Shooting in Paris at satirical mag

[thebish]

Because they said that's why they did it!

hmmm... except they haven't said anything yet - they haven't even been caught ffs!

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Fcukin depressing the last few pages of this. Is the forum getting sponsorship from the Daily Fail or summat?

[Bruce Rioja]

Looks like they've got them surrounded, but now hostages are involved.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-30722098" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Hoboh]

It's because our society is (pretty much) open and free that we, by and large, don't - and shouldn't - make rules about what people wear.

This could, and should, change if our society, here in the UK, is threatened by people adopting a dress, pretending it to be a cultural form of clothing, but really using it to commit crimes.

So - now - it would make the case solid for spotski, hoboh and jaffka if they could demonstrate that this is happening. Offer your evidence, coolly, factually, for the increase in criminality caused by women wearing the niqab.

That's all you have to do, no need for all this shouting, and, surely, since you are so exercised by it all, it should be easy.

Give us the facts, and your sources. I'm listening.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/ottawa/2 ... 13391.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... aught.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -bank.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/robbers- ... ce-mombasa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/868 ... ng/?ref=mr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... burka.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/2758/kil ... scape-u-s/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Indeed it makes you wonder how criminals every got away with anything before the burka/hijab came to the UK. They had to walk round with no disguise at all - obviously.

So we should also ban the more normal, standard, black balaclava with two eyeholes cut out as well. And anything else that a cunning bank robber might possibly use as a disguise. Crash helmets, clown masks (dunno how many bank jobs Bobo has gotten away with), large sunglasses (I notice in one report, the master robbers' disguise also involved sunglasses), Mary Quant mudpacks etc. etc.

There are some places where I believe it's not appropriate to wear face coverings. Heading through customs/immigration, going into a bank, giving evidence in court - there's probably more for this list too.

That's a long way short of banning someone walking down the street in burka, hijab, clown mask, large sunglasses...

True story. Working behind a bar in the 1980's. Woman comes in orders a pint of bitter (not particularly outrageous in the pub I was in) - it's around 12:15 in the afternoon. Upon closer inspection the conversation ran like this.

Me: "Fred (name changed), you seem to be attired in women's clothing and wearing a wig. Would you be wanting a slice of lemon with that?"
Fred: "Fcuk off and hurry up, I'm off to a fancy dress do"
Me: "Isn't it a bit early in the day for a fancy dress do?"
Fred: "It was the wife's idea. We've got friends coming round - it's an all weekend party"

Fred downs pint and legs it. Around an hour later Mr Plod turns up with news that a Bank had recently been done with a sawn-off and they were looking for a woman called Fred. I'd known Fred for years (and knew he was shady), point I'm making is, I didn't recognise him until I got about 2 feet away. Amazing how he managed this before we had a plethora of burkas and hijabs to choose from.

Maybe we should ban women's clothing too?

Actually that might not be a bad idea....

Fck me.

Abso-fecking-lutely.

And, it turns out then when Hoboh said the hijab and I assumed he meant the niqab, he actually did just mean the headscarf!

"Hoboh bans scarves" is bold even for him.

And his evidence for this spate of crimes is 4 stories from the UK and 3 from the rest of the world.

I for one am convinced.

Stop riddling around, so on your basis I should be able to wear my full face crash helmet anywhere I like any time and tell anyone who asks me to remove it to feck off 'cause it's only the same as wearing a hijab/burka, it's my right because I'm into the religion of hells angels!
Just admit you've been caught with your bloody pants round your ankles because helmets are used in robberies and make people nervous, yet hijabs don't!
Anyway how the hell I got into an argument over this, I don't know, I just think we should be suspicious of anyone wanting to conceal their identity in public.
If the Muslim men don't like their women being seen whilst out, take the kids to school and do the fcuking shopping yourself!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Because they said that's why they did it!

hmmm... except they haven't said anything yet - they haven't even been caught ffs!

