German Newspaper offices burnt for reprinting Charlie Hebdo

lightspeed

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2015/01/german-newspaper-hamburger-morgenpost-arson-attacked-over-20151117135939826.html

"A German newspaper in the northern port city of Hamburg that reprinted caricatures of Prophet Muhammad from the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo was the target of an arson attack, according to police.

The regional tabloid daily, the Hamburger Morgenpost, was attacked on Sunday after it had splashed three Charlie Hebdo cartoons on its front page after the massacre at the Paris publication, running the headline "This much freedom must be possible!"

"Rocks and then a burning object were thrown through the window," a police spokesman told AFP news agency. "Two rooms on lower floors were damaged but the fire was put out quickly".

No one was hurt in the attack, which police said occurred at about 01:20 GMT. Two people were detained, while state security has opened an investigation, police said.

Hamburg police have detained two suspects of the attack.

German news agency DPA reported that the attack had occurred from a courtyard of the building and hit the newspaper's archive room where some records were destroyed".

These are not just minor incidents and this Islam extremism is a disease that is spreading fast.

If governments continue to let muslim refugees enter Europe and release suspected potential back into the population and such attacks continue, i think its is inevitable that paramilitary groups will form across Europe and there will be attacks on mosques and Muslims as a result.

Menas

Ah come on OP, could you not have used one of the multitude of threads already open on 'Islam terrorism'?

lightspeed

well its a new incident so i figure id open a new thread to hear peoples views on it rather than just adding it to a thread regarding the paris attacks

Mr. Incognito

Arson attack on paper that published cartoons does not mean that was the motive.

Stupid sensationalist journalism.

PizzamanIRL

Islam terrorists... A bunch of brain washed pricks.

AboutaWeekAgo

"Continue to let Muslim refugees enter Europe"

But what about the Muslim that are born in Europe OP?

lightspeed

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Arson attack on paper that published cartoons does not mean that was the motive.

Stupid sensationalist journalism.

Why else would it be? So it should just be assumed to be a coincidence that they were attacked after reprinting the photos that led to Charlie Hebdo's offices getting firebombed and and recent mass murder?

if its sensationalist it's because people across Europe and western countries are finding it harder to pretend that an increasing population of muslims isnt going to result in us having to change our way of life to suit Islam.

That's why such news articles provoke a sensation of fear and alarm not because of how this article or any other article regarding such attacks.

It's the so called "Jihad fighters" who are returning "home" after a stint in Syria that I would watch out for, I would go as far as revoking their passports and refusing them access back into the country.

These are the people who are most likely to either carry out an attack or incite one.

lightspeed

AboutaWeekAgo wrote: »

"Continue to let Muslim refugees enter Europe"

But what about the Muslim that are born in Europe OP?

Exactly, they are the bigger problem as many of which have flocked to Syria, Yemen and other parts of the middle east to get further brainwashed and get training to carry out an attack.

How long before the attacks in Paris, were the government reporting that they were worried about a muslim native extremist going to fight in middle east and coming back to European shores launching a terrorist attack?

Reports are that there are several thousand gone to join the Jihad in Syria and elsewhere in middle east so how mathematically likely was it or is it that such attacks wont happen and continue to happen considering even if convicted they will be released back into the public?

I can say that not all muslims share such extremist views just like in the days the nazis were coming to power, its fair to say not all Germans supported the nazis.

Just cause we acknowledge that not all Muslims are dangerous does not mean we can just pretend that a significant threat does not exist and is not growing across the west from muslim extremists and if we cant spot the difference, how do we prevent further attacks?

Here is what disappoints and alarms me the most. There are now questions being raised as to whether freedom of speech should extend to the offending of other peoples religion or in reality just islam as noone cares if Christians or jews, etc are insulted.

However, muslims with extremist views retain the freedom to promote their extremist views and radical extremist muslim preachers can openly recruit potential terrorist and yet there is no suggestion being made that freedom of speech should not extend to allow this.

Have a look at the below video of Musilms marching in UK saying "Policemen go to hell" and that all should be Muslim. Should it be the case that this freedom of speech is allowed but yet we should be careful not to offend any Muslims with a cartoon picture as that kind of freedom of expression is too far?

Baggy Trousers

AboutaWeekAgo wrote: »

"Continue to let Muslim refugees enter Europe"

But what about the Muslim that are born in Europe OP?

Kipling said it best;

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the two shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, tho’ they come from the ends of the earth.

Clermont1098

Print it and they will come.

AlanS181824

Crazy altogether.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Arson attack on paper that published cartoons does not mean that was the motive.

Stupid sensationalist journalism.

You're right, it was just a big crazy coincidence

the nikkei is rising

Have they released the names of the suspects yet? I need to update my list of Muslims who don't represent the true nature of Islam

Drakares

Posted this in the other thread but it will be lost among the arguments. An excellent statement on Islam:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

shruikan2553

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

You are only in danger if you do something to insult the prophet, such as shopping in a Kosher supermarket or joining the police force.

Or just happen to be in the wrong town at the wrong time

bb1234567

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Arson attack on paper that published cartoons does not mean that was the motive.

Stupid sensationalist journalism.

yeah because arson attacks are just so common
probably zero connection to the recent mass murders in paris due to the publication of said cartoons by another paper company!
The political correctness can be beyond insane on here at times

lightspeed

Drakares wrote: »

Posted this in the other thread but it will be lost among the arguments. An excellent statement on Islam:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

Could'nt agree more with the points she raised in response to the question asked.

