Charlie Hebdo: eleven dead! Press freedom in question!

[Christophe]

Another version almost the same: http://www.les-crises.fr/les-lecons-dun ... ues-sapir/

No racism, no amalgamation ...

[Other]

Hello

See the chronology:
22 October 2014: Flag of Canada Canada: Shootout in Ottawa targeting the National War Memorial to end in the Parliament of Canada, 2 dead (including the shooter, the Islamist Michael Zehaf-Bibeau) and 3 wounded.

I list examples of this "multi-purpose destabilization business"where my point of view (which I finally express at this precise moment) is finally understood?

In October 2014 Martin Rouleau with his vehicle crushes a soldier St-Jean d'Hiberville
A few days later Michael Bibeau entered the Ottawa parliament and on his way killed a soldiers on guard.
With names like that (Bibeau, Rouleau) it is characters who have been baptized Catholic, to then radicalize .. they all have a few things in common ....

[Obamot]

This is indeed where an episode is missing ...

Thus it is that not long ago, our authorities announced to the population (who learned it with amazement) that there were a few hundred jihadists per country, who in fact were young people from our cities! For my part, I knew it before 2006 ... Pious lie in fact, because there are today thousands per country to constitute an army of several tens of thousands of young people ready to fight ...

And what we can see by listening to the authorities following these sad events of the week: that they are still in almost total denial, and especially that they are hiding a good part of the truth from us.

I listened to Caseneuve this evening, who was working as best he could so as not to answer the journalist's questions at 20pm. I must say that it created some discomfort ...

In short, I wouldn't say more for the moment, but it's much more "BIG" than we are willing to tell us. It is in the process of moving to the "industrial" level ...

As for example when the pilots of the gusts go to the op to bomb ISIS, they are young people, British, Canadian, French, Belgian or German (etc) on whom they send missiles! And for the enlistment, these are Hollywood-worthy "blockbusters":
https://vid.me/365S

So "well done" that you wouldn't believe it! Do you think it is uncultivated and warlike bougnafiers - and completely unstable and ignited as we saw them on the videos of the attack - who would be able to make this kind of super-prod video? Worthy of the best commercial advertising clips of the moment (and among the most expensive) ... So it all looks like well-conducted manipulation, and not just "religious propaganda" (even if fanatical) or isolated cases! No, it goes much further, and who is behind it all ...? Who finances ...? For what real purpose? And with what purpose ...? It is very very serious and it is not over! But don't tell us politicians ...

We are well beyond the "conspiracy", the trivialization, it plays poker there ... and it plays big! The idea of ​​"selling" terrorism has come a long way and seems to have won as it is ...! (I mean the "concept").

And we are making the historic mistake of falling for it!

It's a big hit to think of it that way ...
... but then if we think about the following .........

[pedrodelavega]

The idea of ​​"selling" terrorism has come a long way and seems to have won as it is ...! (I mean the "concept")

Terrorism is not an idea. Terrorism is a fact of which Charlie Hebdo was a victim for his ideas!

I feel that, shortly, we will be entitled to a "ReOpen 01/07" ...

[Did67]

... 4 hostages lost in the supermarket ...

..

Of which a priori, 2 or even 3 already shot before the assault (a priori 2 when the fighter-terrorist is installed in the hyper ...) [edit: immediately on the website of the newspaper Le Monde: D According to the Paris prosecutor, the four victims were "probably" killed from the start of the hostage-taking and not during the assault.]

I salute the two published caricatures.

I regret that in such circumstances, we argue here. I am disappointed not to be able to produce devastating Charlie Hebdo humor. We fall into the usual trap: after the fact, it's easy to say. When these forces act, when the curtain is opened, what do they know? There are about 15 living hostages; they will face a madman - the proof, this image where he throws himself forward, the Kalashnikov in his hands ...

For my part, I do not say: "it would have been enough ...". I wasn't there.

I do not, by nature, have an unwavering admiration for the police. But I look at these images and I imagine myself in the shoes of the first guy, there, on the left, who comes in, pistol in focus, behind his shield ... You have to shoot in the fraction of a second, make sure if possible that 'there is no hostage in sight, no colleague ... You do not know if the premises are trapped in explosives ... Etc ... Etc ... I was not there. But I respect.

Now, I'd like to make fun of myself, of you with a Charlie's caricature. I could see myself lighting up some ayatollahs from various causes here ... But Cabu is not willing!

Some words inspire me just a modest: bof beauf!

[Obamot]

Hey, hey,

Well agree with Did67 on these points ...

I suggest that those "brilliant brains" some of whom call others "pathetic"while they do not know the difference between"idea"VS"ideology"(and failing to have arguments and behavior"user-friendly", which is not the case when you have two nicknames, which is totally prohibited in this forum) let them help with their premonition gifts by answering these few little questions:

1) How miraculously, the identity card of one of the suspects at the time, was found in one of the vehicles borrowed by them, when they were described as a very professional and well trained commando ... ? (It should be remembered that such a fact had already occurred identically during 9/11 of the suicide bombers' papers had survived as if by a miracle from the flames and the collapse of the towers ...).

2) How do they explain - that for p'tits "franchouillards leaders" and isolated commandos and without ambition -
do these reproduce similar scenarios around the globe, each time directed against Jewish interests? (Westgate in Kenya, Lindt-Sprungli in Sydney and Hyper-Cacher in Paris?)