Firstly it would appear I've got my female islamic knickers in a twist - by hijab i probably meant niquab - or whatever that thing is where you see nothing but an eyeslit and lots of material.
Secondly to address your specific point above they've said lots - eyewitnesses within the Charlie Hebdo office and others outside have heard them and have quoted what they said. "We have avenged the Prophet" in French and "God is Great" in Arabic

But like a politician you seem to be squirming aside from the main argument so let me summarise it for you:

Worthy (and others) concentrates on the individual and says they are just nutters.
I say it doesn't matter which individuals did it - if it wasn't this bunch it'd be some other fxckers (or cxnts if you want, as you've zeroed in on that)
Worthy thinks they are operating under some kind of label.
I think they are operating under the principles of their religion
You think its all tones of grey.
I think it's black and white:



To summarize the summary
I believe that whilst women in niqabs still wander the streets of Europe then cartoon killers will be lurking amongst us.
Muslims with fundamentalist beliefs are killers because of their religion. Islam is dangerous.
(and as for proof William? really? I mean really? have you deliberately erased entire episodes from recent history - the list is longer than my arm)

I'm now going to leave this thread alone. I've made my point and as Monty says I'm not going to influence anybody's opinion on this.
We'll no doubt come to it again the next time,
and the time after that...
and the time after that...
and the time after that...
and the time after that...
and the time after that...
and the time after that...
and the time after that...
and the time after that...
and the time after that...
and the time after that...
and the time after that...

[Hoboh]

Fcukin depressing the last few pages of this. Is the forum getting sponsorship from the Daily Fail or summat?

Don't read it then
I'd say two lunatic Muslims running around France armed with AK-47's killing people in the name of the prophet and people are squirming as usual to distance their acts from a faith whose guide book tells them to kill or enslave all non believers is more depressing !!!

[TANGODANCER]

My point Hoboh, is why bring religion at all to blame because a couple of mentally unbalanced killers go off the rails and try using it as an excuse? Did they kill twelve people and injure a load more because they are rational believers in a God, or because they are, as an age-old description would have them: "Not right"?

Because they said that's why they did it! Because belief in a divine authority and admission into heaven in the afterlife allows people to justify things to themselves that they wouldn't otherwise do.

Who are these mentally unbalanced killers trying to excuse themselves to? The general public? "Yes, we are deranged nutters bent on committing murder but unless we come up with a convincing back-story we can invent to later use as an excuse we couldn't possibly commit these murders".

Or do you mean an excuse to themselves to explain why they're doing what they're doing? Coz if so that's a pretty good working definition of "their reasons for doing it".

It's damn inconvenient that all these terror attacks that have absolutely nothing at all to do with religion keep being done by people who say they're motivated to do it by, and do it in the name of, their religion.

So, effectively, in your view, there's no difference between a Muslim who's peace-loving and well balanced in his views on religion and believes the Koran advocates peace and goodwill, and somebody who decides to wipe out a dozen people with an automatic rifle because he reads it differently (if at all). ( The fact that his educational levels may be a bit below reasonable and the ISIS lot trade on such with tales of 77 virgins etc can be ignored of course.) You might ask why he had access to weapons at all, but then such weapons are already hiding behind stacks of baked bean tins in every corner shop, are they not?

I believe in God, you don't. Does this mean I should see you as an infidel and make plans to come round and wipe you out, cos all us religious types think the same, don't we? I'm not saying religion isn't being used by the unscrupulous, far from it, but would "It isn't murder, God wills it" have as much effect as a rallying cry today as it did in the time of the Crusades? Somehow, I doubt it.The reasons for that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion, more with common sense, wouldn't you say? If you wouldn't, we haven't learned much in the best part of a millenium, have we?

[Prufrock]

I looked Tango but cannot see where I said anything like that

My point Hoboh, is why bring religion at all to blame because a couple of mentally unbalanced killers go off the rails and try using it as an excuse? Did they kill twelve people and injure a load more because they are rational believers in a God, or because they are, as an age-old description would have them: "Not right"?

Because they said that's why they did it! Because belief in a divine authority and admission into heaven in the afterlife allows people to justify things to themselves that they wouldn't otherwise do.

Who are these mentally unbalanced killers trying to excuse themselves to? The general public? "Yes, we are deranged nutters bent on committing murder but unless we come up with a convincing back-story we can invent to later use as an excuse we couldn't possibly commit these murders".

