12 Dead in Terrorist Attack on French Satire Magazine

[Lethn]

Yes but then ironically you guys would scream about freedom of speech and expression wouldn't you? As with a lot of people you're for it as long as it supports your religious doctrine but when it goes against you you're suddenly deciding it's a better idea to use violence instead.

Long live abrasive White dickheads.

Yes, because anybody who disagress with the actions of murderous psychopaths who is white is automatically a racist, go fuck yourself, you should be ashamed.

Words don't mean anything if we get to say whatever while those on the receiving end don't have free action. "Free speech" (anti-action) is a poorly-enforced series of government laws. Disagress yourself before you wreck yourself, bro.

Free action does not involve murder and blowing up buildings to make a point, something you clearly don't understand either.

[Kluge]

Yes but then ironically you guys would scream about freedom of speech and expression wouldn't you? As with a lot of people you're for it as long as it supports your religious doctrine but when it goes against you you're suddenly deciding it's a better idea to use violence instead.

Long live abrasive White dickheads.

Yes, because anybody who disagress with the actions of murderous psychopaths who is white is automatically a racist, go fuck yourself, you should be ashamed.

Words don't mean anything if we get to say whatever while those on the receiving end don't have free action. "Free speech" (anti-action) is a poorly-enforced series of government laws. Disagress yourself before you wreck yourself, bro.

Free action does not involve murder and blowing up buildings to make a point, something you clearly don't understand either.

I don't even know what kind of bigoted straw man you're trying to set up. What religious doctrine? Who are "you guys"?

Free action obviously involves murder and blowing up buildings, fascist.

[Lethn]

Are you trolling? Or just incredibly stupid? Also, please don't use the word Straw Man when no one on the internet actually knows what it means or how to use it correctly, I'm talking about the fact that Madness was trying to insinuate that it was okay to enforce his religious doctrine onto people who don't want anything to do with it.

Then of course, you decided to randomly bring race into it, maybe you should read before you rage post so you at least appear coherent.

[saddampbuh]

There is millions of muslims in france you know it's their country too.  and if they don't  want mosquees their then they just make a law to stop building them instead of attacking mosquees with people who pray in them. this is what I think

it will never be their country

[Kluge]

Are you trolling? Or just incredibly stupid? Also, please don't use the word Straw Man when no one on the internet actually knows what it means or how to use it correctly, I'm talking about the fact that Madness was trying to insinuate that it was okay to enforce his religious doctrine onto people who don't want anything to do with it.

Then of course, you decided to randomly bring race into it, maybe you should read before you rage post so you at least appear coherent.

"Straw Man" would be two words. I don't care what your conversation was with Madness nor why you're trying to bring me into it.

[freedomno1]

This is showing up in my newsfeeds a lot as well
Not sure on this one who was the bigger bigot though the ones who reacted to a satire and shot the heck out of them in anger, or the people who made the satire even after being firebombed once.
Putting that part aside killing is still wrong and my condolences go to the French and the families of the shot individuals.

That said
For me though the whole cowardly shit statement from Obama is RICH send drones all over the place to blow shit up from an airplane hits civilians and then has the gall to say the same when they retaliate with terrorism.
Feeling for those Syrian refugees atm, some of them because they have no alternatives and will seek shelter with a terrorist group and become the next ISIS.


http://abcnews.go.com/News/obama-condemns-cowardly-evil-paris-attacks/story?id=28058882

“For us to see the kind of cowardly, evil attacks that took place today, I think reinforces once again why it’s so important for us to stand in solidarity with them just as they stand in solidarity with us,” he said.

_
Skims Kludge And Lethn
Hmm sees Religious Doctrine Counters With Well look at that picture if anything they are countering to the damn Gay Doctrine  
http://animalnewyork.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/hebdo-mohammad-600.jpg

[Lethn]

Are you trolling? Or just incredibly stupid? Also, please don't use the word Straw Man when no one on the internet actually knows what it means or how to use it correctly, I'm talking about the fact that Madness was trying to insinuate that it was okay to enforce his religious doctrine onto people who don't want anything to do with it.

