms. Regarding this: What i have always wondered is why do people "give ammunition" to groups like islamic and other extremists? Like i get the freedom of speech and yadda yadda everything but there are people who do not believe in freedom of speech. If there is a guy with a short temper and a gun ready to use it, you do not go call him an idiot (not even through satire) because you can get shot. That's just.. plain stupid. Why do people do this? Like, what's the point? I have never understood it because it just begs extremists to have / create a reason to do something like what's going on in France. That being said what's going on is really sad and i hope the situation gets solved as soon as possible -- without any new victims.
Because if you never stand up, you end up losing all liberty. To follow your analogy, no you're not going to tell the guy with a gun that he's an idiot. Now what if he has such a short temper that he'll shoot you not only if you call him an idiot, but if you disagree with him or disobey him?
Then what if other people, seeing the success that one guy with his short temper and his gun have, try to do the same? You lose all liberty. That's why satire, even "stupid" (by that I mean basic and crude) satire is necessary.
|
On January 10 2015 03:20 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:16 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 02:55 kwizach wrote:On January 10 2015 01:56 farvacola wrote:
So, for a small change of pace, much of my social media is full of radicals and other folks fighting over exactly what kind of publication Charlie Hebdo is, with some arguing that its hypocritical and a front for conservatism and others saying that they are just really big fans of extremely biting satire. I was wondering if TL's French posters could give us their opinion on the magazine? I'm trying to get a sense for what it is the paper does, and I don't trust pretty much anyone who isn't "around" the magazine regularly. What I just replied to a friend who posted an article saying Charlie Hebdo was racist: The point that the article you linked to seems to completely miss is that Charlie Hebdo cartoons only represent racism and xenophobia to fight them and ridicule them - that's the entire point of satire. Their targets were notably racism, xenophobia, religious extremism and religious symbols, but they did NOT target religious people. Mocking religious symbols and institutions (such as the Pope, Jesus, Mahomet, etc.) is NOT racist or xenophobic. Attacking religious people (muslims, christians, jews, etc.) is, and that is NOT what Charlie Hebdo was doing. All of the covers cited in the article mock religious symbols, religious extremists (see the one where Mahomet is weeping, the "cons" he refers to are the extremists, as highlighted in the text next to the picture, not the muslims in general), or mock right-wing xenophobic fantasies about the Other (the drawing on the final "welfare queens" cover does NOT attack muslim women asking for welfare but the exact opposite: it is there to ridicule right-wing fantasies about immigrants profiting from welfare). The message of the cartoons is the OPPOSITE of racist, it is antiracist and works through satire, irony and ridicule. The author of your article completely misunderstands this and reads them at face value (au premier degré), which is not at all how they work. Also, contrary to what is asserted in the article, Charlie Hebdo did not only target Islam and islamic extremists but all religions and religious extremism in all forms. Regarding this: What i have always wondered is why do people "give ammunition" to groups like islamic and other extremists? Like i get the freedom of speech and yadda yadda everything but there are people who do not believe in freedom of speech. If there is a guy with a short temper and a gun ready to use it, you do not go call him an idiot (not even through satire) because you can get shot. That's just.. plain stupid. Why do people do this? Like, what's the point? I have never understood it because it just begs extremists to have / create a reason to do something like what's going on in France. That being said what's going on is really sad and i hope the situation gets solved as soon as possible -- without any new victims. Because if you never stand up, you end up losing all liberty. To follow your analogy, no you're not going to tell the guy with a gun that he's an idiot. Now what if he has such a short temper that he'll shoot you not only if you call him an idiot, but if you disagree with him or disobey him? Then what if other people, seeing the success that one guy with his short temper and his gun have, try to do the same? You lose all liberty. That's why satire, even "stupid" (by that I mean basic and crude) satire is necessary.
I don't agree. Why would you "lose all liberty"?