Or do you mean an excuse to themselves to explain why they're doing what they're doing? Coz if so that's a pretty good working definition of "their reasons for doing it".

It's damn inconvenient that all these terror attacks that have absolutely nothing at all to do with religion keep being done by people who say they're motivated to do it by, and do it in the name of, their religion.

That's where I have a problem with it all.

The thought that some divine being is simultaneously organising and rallying these people isn't one I subscribe to. I know that's not what you're saying either (as you don't believe in the tooth fairy). This is clearly being driven by real people. I do believe that the people carrying out the acts may well believe it's a good and just thing to do in support of their Religion. I don't believe that's what their Religion says, but I do believe that's what some people who are driving this lead them to understand that's what their religion says.

Taking away religion would not get rid of the people doing the "interpreting" around what constitutes an injustice, especially with all the Western involvement in the Middle East over the years. I certainly do not believe that if religion didn't exist, plenty of people in the Middle East wouldn't hate the West and find another banner to rally behind.

The first para seems a fair summary.

And the second is probably true too, plenty would still hate the West. But again, no-one needs to argue that all murder would stop, and no-one is arguing that. The argument that "people would still find reasons to kill" is bare casuistry. I'm not killing, you're not killing, people need a reason. It often might not be a reason, it often might not be the only or a major reason but it clearly, blindingly obviously and absolutely sometimes is. To argue otherwise is just mad. The counter argument is not that religion has never been the cause of any deaths or a factor in anybody doing anything bad ever - that's ridiculous - it's to argue that the good religion does outweighs the bad - that's at least an arguable position.

[Prufrock]

Because they said that's why they did it!

hmmm... except they haven't said anything yet - they haven't even been caught ffs!

As Spots has pointed out, eye-witnesses say they did.

[Prufrock]

It's because our society is (pretty much) open and free that we, by and large, don't - and shouldn't - make rules about what people wear.

This could, and should, change if our society, here in the UK, is threatened by people adopting a dress, pretending it to be a cultural form of clothing, but really using it to commit crimes.

So - now - it would make the case solid for spotski, hoboh and jaffka if they could demonstrate that this is happening. Offer your evidence, coolly, factually, for the increase in criminality caused by women wearing the niqab.

That's all you have to do, no need for all this shouting, and, surely, since you are so exercised by it all, it should be easy.

Give us the facts, and your sources. I'm listening.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/ottawa/2 ... 13391.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... aught.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -bank.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/robbers- ... ce-mombasa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/868 ... ng/?ref=mr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... burka.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/2758/kil ... scape-u-s/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Indeed it makes you wonder how criminals every got away with anything before the burka/hijab came to the UK. They had to walk round with no disguise at all - obviously.

So we should also ban the more normal, standard, black balaclava with two eyeholes cut out as well. And anything else that a cunning bank robber might possibly use as a disguise. Crash helmets, clown masks (dunno how many bank jobs Bobo has gotten away with), large sunglasses (I notice in one report, the master robbers' disguise also involved sunglasses), Mary Quant mudpacks etc. etc.

There are some places where I believe it's not appropriate to wear face coverings. Heading through customs/immigration, going into a bank, giving evidence in court - there's probably more for this list too.

That's a long way short of banning someone walking down the street in burka, hijab, clown mask, large sunglasses...

True story. Working behind a bar in the 1980's. Woman comes in orders a pint of bitter (not particularly outrageous in the pub I was in) - it's around 12:15 in the afternoon. Upon closer inspection the conversation ran like this.

Me: "Fred (name changed), you seem to be attired in women's clothing and wearing a wig. Would you be wanting a slice of lemon with that?"
Fred: "Fcuk off and hurry up, I'm off to a fancy dress do"
Me: "Isn't it a bit early in the day for a fancy dress do?"
Fred: "It was the wife's idea. We've got friends coming round - it's an all weekend party"

Fred downs pint and legs it. Around an hour later Mr Plod turns up with news that a Bank had recently been done with a sawn-off and they were looking for a woman called Fred. I'd known Fred for years (and knew he was shady), point I'm making is, I didn't recognise him until I got about 2 feet away. Amazing how he managed this before we had a plethora of burkas and hijabs to choose from.