Then of course, you decided to randomly bring race into it, maybe you should read before you rage post so you at least appear coherent.

"Straw Man" would be two words. I don't care what your conversation was with Madness nor why you're trying to bring me into it.

Have you already forgotten what you wrote?

I don't even know what kind of bigoted straw man you're trying to set up. What religious doctrine? Who are "you guys"?

Free action obviously involves murder and blowing up buildings, fascist.

I'm begging you, use your brain for fucks sake Kluge.

[BADecker]

It's probably made up just to make Islam looks bad once again. they are trying hard but they can't do a shit .
Made up or not . with what right do you insult other religions prophets you don't have any rights. they were probably bunch of shit racist people .

where do you get off telling europeans what rights we should have in our own countries

Well if you think that you have the right to do that , then you are simply racist . no one have the right to insult others religions prophets , no one have the right to do that .
and you can't simply compare your self with a prophet . they are just better then us

EDIT : now they are attacking mosquees on france as "revenge" . you don't have the right to do that either

That's what freedom of speech is, something you clearly don't understand, everyone has the right to insult or say anything to anyone else, we are not a part of your religion and do not have to follow your religious doctrine, so fuck off. No, I don't approve of attacking mosques, but don't you guys ever fucking think before you scream about how people should be killed for insulting your prophet? Clearly not, people make fun of Jesus all the time and I don't see Christians going around bombing people and shooting them all the time so I actually have to respect them for that.

You can even insult me if you think it will make me feel better, I won't mind, because I'm actually a civil person, but if you start threatening me and pointing a gun we're going to have a problem, get fucking used to it.

This!

While I personally wouldn't state it quite as "coarsely," if good people don't stand together against those a**h***s who criminally harm us, we are dooming ourselves.

The problem with the French government is that it is socialistic, close to communism, a dictatorship, and only maintains a semblance of freedom for its people because it is somewhat allied with the U.S. and Britain. Look at its history, and see how it has virtually turned its back on its people to the extent that there have been purges of government because the people couldn't take it any more.

If France wanted to protect itself, it would arm its people to the hilt. The people would only do good if they were armed, terrorists would be scared to go there, and the French government would have a lot easier job of protecting the whole country.

The only reason that the French are not armed is, the Power Elite of the world are attempting to disarm everyone so that they can formally make slaves of everyone. They will fail, of course. But as in this instance, there will be a lot of innocent people killed before their failure becomes an evident actuality.

[Jammalan the Prophet]

It's probably made up just to make Islam looks bad once again. they are trying hard but they can't do a shit .
Made up or not . with what right do you insult other religions prophets you don't have any rights. they were probably bunch of shit racist people .

where do you get off telling europeans what rights we should have in our own countries

Well if you think that you have the right to do that , then you are simply racist . no one have the right to insult others religions prophets , no one have the right to do that .
and you can't simply compare your self with a prophet . they are just better then us

EDIT : now they are attacking mosquees on france as "revenge" . you don't have the right to do that either

That's what freedom of speech is, something you clearly don't understand, everyone has the right to insult or say anything to anyone else, we are not a part of your religion and do not have to follow your religious doctrine, so fuck off. No, I don't approve of attacking mosques, but don't you guys ever fucking think before you scream about how people should be killed for insulting your prophet? Clearly not, people make fun of Jesus all the time and I don't see Christians going around bombing people and shooting them all the time so I actually have to respect them for that.

You can even insult me if you think it will make me feel better, I won't mind, because I'm actually a civil person, but if you start threatening me and pointing a gun we're going to have a problem, get fucking used to it.

This!

While I personally wouldn't state it quite as "coarsely," if good people don't stand together against those a**h***s who criminally harm us, we are dooming ourselves.