I don't understand why there has to be so many unnecessary deaths because of some cartoon. Is the world better place now because it had to be said? Did it really have to be said?
|
On January 10 2015 03:14 Grettin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:12 Nouar wrote:On January 10 2015 02:56 Grettin wrote:On January 10 2015 02:49 Nouar wrote:On January 10 2015 02:45 Grettin wrote:On January 10 2015 02:43 Nitro68 wrote:
You can see a cop shooting from outsider while they are opzning the door. There is also explosion on the left right at the start. The police is most likely shooting blanks. I can't see a professional shooting real bullets from an angle like that. What ? Lol. The policemen were on either side of the door, with the middle open to let one or two guys fire through hidden by the car but having a better view. Shooting blanks ? Wtf how can you think that... They communicate via radio, voice and hands, and have clear procedures on how to move and when to shoot/wait/storm through... It would be way too risky to shoot through your fellow policemen from that angle. ESPECIALLY while they are kicking the glass and door down. Sure, we cannot see the whole situation clearly enough to know how much space there is to shoot through. This is common knowledge to anyone that has done any military training what so ever, or even if you'd use your common fucking sense.And why blanks? Well, first off, you don't need live ammunition for every fucking man when there is dozens of them around the entrance. Secondly, i'm sure its more common than you think to create some kind of diversion using blanks. Thus in a situation like this, it seems more likely than reckless shooting through your friends. Tell me why would someone be shooting from there, if the guys next to the door could shoot inside just as well, SAFELY. I am a fucking soldier. Good, then you should know better.
Lol @ shooting blanks in that situation. I wonder how many times you look back at your posts and go "Yeah that was a pretty dumb thing to say".
|
On January 10 2015 03:25 Shortizz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:14 Grettin wrote:On January 10 2015 03:12 Nouar wrote:On January 10 2015 02:56 Grettin wrote:On January 10 2015 02:49 Nouar wrote:On January 10 2015 02:45 Grettin wrote:On January 10 2015 02:43 Nitro68 wrote:
You can see a cop shooting from outsider while they are opzning the door. There is also explosion on the left right at the start. The police is most likely shooting blanks. I can't see a professional shooting real bullets from an angle like that. What ? Lol. The policemen were on either side of the door, with the middle open to let one or two guys fire through hidden by the car but having a better view. Shooting blanks ? Wtf how can you think that... They communicate via radio, voice and hands, and have clear procedures on how to move and when to shoot/wait/storm through... It would be way too risky to shoot through your fellow policemen from that angle. ESPECIALLY while they are kicking the glass and door down. Sure, we cannot see the whole situation clearly enough to know how much space there is to shoot through. This is common knowledge to anyone that has done any military training what so ever, or even if you'd use your common fucking sense.And why blanks? Well, first off, you don't need live ammunition for every fucking man when there is dozens of them around the entrance. Secondly, i'm sure its more common than you think to create some kind of diversion using blanks. Thus in a situation like this, it seems more likely than reckless shooting through your friends. Tell me why would someone be shooting from there, if the guys next to the door could shoot inside just as well, SAFELY. I am a fucking soldier. Good, then you should know better. Lol @ shooting blanks in that situation. I wonder how many times you look back at your posts and go "Yeah that was a pretty dumb thing to say".
Has happened a few times, but not in this case. 
Any news on the woman? Did she escape or has she been at large before the second hostage situation?
|
On January 10 2015 03:24 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:20 OtherWorld wrote:On January 10 2015 03:16 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 02:55 kwizach wrote:On January 10 2015 01:56 farvacola wrote:
