Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

French magazine publishes controversial cartoons of Prophet Muhammad - many killed in revenge attack

Mate saw someone kill his wife and then himself when he was a kid. Lots of blood.
Also believes in chemtrails and other conspiraloon and woo woo nonsense.

Shoot someone with a revolver or a shotgun, and you're more likely to see lots of blood - the revolver because they often aren't loaded with jacketed rounds, so the lead projectile tends to break up inside of you and mash loads of bits of organs and veins, and the shotgun because the sheer destructive power of a close-up hit from a shot cartridge will pulverise whatever it hits, causing a spray of gore. There's youtube films out there showing the effects of various types and calibres of ammo on ballistic gel which are quite informative about what you don't want to get shot with!
 
Been away from internet all day so excuse ignorance...but have authorities established any link with the S. Paris shooting of the policewoman?
 
Yeah, I was thinking this. You'd think any sane robbers would have put things on hold but some will always assume the police will be otherwise tied up.
Anyone seen Fritz Lang's M?
Perhaps the underworld will band together to flush out any other potential miscreants planning on doing any political murders
 
Anyone seen Fritz Lang's M?
Perhaps the underworld will band together to flush out any other potential miscreants planning on doing any political murders
you do know the criminal underworld is generally one of the most conservative sections of society? were the krays socially radical in any way? i don't think so.
 
you do know the criminal underworld is generally one of the most conservative sections of society? were the krays socially radical in any way? i don't think so.
Not sure what your point is. The underworld in M don't unite out of altruism or any sense of social justice, but cos they don't appreciate the heat.
It was a facetious observation anyhoo
 
Thanks for your explanations about the context BA. I think it's interesting that they still needed to put out the statement. Perhaps my own personal experiences and lack of knowledge of the magazine/context has made me over-sensitive as even now I am still angered by it and would struggle to defend it to others tbh. I wonder if the cartoonist and magazine would have understood my feelings on this and whether they would have actually cared?

In theory they could both understand and care about your feelings on this, but still find other factors that would trump these concerns as far as they were concerned and lead to publication.

In much the same way some satirists can have serious concerns about being misinterpreted, but might consider themselves to be ineffectual satirists if they let such concerns make them think twice too often. Taking risks, courting controversy and not being afraid to offend or be vulgar probably go with the territory.

There are certainly some obvious examples of related phenomenon happening in the UK in the past. I was slightly too young to witness some people with varying degrees of racist views laughing along with Alf Garnett and missing the intended point of that character, so I can make no attempt to judge the scale or veracity of that phenomenon, but it still comes up in conversation sometimes. I know someone at work who missed the point and targets of the Brass Eye paedophile special and so considered it to be in far worse taste than it was. And you might imagine how I felt about Four Lions, which I personally thought useful for its particular blend of ridicule and pathos, when I discovered that some rather unashamed racists at work had enjoyed the film for very different reasons.

Personally I can see several reasons why people feel the need to learn more about Charlie Hebdo now, including making judgements, and there are a number of discussions about free speech, satire, religion and cultural relations where this angle can be legit and useful. But its also been pointed out a few times already on this thread that there are ways to link these issues together in the wake of recent events that are ugly and inappropriate to the victims and key issues. And I say that as someone who doesn't believe in concepts like not speaking ill of the dead, or routinely hiding from certain truths that are uncomfortable to my own political position. But since satire and terror attacks have strong political dimensions and the responses to them have political implications, these are at least issues to be sucked on slowly and carefully. I'm not suggesting you are doing otherwise, just using this stuff as an opportunity to get this off my chest.
 
Apologies if already posted - another possible hostage scenario

http://rt.com/news/221255-montpellier-jewelery-hostage-france/

Keep reading:

The criminal reportedly held the two shopkeepers for about an hour, threatening them with a gun. However, no one was killed nor wounded, local Midi Libre said.

Special police forces arrived on the scene along with the region’s prosecutor and the city mayor.

According to Montpellier prosecutor Christophe Barret, cited by Midi Libre, the situation is "very calm" and there is no reason to connect the siege in Montpellier with the events in Paris and in Northern France.

RT is in competition with Sky, clearly...
 
Good points, worth following up.

There is another flaw in the article i think - the use of the word blowblack. That, to me, suggests, that it's the guilty ones suffering the blowback and so suggets a sort of fittingness in the events.

I know what you mean. I think the term blowback does actually allow for the victims to be innocent, but its a politically emotive term and any sense of fittingness may sit uneasily because of the way innocent humans fall under the classification of citizens of a nation that may have been doing horrible things to citizens of other nations. The mandatory stamp of nationality that is imposed on individuals, and the horrible implications of this when states use violence.

Thats assuming the term blowback, although somewhat stretched over the years, is still firmly understood to be a term that is indivisible from statecraft, especially statecraft at its most violent, cynical, clandestine and corrupt. i.e. not ever meant to imply that the blowback was caused by original actions carried out by Charlie Hebdo, but rather to actions of the French state and their partner nations.
 
Last edited:
Apparently there was a guy hiding in a box in the printer's and was never detected and was able to talk to the police by phone. (BFMTV)
 
I'm pretty certain that were I a Paris-based professional armed robber I would take it easy for a few weeks.
Not that we're saying that anyone here is a professional armed robber in the Paris area, or anywhere else. Let's just make that absolutely clear.

Ok Editor?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sue
Just heard the last few moments of a radio interview with the man whose car was hijacked by the two brothers. Apparently they were calm and very polite to him, he had asked if they would let him take the pet dog out of the car and was struck by their courtesy and politeness, holding the car door open for him.
 
Back
Top Bottom