The problem with the French government is that it is socialistic, close to communism, a dictatorship, and only maintains a semblance of freedom for its people because it is somewhat allied with the U.S. and Britain. Look at its history, and see how it has virtually turned its back on its people to the extent that there have been purges of government because the people couldn't take it any more.

If France wanted to protect itself, it would arm its people to the hilt. The people would only do good if they were armed, terrorists would be scared to go there, and the French government would have a lot easier job of protecting the whole country.

The only reason that the French are not armed is, the Power Elite of the world are attempting to disarm everyone so that they can formally make slaves of everyone. They will fail, of course. But as in this instance, there will be a lot of innocent people killed before their failure becomes an evident actuality.

A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

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

[BADecker]

It's probably made up just to make Islam looks bad once again. they are trying hard but they can't do a shit .
Made up or not . with what right do you insult other religions prophets you don't have any rights. they were probably bunch of shit racist people .

where do you get off telling europeans what rights we should have in our own countries

Well if you think that you have the right to do that , then you are simply racist . no one have the right to insult others religions prophets , no one have the right to do that .
and you can't simply compare your self with a prophet . they are just better then us

EDIT : now they are attacking mosquees on france as "revenge" . you don't have the right to do that either

That's what freedom of speech is, something you clearly don't understand, everyone has the right to insult or say anything to anyone else, we are not a part of your religion and do not have to follow your religious doctrine, so fuck off. No, I don't approve of attacking mosques, but don't you guys ever fucking think before you scream about how people should be killed for insulting your prophet? Clearly not, people make fun of Jesus all the time and I don't see Christians going around bombing people and shooting them all the time so I actually have to respect them for that.

You can even insult me if you think it will make me feel better, I won't mind, because I'm actually a civil person, but if you start threatening me and pointing a gun we're going to have a problem, get fucking used to it.

This!

While I personally wouldn't state it quite as "coarsely," if good people don't stand together against those a**h***s who criminally harm us, we are dooming ourselves.

The problem with the French government is that it is socialistic, close to communism, a dictatorship, and only maintains a semblance of freedom for its people because it is somewhat allied with the U.S. and Britain. Look at its history, and see how it has virtually turned its back on its people to the extent that there have been purges of government because the people couldn't take it any more.

If France wanted to protect itself, it would arm its people to the hilt. The people would only do good if they were armed, terrorists would be scared to go there, and the French government would have a lot easier job of protecting the whole country.

The only reason that the French are not armed is, the Power Elite of the world are attempting to disarm everyone so that they can formally make slaves of everyone. They will fail, of course. But as in this instance, there will be a lot of innocent people killed before their failure becomes an evident actuality.

A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

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

The thread "How Arizona is Keeping the World Free!" might have been named "How Arizona is Keeping a Gun Free World Safe!" From the thread:

Governments of the world are attempting to take the guns away from all their own citizens. They want to do it to enslave their citizens. But they can't. And the reason that they can't is Arizona gun freedom. If the governments of the world made slaves of their gun-less populations, Arizona would see, the whole U.S. would see, and the whole world would see.

What would the world see? They would see that the bearing of arms, the carrying of guns, and even the threat of gun-carry by the populace is where the freedom is. Arizona and the world that still had guns would NEVER give up their guns once they saw this. The anti-gun drive of the governments of the world would fail miserably, and they know it. As long as Arizona has gun freedom, the governments don't dare to push too hard, lest they lose it all. Arizona is keeping the world free.

In a gun free world, there are going to be fewer gun deaths, simply because there are fewer guns. If the common people of the world were truly gun free (note that this would not disarm governments or their armies), there might be fewer gun deaths (after the government purges done by government using guns on their citizens, that is). Then there would be slavery until the common people stole or made enough guns to put down the governments.