Maybe we should ban women's clothing too?

Actually that might not be a bad idea....

Fck me.

Abso-fecking-lutely.

And, it turns out then when Hoboh said the hijab and I assumed he meant the niqab, he actually did just mean the headscarf!

"Hoboh bans scarves" is bold even for him.

And his evidence for this spate of crimes is 4 stories from the UK and 3 from the rest of the world.

I for one am convinced.

Stop riddling around, so on your basis I should be able to wear my full face crash helmet anywhere I like any time and tell anyone who asks me to remove it to feck off 'cause it's only the same as wearing a hijab/burka, it's my right because I'm into the religion of hells angels!
Just admit you've been caught with your bloody pants round your ankles because helmets are used in robberies and make people nervous, yet hijabs don't!
Anyway how the hell I got into an argument over this, I don't know, I just think we should be suspicious of anyone wanting to conceal their identity in public.
If the Muslim men don't like their women being seen whilst out, take the kids to school and do the fcuking shopping yourself!

This isn't difficult.

You are legally allowed to wear a motorcycle helmet, or a balaclava, or a niqab (or hijab) when you go into shops. None of those are banned, and none should be.

Those shops are, with some limits, allowed to have their own private rules on what people can wear in their shop.

Now, historically, due to them being used in numerous robberies to hide identity, many shops won't let you in wearing a helmet or balaclava. THat's their call. They CAN let you in, but it's up to them. If they don't and you disagree, pick a fight with them. If they don't and you feel it's because your actual (non made-up) religion has been discriminated against, even feel free to sue them.

They can also, should they wish, choose to ban people from wearing niqabs in their shop. If there were a spate of robberies (rather than about 2 as you've found) they may well start to do so. They might also want to (and I'm surprised plenty don't seem to) when selling cigarettes in order to check ID. As long as they had a proper reason to defend themselves against any accusations of discrimination (so not because they were in fact racist dicks) they could do that, but again, they don't have to.

If you and your pals decide that you want to take your custom to shops where they do let you in wearing your helmet to the extent it starts hitting them in their pocket, then they might change their minds and let you in. But you're not going to because it's a minor inconvenience and you understandably can't be arsed going elsewhere.

If they were to stop letting people in wearing the niqab, then those people aren't going to think "f*ck it, it's only 2 minutes, I'll take it off", they will go elsewhere. Hence why people don't. Not because it's one rule for one, but because maths. Companies care about their bottom line but again, just so you're clear it's their decision. It's not the law.

[Prufrock]

My point Hoboh, is why bring religion at all to blame because a couple of mentally unbalanced killers go off the rails and try using it as an excuse? Did they kill twelve people and injure a load more because they are rational believers in a God, or because they are, as an age-old description would have them: "Not right"?

Because they said that's why they did it! Because belief in a divine authority and admission into heaven in the afterlife allows people to justify things to themselves that they wouldn't otherwise do.

Who are these mentally unbalanced killers trying to excuse themselves to? The general public? "Yes, we are deranged nutters bent on committing murder but unless we come up with a convincing back-story we can invent to later use as an excuse we couldn't possibly commit these murders".

Or do you mean an excuse to themselves to explain why they're doing what they're doing? Coz if so that's a pretty good working definition of "their reasons for doing it".

It's damn inconvenient that all these terror attacks that have absolutely nothing at all to do with religion keep being done by people who say they're motivated to do it by, and do it in the name of, their religion.

So, effectively, in your view, there's no difference between a Muslim who's peace-loving and well balanced in his views on religion and believes the Koran advocates peace and goodwill, and somebody who decides to wipe out a dozen people with an automatic rifle because he reads it differently (if at all). ( The fact that his educational levels may be a bit below reasonable and the ISIS lot trade on such with tales of 77 virgins etc can be ignored of course.) You might ask why he had access to weapons at all, but then such weapons are already hiding behind stacks of baked bean tins in every corner shop, are they not?

I believe in God, you don't. Does this mean I should see you as an infidel and make plans to come round and wipe you out, cos all us religious types think the same, don't we? I'm not saying religion isn't being used by the unscrupulous, far from it, but would "It isn't murder, God wills it" have as much effect as a rallying cry today as it did in the time of the Crusades? Somehow, I doubt it.The reasons for that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion, more with common sense, wouldn't you say? If you wouldn't, we haven't learned much in the best part of a millenium, have we?