So, for a small change of pace, much of my social media is full of radicals and other folks fighting over exactly what kind of publication Charlie Hebdo is, with some arguing that its hypocritical and a front for conservatism and others saying that they are just really big fans of extremely biting satire. I was wondering if TL's French posters could give us their opinion on the magazine? I'm trying to get a sense for what it is the paper does, and I don't trust pretty much anyone who isn't "around" the magazine regularly. What I just replied to a friend who posted an article saying Charlie Hebdo was racist: The point that the article you linked to seems to completely miss is that Charlie Hebdo cartoons only represent racism and xenophobia to fight them and ridicule them - that's the entire point of satire. Their targets were notably racism, xenophobia, religious extremism and religious symbols, but they did NOT target religious people. Mocking religious symbols and institutions (such as the Pope, Jesus, Mahomet, etc.) is NOT racist or xenophobic. Attacking religious people (muslims, christians, jews, etc.) is, and that is NOT what Charlie Hebdo was doing. All of the covers cited in the article mock religious symbols, religious extremists (see the one where Mahomet is weeping, the "cons" he refers to are the extremists, as highlighted in the text next to the picture, not the muslims in general), or mock right-wing xenophobic fantasies about the Other (the drawing on the final "welfare queens" cover does NOT attack muslim women asking for welfare but the exact opposite: it is there to ridicule right-wing fantasies about immigrants profiting from welfare). The message of the cartoons is the OPPOSITE of racist, it is antiracist and works through satire, irony and ridicule. The author of your article completely misunderstands this and reads them at face value (au premier degré), which is not at all how they work. Also, contrary to what is asserted in the article, Charlie Hebdo did not only target Islam and islamic extremists but all religions and religious extremism in all forms. Regarding this: What i have always wondered is why do people "give ammunition" to groups like islamic and other extremists? Like i get the freedom of speech and yadda yadda everything but there are people who do not believe in freedom of speech. If there is a guy with a short temper and a gun ready to use it, you do not go call him an idiot (not even through satire) because you can get shot. That's just.. plain stupid. Why do people do this? Like, what's the point? I have never understood it because it just begs extremists to have / create a reason to do something like what's going on in France. That being said what's going on is really sad and i hope the situation gets solved as soon as possible -- without any new victims. Because if you never stand up, you end up losing all liberty. To follow your analogy, no you're not going to tell the guy with a gun that he's an idiot. Now what if he has such a short temper that he'll shoot you not only if you call him an idiot, but if you disagree with him or disobey him? Then what if other people, seeing the success that one guy with his short temper and his gun have, try to do the same? You lose all liberty. That's why satire, even "stupid" (by that I mean basic and crude) satire is necessary. I don't agree. Why would you "lose all liberty"? I don't understand why there has to be so many unnecessary deaths because of some cartoon. Is the world better place now because it had to be said? Did it really have to be said?
If you let some group silence an opinion because it offends them you've lost freedom of speech. People have and should have the right to say anything they want no matter who or how many it offends. If you let them squelch you you've let them win.
|
On January 10 2015 03:14 Grettin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:12 Nouar wrote:On January 10 2015 02:56 Grettin wrote:On January 10 2015 02:49 Nouar wrote:On January 10 2015 02:45 Grettin wrote:On January 10 2015 02:43 Nitro68 wrote:
You can see a cop shooting from outsider while they are opzning the door. There is also explosion on the left right at the start. The police is most likely shooting blanks. I can't see a professional shooting real bullets from an angle like that. What ? Lol. The policemen were on either side of the door, with the middle open to let one or two guys fire through hidden by the car but having a better view. Shooting blanks ? Wtf how can you think that... They communicate via radio, voice and hands, and have clear procedures on how to move and when to shoot/wait/storm through... It would be way too risky to shoot through your fellow policemen from that angle. ESPECIALLY while they are kicking the glass and door down. Sure, we cannot see the whole situation clearly enough to know how much space there is to shoot through. This is common knowledge to anyone that has done any military training what so ever, or even if you'd use your common fucking sense.And why blanks? Well, first off, you don't need live ammunition for every fucking man when there is dozens of them around the entrance. Secondly, i'm sure its more common than you think to create some kind of diversion using blanks. Thus in a situation like this, it seems more likely than reckless shooting through your friends. Tell me why would someone be shooting from there, if the guys next to the door could shoot inside just as well, SAFELY. I am a fucking soldier. Good, then you should know better.
Please, dont be so ignorant. these guys know what they are doing and you certainly are not in a position to judge their movements.