Anybody who wants to see this need only follow the history of all kinds of armament in the world. It is the governments that kill the people. It is not average people that kill each other, except when they are led in armies by governments. The exception to this is found in black Africa, where common tribal people often kill common tribal people of other tribes for sport. [Yes, some American Indians of the past did this as well.]

[Snail2]

A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

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

Where guns available people using knifes and axes. That's surely better.

[Jammalan the Prophet]

It's probably made up just to make Islam looks bad once again. they are trying hard but they can't do a shit .
Made up or not . with what right do you insult other religions prophets you don't have any rights. they were probably bunch of shit racist people .

where do you get off telling europeans what rights we should have in our own countries

Well if you think that you have the right to do that , then you are simply racist . no one have the right to insult others religions prophets , no one have the right to do that .
and you can't simply compare your self with a prophet . they are just better then us

EDIT : now they are attacking mosquees on france as "revenge" . you don't have the right to do that either

That's what freedom of speech is, something you clearly don't understand, everyone has the right to insult or say anything to anyone else, we are not a part of your religion and do not have to follow your religious doctrine, so fuck off. No, I don't approve of attacking mosques, but don't you guys ever fucking think before you scream about how people should be killed for insulting your prophet? Clearly not, people make fun of Jesus all the time and I don't see Christians going around bombing people and shooting them all the time so I actually have to respect them for that.

You can even insult me if you think it will make me feel better, I won't mind, because I'm actually a civil person, but if you start threatening me and pointing a gun we're going to have a problem, get fucking used to it.

This!

While I personally wouldn't state it quite as "coarsely," if good people don't stand together against those a**h***s who criminally harm us, we are dooming ourselves.

The problem with the French government is that it is socialistic, close to communism, a dictatorship, and only maintains a semblance of freedom for its people because it is somewhat allied with the U.S. and Britain. Look at its history, and see how it has virtually turned its back on its people to the extent that there have been purges of government because the people couldn't take it any more.

If France wanted to protect itself, it would arm its people to the hilt. The people would only do good if they were armed, terrorists would be scared to go there, and the French government would have a lot easier job of protecting the whole country.

The only reason that the French are not armed is, the Power Elite of the world are attempting to disarm everyone so that they can formally make slaves of everyone. They will fail, of course. But as in this instance, there will be a lot of innocent people killed before their failure becomes an evident actuality.

A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

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

The thread "How Arizona is Keeping the World Free!" might have been named "How Arizona is Keeping a Gun Free World Safe!" From the thread:

Governments of the world are attempting to take the guns away from all their own citizens. They want to do it to enslave their citizens. But they can't. And the reason that they can't is Arizona gun freedom. If the governments of the world made slaves of their gun-less populations, Arizona would see, the whole U.S. would see, and the whole world would see.

What would the world see? They would see that the bearing of arms, the carrying of guns, and even the threat of gun-carry by the populace is where the freedom is. Arizona and the world that still had guns would NEVER give up their guns once they saw this. The anti-gun drive of the governments of the world would fail miserably, and they know it. As long as Arizona has gun freedom, the governments don't dare to push too hard, lest they lose it all. Arizona is keeping the world free.

In a gun free world, there are going to be fewer gun deaths, simply because there are fewer guns. If the common people of the world were truly gun free (note that this would not disarm governments or their armies), there might be fewer gun deaths (after the government purges done by government using guns on their citizens, that is). Then there would be slavery until the common people stole or made enough guns to put down the governments.

Anybody who wants to see this need only follow the history of all kinds of armament in the world. It is the governments that kill the people. It is not average people that kill each other, except when they are led in armies by governments. The exception to this is found in black Africa, where common tribal people often kill common tribal people of other tribes for sport. [Yes, some American Indians of the past did this as well.]

AGAIN

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

After all, the U.S. constitution's second amendment is intended in part to maintain "the security of a free State" by ensuring that the government doesn't have a monopoly on force. Though it's worth considering another police state here: Tunisia, which had the lowest firearm ownership rate in the world (one gun per thousand citizens, compared to America's 890) when its people toppled a brutal, 24-year dictatorship and sparked the Arab Spring.