3) What do they think of the fact that the police chief dealing with the Charlie Hebdo case, committed suicide the night after the tragedy! Isn't that a little strange in their eyes, and does it not constitute a reasonable doubt in the assessment of events to be more circumspect as to express a clear opinion!

4) How is it that no question was asked - on this subject - neither to Manuel Valls, nor to his Minister of the Interior, yesterday in the news after the outcome of the drama? (Apart from the fact that they were again embarrassed to admit that the attackers were very followed by the police ...)

5) Why, among the ten most wanted people in the world, does not appear Hayat Boumeddiene!


Source:! Nterpol.int >>>>

Hayat Boumeddiene, who we recall was Coulibaly's companion, and would have served as "reading agent"with the Kouachi brothers during the attacks, of which she knows the wife of one of them (and while she was seen with Coulibaly on the days of the events).

Anyone have an explanation / s?

She is, however, one of the most wanted women:

http://www.lesoir.be/754434/article/act ... hee-france

While recalling that this is neither hypothesis nor speculation, my questions based on facts (or lack of facts) without bias or personal opinion.

PS: Forgive the question about Claire Chazal's obnoxious smile immediately after the subject of the assault on the kosher store was over and she had "mike on" again ... This is the peak of indecency, mebon, 4 deaths among the customers of the store and ... "she was happy"!

[Did67]

With regard to Interpol:

- as far as I know, if this person is ardently wanted in connection with the terrorists and the genesis of the acts, he is not engaged in an act until proven otherwise.

- We are not going to put in the Interpol file all the people who may have been involved in the preparation or organization of the acts ...

[Did67]

I really like this one:



Or :



And one last:

[Obamot]

What you say is based on two pillars of law in democracy (the cow you make me work):

— "habeas corpus" (contrary to the arbitrary and which consists in not being imprisoned without judgment);
- "the presumption of innocence"(principle according to which anyone who is accused of an offense is deemed innocent as long as his guilt has not been legally proven).

And so it all depends on whether there have been sufficient charges. Now what we know shows that yes: 20 dead, use of weapons of war, cold blood of the attackers, hostage taking, determination around an ideology which show that in principle they will not falter, which requires the greatest caution (even if it is not up to us to say it, but to a judge) or the public prosecutor was required for that, so it is de facto that it is!

Then the facts and reasons for which the police are seeking to arrest someone to detain them and who are:
- sufficient reason / s to be suspected of having committed or to have participated in acts;
- the survival of charges (risks of continuation of the action);
- if there are risks, therefore a public interest in protecting populations for detention;
=> the suspicion of taking action = as revenge for example);
=> the risk of flight (to prevent the suspect (s) from escaping the judgment authority);
=> and / or what follows from it: the recidivism of acts already produced (does the situation present such a danger that one can imagine that the person will commit crimes or offenses of comparable quality to what it has already happened, such as being detonated in public with bombs to cause as many victims as possible and / or comparable to those who justified the arrest warrant);
=> risk of collusion, are there any risks that the wanted person will come into contact with third parties or take advantage of their freedom to suppress evidence or to build their defense a posteriori;

So only one of these points is enough to immediately launch a mandate (which is the case as it stands).

And I stress that the accused person (s) have the right to appeal against the decisions of the judicial authorities in their regard and at any time, by asserting their rights.

Well, first justice or decisions to publish an arrest warrant or not, are not taken in public or before the agora of a forum. So we can not say what you say ... (you who did not want certainty here is not that you shine by advancing these ...)

And even on the contrary, since we are no longer at the stage of hypotheses, its participation is proven. In particular for participation in training (there are photos to prove it) suspicion of preparation for these acts etc (it is even a member of the gang who informed the media about this) complicity (she was there at the time of the facts and was seen on site). Who was driving the vehicle to Charlie Hebdo, did you think about it, since Coulybaly said his action was "separate". Or even simple logistical support (they lived in the same apartment with the latter - already it's a goal - and she necessarily knows that she is wanted, and did not spontaneously report to the police ...) Etc.

The most important and where I was coming from
If criminal justice works well, we are in a democracy, if it works badly, we are in a tyranny (it is not me who says it, but a judge of the bar in Lausanne ...). If a state manages to judge its own enemies impartially, then we can say that we are in a democracy!

Now what have we seen ...

I did not - given the unfolding of the facts - have the feeling of having seen police forces which behaved differently, than so as not to give the least chance to the attackers (even if that can be understood in view facts: use of a weapon of war, dangerous and heavily armed subjects and on the way to reoffending ...). No more at Vincenne than at the printing press (or obviously the fleeing brothers were not on familiar ground nor did they then represent a danger for the neighborhood ... Here too coldly eliminated ...) What doesn't to say that there were no good reasons for that, but I stand from the point of view of - as much as possible - the impartiality of the law.

But you, you would be inclined to say that "..." but on what pragmatic and logical basis?

I was just asking this question for a reason that is not yet apparent, so I will wait a little longer ...

[Janic]

obamot hello
totally agree with you! But human nature is made so that even the police have feelings, fears like everyone else and moreover are trained to kill. the videos show that no weapon is aimed at non-vital organs, but at the chest as for any pit training, conditioned reflex. Marine, who wanted a death, was finally successful.