|
|
|
On January 10 2015 03:24 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:20 OtherWorld wrote:On January 10 2015 03:16 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 02:55 kwizach wrote:On January 10 2015 01:56 farvacola wrote:
So, for a small change of pace, much of my social media is full of radicals and other folks fighting over exactly what kind of publication Charlie Hebdo is, with some arguing that its hypocritical and a front for conservatism and others saying that they are just really big fans of extremely biting satire. I was wondering if TL's French posters could give us their opinion on the magazine? I'm trying to get a sense for what it is the paper does, and I don't trust pretty much anyone who isn't "around" the magazine regularly. What I just replied to a friend who posted an article saying Charlie Hebdo was racist: The point that the article you linked to seems to completely miss is that Charlie Hebdo cartoons only represent racism and xenophobia to fight them and ridicule them - that's the entire point of satire. Their targets were notably racism, xenophobia, religious extremism and religious symbols, but they did NOT target religious people. Mocking religious symbols and institutions (such as the Pope, Jesus, Mahomet, etc.) is NOT racist or xenophobic. Attacking religious people (muslims, christians, jews, etc.) is, and that is NOT what Charlie Hebdo was doing. All of the covers cited in the article mock religious symbols, religious extremists (see the one where Mahomet is weeping, the "cons" he refers to are the extremists, as highlighted in the text next to the picture, not the muslims in general), or mock right-wing xenophobic fantasies about the Other (the drawing on the final "welfare queens" cover does NOT attack muslim women asking for welfare but the exact opposite: it is there to ridicule right-wing fantasies about immigrants profiting from welfare). The message of the cartoons is the OPPOSITE of racist, it is antiracist and works through satire, irony and ridicule. The author of your article completely misunderstands this and reads them at face value (au premier degré), which is not at all how they work. Also, contrary to what is asserted in the article, Charlie Hebdo did not only target Islam and islamic extremists but all religions and religious extremism in all forms. Regarding this: What i have always wondered is why do people "give ammunition" to groups like islamic and other extremists? Like i get the freedom of speech and yadda yadda everything but there are people who do not believe in freedom of speech. If there is a guy with a short temper and a gun ready to use it, you do not go call him an idiot (not even through satire) because you can get shot. That's just.. plain stupid. Why do people do this? Like, what's the point? I have never understood it because it just begs extremists to have / create a reason to do something like what's going on in France. That being said what's going on is really sad and i hope the situation gets solved as soon as possible -- without any new victims. Because if you never stand up, you end up losing all liberty. To follow your analogy, no you're not going to tell the guy with a gun that he's an idiot. Now what if he has such a short temper that he'll shoot you not only if you call him an idiot, but if you disagree with him or disobey him? Then what if other people, seeing the success that one guy with his short temper and his gun have, try to do the same? You lose all liberty. That's why satire, even "stupid" (by that I mean basic and crude) satire is necessary. I don't agree. Why would you "lose all liberty"? I don't understand why there has to be so many unnecessary deaths because of some cartoon. Is the world better place now because it had to be said? Did it really have to be said?
You lose all liberty if you close your mouth willingly against people trying to scare the whole world. If you don't say anything, don't stand up, you cower in fear, and they win.
To not let fear through and these guys take over, it is necessary to name and shame this kind of people, whatever the risks. They were trying to ridicule extremists, using laugh, to remove the seriousness and fear from their messages, so that the rest of the population can live peacefully.
They were acid though. The jokes could be very rough :-p
|
wow that view, they don't hesitate to open fire
|
On January 10 2015 03:28 404AlphaSquad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:14 Grettin wrote:On January 10 2015 03:12 Nouar wrote:On January 10 2015 02:56 Grettin wrote:On January 10 2015 02:49 Nouar wrote:On January 10 2015 02:45 Grettin wrote:On January 10 2015 02:43 Nitro68 wrote:
You can see a cop shooting from outsider while they are opzning the door. There is also explosion on the left right at the start. The police is most likely shooting blanks. I can't see a professional shooting real bullets from an angle like that. What ? Lol. The policemen were on either side of the door, with the middle open to let one or two guys fire through hidden by the car but having a better view. Shooting blanks ? Wtf how can you think that... They communicate via radio, voice and hands, and have clear procedures on how to move and when to shoot/wait/storm through... It would be way too risky to shoot through your fellow policemen from that angle. ESPECIALLY while they are kicking the glass and door down. Sure, we cannot see the whole situation clearly enough to know how much space there is to shoot through. This is common knowledge to anyone that has done any military training what so ever, or even if you'd use your common fucking sense.And why blanks? Well, first off, you don't need live ammunition for every fucking man when there is dozens of them around the entrance. Secondly, i'm sure its more common than you think to create some kind of diversion using blanks. Thus in a situation like this, it seems more likely than reckless shooting through your friends. Tell me why would someone be shooting from there, if the guys next to the door could shoot inside just as well, SAFELY. I am a fucking soldier. Good, then you should know better. Please, dont be so ignorant. these guys know what they are doing and you certainly are not in a position to judge their movements.
Oh i agree and i didn't try to be. (Atleast tried not to) Just seemed way too risky to do what everyone seem to think the guy did in the situation.
|
On January 10 2015 03:26 Grettin wrote:
Any news on the woman? Did she escape or has she been at large before the second hostage situation?
How many times do people have to repeat it ?
|
On January 10 2015 03:30 Makro wrote:wow that view, they don't hesitate to open fire
He was killed with dozens of bullets. In hostages situation they can't afford to be hesitant, hostages' life are too important. If negociation failed and an assault happens, it's very rare the terrorist life is spared. They shoot to kill and end threat, not to disable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