The bit you've highlighted means exactly the opposite of what you've then said it does!

It's their reason. Of course not all Muslims agree, but these people took a belief in a divine being who oversees all, a belief which comes with a dangerous level of power given its appropriation of moral authority from this world into the next and a belief which by definition cannot be challenged, and they interpreted it as meaning that they should commit murder. Their religion told them that. Not everbody's religion tells them that, of course, no-one said it did, but some people's does.

And should you see me as an infidel? F*ck no, that would be mental, but some people do. I'm generally OK with them thinking that as it happens, as long as they don't act on it by, say, trying to shoot me. Or make me follow their rules in my day to day life. Or teach my kids their follies.

This magazine printed a series of cartoons of Mohammed which their religion tells them it's not permitted to do. They also mocked him which it also tells them it's not permitted to do. Their interpretation of their religion told them that they were then obliged to take revenge and murder in cold blood, which they did. That's evidence that their ideas are bad.

When we criticise Judaism or Christianity or Islam, it is the ideas that underpin those beliefs that we are criticising, and ideas have no rights to that weasel word *respect*. Ideas are made for criticism, but criticism of ideas is not the same as criticism of people who believe in those ideas. As our society becomes ever more dominated by identity politics it's a distinction we appear to have lost.

I've read plenty of articles over the last two days saying the attacks on Charlie Hebdo were "un-Islamic", but what does that mean? In each case the justification for that statement was that the Quran preaches peace. But surely we're not having that the holy book is 'holy' definitive on what we class as characterising a particular religion? We wouldn't call somebody who failed to stone their daughter to death for working on the Sabbath "un-Christian".

What we consider Jewish or Christian or Islamic is formed of a combination of the various different interpretations different people have of each of these concepts. No two people believe exactly the same about Judaism but everybody who is Jewish shares enough basic tenets that they can all be said to be Jewish.

The hateful views espoused by these cowards quite clearly have their roots in Islam. They are representative a shadowy part of Islam and trying to pretend otherwise helps no-one. However, they also obviously don't represent the views of the vast majority of Muslims, no-one was saying otherwise except Nigel Farage, and he's a dick.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Because they said that's why they did it!

hmmm... except they haven't said anything yet - they haven't even been caught ffs!

As Spots has pointed out, eye-witnesses say they did.

...and equally as relevantly the radio station of Islamic State (you know that place that is ruled by a Caliph - whom all Muslims are supposedly subject to - their opinion, not mine) have stated that the killers are [translated but QUOTE nonetheless] heroes for avenging the prophet Muhammad [end quote]

When an entire territory run by Muslims on pure Muslim principles under the chiefest of chief Muslims states this I find it difficult to understand the ' they're just individuals' argument

[Prufrock]

Because they said that's why they did it!

hmmm... except they haven't said anything yet - they haven't even been caught ffs!

As Spots has pointed out, eye-witnesses say they did.

...and equally as relevantly the radio station of Islamic State (you know that place that is ruled by a Caliph - whom all Muslims are supposedly subject to - their opinion, not mine) have stated that the killers are [translated but QUOTE nonetheless] they are heroes for avenging the prophet Muhammad [end quote]

When an entire territory run by Muslims on pure Muslim principles under the chiefest of chief Muslims states this I find it difficult to understand the ' they're just individuals' argument

The opinion of ISIS, and the opinion of almost no Muslims, not even the mad ones. People at various points on the wanker scale to have said that ISIS are dicks include: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Al-fecking-Qaeda and Amber from my office, official spokesperson of "Muslim Opinion" who would like to point out that ""Asking me to condemn the obviously condemnable presumes my basic moral code is in question. I refuse to take part in this." She then also pointed out that she does definitely condemn it too, given some people are still wondering.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Because they said that's why they did it!

hmmm... except they haven't said anything yet - they haven't even been caught ffs!

As Spots has pointed out, eye-witnesses say they did.