Hard to read what proves you are wrong?

How many guns were in the hands of poles,czechs,hungarians romanians in ' 89?

[Snail2]

AGAIN

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

After all, the U.S. constitution's second amendment is intended in part to maintain "the security of a free State" by ensuring that the government doesn't have a monopoly on force. Though it's worth considering another police state here: Tunisia, which had the lowest firearm ownership rate in the world (one gun per thousand citizens, compared to America's 890) when its people toppled a brutal, 24-year dictatorship and sparked the Arab Spring.

Hard to read what proves you are wrong?

How many guns were in the hands of poles,czechs,hungarians romanians in ' 89?

As a hungarian I can say unfortunately very few in addition these guns were mostly in the hands of the commies and their supporters. In a different case we wouldn't be still under a hidden commie rule because of we could shot most of those bastards twenty years ago .

Your anti-gun BS only takes all means of self-defense from the average citizen and hands it over to politicians and gangsters.

[neoneros]

If we keep feeding anger with guns and violence it only provokes more violence. If I might offend someone by speaking my mind or drawing my opinion, then by all means, please speak your mind or draw me anyway you like, but in no way should it be physical violence. The same the mosqe burning is faul. The act of three is not the act of a whole religion. It is the story of the black and white wolf, we should stop feeding the black and care more about the white.

[Jammalan the Prophet]

AGAIN

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

After all, the U.S. constitution's second amendment is intended in part to maintain "the security of a free State" by ensuring that the government doesn't have a monopoly on force. Though it's worth considering another police state here: Tunisia, which had the lowest firearm ownership rate in the world (one gun per thousand citizens, compared to America's 890) when its people toppled a brutal, 24-year dictatorship and sparked the Arab Spring.

Hard to read what proves you are wrong?

How many guns were in the hands of poles,czechs,hungarians romanians in ' 89?

As a hungarian I can say unfortunately very few in addition these guns were mostly in the hands of the commies and their supporters. In a different case we wouldn't be still under a hidden commie rule because of we could shot most of those bastards twenty years ago .

Your anti-gun BS only takes all means of self-defense from the average citizen and hands it over to politicians and gangsters.

Self defense....
Yeah really and you believe in that myth?

What will a few thousand armed be capable to do against a highly trained and used to war army?
If the us army would want to suppress an american revolution it will take them only 1 day to kill half of the population.

I've done my military service and I've been deployed in Africa so I wonder how are you guys armed with aks or m16 and a few pistols will be able to stop an m1a2  or an "guardian" flying 4 miles from you and turning you into swiss cheese with 30mm holes.

[Lethn]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/20/women-fighting-isis_n_6016812.html

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/heroine-kobani-kurdish-female-fighter-rehana-kills-100-isis-jihadis-single-handedly-1469989

Women armed with cold war era weaponry are stopping terrorists better than the U.S army ever did, as far as I'm concerned anyone who is against the idea of somebody fighting in self-defence has an ulterior motive and wants people to be defenceless.

[BADecker]

AGAIN

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

After all, the U.S. constitution's second amendment is intended in part to maintain "the security of a free State" by ensuring that the government doesn't have a monopoly on force. Though it's worth considering another police state here: Tunisia, which had the lowest firearm ownership rate in the world (one gun per thousand citizens, compared to America's 890) when its people toppled a brutal, 24-year dictatorship and sparked the Arab Spring.

Hard to read what proves you are wrong?

How many guns were in the hands of poles,czechs,hungarians romanians in ' 89?

As a hungarian I can say unfortunately very few in addition these guns were mostly in the hands of the commies and their supporters. In a different case we wouldn't be still under a hidden commie rule because of we could shot most of those bastards twenty years ago .