...and equally as relevantly the radio station of Islamic State (you know that place that is ruled by a Caliph - whom all Muslims are supposedly subject to - their opinion, not mine) have stated that the killers are [translated but QUOTE nonetheless] they are heroes for avenging the prophet Muhammad [end quote]

When an entire territory run by Muslims on pure Muslim principles under the chiefest of chief Muslims states this I find it difficult to understand the ' they're just individuals' argument

The opinion of ISIS, and the opinion of almost no Muslims, not even the mad ones. People at various points on the wanker scale to have said that ISIS are dicks include: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Al-fecking-Qaeda and Amber from my office, official spokesperson of "Muslim Opinion" who would like to point out that ""Asking me to condemn the obviously condemnable presumes my basic moral code is in question. I refuse to take part in this." She then also pointed out that she does definitely condemn it too, given some people are still wondering.

Does Amber wear a niqab? Is she does I'll take her opinion with a large pinch of salt. If she doesn't she clearly in as much denial as you are as to how much ISIS represents fundamentalist Sunni opinion... not that they have a monopoly on killing cartoonists... I still remember the weak wristed liberal hand wringing response when the Ayatollah called on all Muslims as their duty to kill Salman Rushdie. Does Amber think they're not Muslims either, you know the millions who took part in the Islamic Revolution?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Maybe you could set up a thread... "Ask Amber"

(Quite un-Islamic name she has there mind, maybe ask Fatima would be more appropriate)

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Fcukin depressing the last few pages of this. Is the forum getting sponsorship from the Daily Fail or summat?

Don't read it then
I'd say two lunatic Muslims running around France armed with AK-47's killing people in the name of the prophet and people are squirming as usual to distance their acts from a faith whose guide book tells them to kill or enslave all non believers is more depressing !!!

So a very small percentage of muslims are running around killing people because they think their religion tells them to. Why then are the (approximate) other 99% of muslims not doing the same? Breivik was a christian nut job, do you believe all christians are the same? What of your forefathers that went on a crusade because some pope told them God thought it the right thing to do? You're a white male from the north of England. Shall we tar you with the same brush as Jimmy Saville?

Watching the rhetoric coming from a lot of the media in the UK and the crap being shared around facebook this last few years is depressing, xenophobic and often racist. there are nutters everywhere just waiting to be offended so they have an excuse to despicable things. Some of them are even so nutty they think God or someone else told them to do it. They're nuts, evil cvnts etc but that doesn't mean their neighbours, countrymen, people of the same colour or religion are the same.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Patterns. I thought humans were good at seeing them. Breivik versus... Hmmm can't think of any slaughter carried out specifically in the name of God by Muslims, apart from (in the last year alone) Mali, Libya, Sinai, Rawalpindi, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Nigeria.
And really, Crusades! While we are on the subject I think you 'll find it was one (Christian) community fighting back against another (Muslim). The Muslims were turned back at the gates of Vienna and the Pyrenees - after they'd fxcking Conquered all the previously Christian lands in the middle east. The crusades were a reconquest. I'm not a Christian, but to tell the truth as a filthy kuff I'd prefer a robust Christian bulwark in place against any fxckin Muslim re-reconquest.

[Bruce Rioja]

Whilst you're all busy bickering like fecking Primary school girls, are any of you actually aware as to what's going on in France just now?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-30722098" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A Jewish Kosher shop in Paris is now under siege, with hostages and reportedly two dead. You can toss antisemitism into your squabble now as well look.

[Prufrock]

the suspects are now in a car chase on and around the peripherique... won't be long (you'd assume) before they are dead.

My guess is that they won't allow themselves to be arrested... it's been 2 days - they should be in a hut in a Peruvian rainforest by now if they had made serious plans to get away... given that they have barely moved at all suggests no real getaway plan - a car full of weapons and a vague plan to go out in a blaze of bullets and bloodshed

I fear you are correct

[Little Green Man]

The man in the second incident is thought to be the same guy that shot the policewoman in cold blood. He's a known associate of the other two (part of a group known as Buttes-Chaumont).

More news coming in that one of the two brothers was known to have been with Al Qaeda in Yemen and, as was reported yesterday, he'd already been imprisoned for assisting French jihadists go to Iraq.