Your anti-gun BS only takes all means of self-defense from the average citizen and hands it over to politicians and gangsters.

Self defense....
Yeah really and you believe in that myth?

What will a few thousand armed be capable to do against a highly trained and used to war army?
If the us army would want to suppress an american revolution it will take them only 1 day to kill half of the population.

I've done my military service and I've been deployed in Africa so I wonder how are you guys armed with aks or m16 and a few pistols will be able to stop an m1a2  or an "guardian" flying 4 miles from you and turning you into swiss cheese with 30mm holes.

I am surprised that one who is so against self-defense would even respond with an answer to defend himself and what he says!

 

[Snail2]

Self defense....
Yeah really and you believe in that myth?

What will a few thousand armed be capable to do against a highly trained and used to war army?
If the us army would want to suppress an american revolution it will take them only 1 day to kill half of the population.

I've done my military service and I've been deployed in Africa so I wonder how are you guys armed with aks or m16 and a few pistols will be able to stop an m1a2  or an "guardian" flying 4 miles from you and turning you into swiss cheese with 30mm holes.

Yes, I believe in that legend since with one of my friends we had to lurk silently in his newly bought house (this happened before the "mobile phone age", and the landline wasn't activated yet) and watch how a group of nine gypsies taking all the building materials what we unloaded just a few hours before. If we have a gun those bastards surely can't get away with all that stuff.

That's easy. Don't fight that kind of hardware in open areas, withdraw into a forested mountain area or into a big city and wait until they come to you .

[Jammalan the Prophet]

Self defense....
Yeah really and you believe in that myth?

What will a few thousand armed be capable to do against a highly trained and used to war army?
If the us army would want to suppress an american revolution it will take them only 1 day to kill half of the population.

I've done my military service and I've been deployed in Africa so I wonder how are you guys armed with aks or m16 and a few pistols will be able to stop an m1a2  or an "guardian" flying 4 miles from you and turning you into swiss cheese with 30mm holes.

Yes, I believe in that legend since with one of my friends we had to lurk silently in his newly bought house (this happened before the "mobile phone age", and the landline wasn't activated yet) and watch how a group of nine gypsies taking all the building materials what we unloaded just a few hours before. If we have a gun those bastards surely can't get away with all that stuff.

That's easy. Don't fight that kind of hardware in open areas, withdraw into a forested mountain area or into a big city and wait until they come to you .

if you had a gun it is most probable that the thief also had a few

again , against a well trained force , equipped with modern guns,  and who are willing to go and kill every opposing party your amateur skills and small arms will do shit

[Jammalan the Prophet]

AGAIN

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

After all, the U.S. constitution's second amendment is intended in part to maintain "the security of a free State" by ensuring that the government doesn't have a monopoly on force. Though it's worth considering another police state here: Tunisia, which had the lowest firearm ownership rate in the world (one gun per thousand citizens, compared to America's 890) when its people toppled a brutal, 24-year dictatorship and sparked the Arab Spring.

Hard to read what proves you are wrong?

How many guns were in the hands of poles,czechs,hungarians romanians in ' 89?

As a hungarian I can say unfortunately very few in addition these guns were mostly in the hands of the commies and their supporters. In a different case we wouldn't be still under a hidden commie rule because of we could shot most of those bastards twenty years ago .

Your anti-gun BS only takes all means of self-defense from the average citizen and hands it over to politicians and gangsters.

Self defense....
Yeah really and you believe in that myth?

What will a few thousand armed be capable to do against a highly trained and used to war army?
If the us army would want to suppress an american revolution it will take them only 1 day to kill half of the population.

I've done my military service and I've been deployed in Africa so I wonder how are you guys armed with aks or m16 and a few pistols will be able to stop an m1a2  or an "guardian" flying 4 miles from you and turning you into swiss cheese with 30mm holes.

I am surprised that one who is so against self-defense would even respond with an answer to defend himself and what he says!