Im sick of every liberal with a multicultural wet dream ignoring the reality and danger islam poses at present by just saying "not all muslims are violent"

So , it only takes one and when we continue to allow the extremists preach and allow thousands travel to get training to carry out terrorist attacks and return to the west, the peaceful majority of muslims are irrelevant.

Wibbs

Drakares wrote: »

Posted this in the other thread but it will be lost among the arguments. An excellent statement on Islam:

It's nowhere close to an excellent statement IMH D. I'd go so far as to call it a jingoistic, dangerous and rabble rousing statement. Her figures are wildly inaccurate for a start and the conclusions she makes are pretty risible, but it plays to the mob and the mob are remarkably uninformed.

The only area where I would be somewhat in agreement is her angle that the moderate majority make little difference in the face of any radical group, once said group reaches a tipping point and history has shown that to be the case time and time again. The question remains whether Islamism has reached that tipping point?

In certain regions it has, EG the Middle east with ISIS and all that stuff and some smaller areas on the African continent, Boko Haram etc. In Europe? I would say it's nowhere close to that point, but the various European cultures have to navigate the next decade very carefully to avoid such a tipping point.

This stuff could go either way. Folks with short memories, or those who are too young to have seen it can forget that not so long ago much of the Muslim Middle east was very "western". Hell Muslim Iraq had a very strong communist party, the PLO were Marxist with it, Muslim Iran was extremely westernised(and exploited by same), Afghanistan another very western, modern nation that was Muslim. Even today the majority Muslim nations in the far east are not nearly so radicalised. Saudi Arabia was always the most radicalised and it has spread it's message far and wide since.

In any event, fast forward two decades and we might well see a less overtly religious Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan. It was once before. It's how we move forward to avoid making things worse is the hard question.

DesperateDan

PizzamanIRL wrote: »

Islam terrorists... A bunch of brain washed pricks.

I'd say the same words about any religion really...probably doesn't do terrorists enough justice. How about - 'A bunch of dangerous maniacs that should be eradicated off the face of the planet' :pac:

karma_

Wibbs wrote: »

It's nowhere close to an excellent statement IMH D. I'd go so far as to call it a jingoistic, dangerous and rabble rousing statement. Her figures are wildly inaccurate for a start and the conclusions she makes are pretty risible, but it plays to the mob and the mob are remarkably uninformed.

The only area where I would be somewhat in agreement is her angle that the moderate majority make little difference in the face of any radical group, once said group reaches a tipping point and history has shown that to be the case time and time again. The question remains whether Islamism has reached that tipping point?

In certain regions it has, EG the Middle east with ISIS and all that stuff and some smaller areas on the African continent, Boko Haram etc. In Europe? I would say it's nowhere close to that point, but the various European cultures have to navigate the next decade very carefully to avoid such a tipping point.

This stuff could go either way. Folks with short memories, or those who are too young to have seen it can forget that not so long ago much of the Muslim Middle east was very "western". Hell Muslim Iraq had a very strong communist party, the PLO were Marxist with it, Muslim Iran was extremely westernised(and exploited by same), Afghanistan another very western, modern nation that was Muslim. Even today the majority Muslim nations in the far east are not nearly so radicalised. Saudi Arabia was always the most radicalised and it has spread it's message far and wide since.

In any event, fast forward two decades and we might well see a less overtly religious Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan. It was once before. It's how we move forward to avoid making things worse is the hard question.

Thank you, absolutely brilliant post.

kowloon

Not sure radical Jainism has ever been much of a problem.

Boring username

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Ah come on OP, could you not have used one of the multitude of threads already open on 'Islam terrorism'?

A most revealing response. A beacon of democracy is violently attacked, in a week where 12 journalists people were massacred for defending their right to free speech.

And yet, in all this, of all the possible responses you could choose from......your only contribution is to chastise the OP for bringing this act of war to public knowledge? REALLY?

lightspeed

Wibbs wrote: »

In certain regions it has, EG the Middle east with ISIS and all that stuff and some smaller areas on the African continent, Boko Haram etc. In Europe? I would say it's nowhere close to that point, but the various European cultures have to navigate the next decade very carefully to avoid such a tipping point.

What exactly do you mean by navigate? Does that mean we bow down to the wants of the growing muslim population and change our way of life such as freedom of expression to ensure we dont offend muslims?

I assume we also need to allow radical muslim preachers continue to enjoy freedom of speech and march chanting that all who are not muslim should burn in hell and "policemen go to hell".

Why is it that many muslims have come to European shores ? isnt it the case that many have come as refugees fleeing persecution and they want to enjoy the freedoms of the west? Seems like many dont want to escape oppression they just want to escape other peoples version of oppression and have the freedom to impose their own.

Why is the infidel infested London area so popular with the wealthy from Saudi Arabia or other parts of the middle east? Should'nt they be so disgusted seeing so many women in mini skirts at night, some even driving, and some even with men accompanying them.

It's because they too dont actually want to live under Sharia Law and probably dont for the most part. As it has been for centuries , religion in the middle east is used to control the poor so the absolute monarchy can stay in power.

Many poor people probably dont support the Saudi monarchy but probably the far right religious muslims are willing to keep them in power as long as the enforce Sharia Law across the land and punish those that offend islam.

Same goes for Iran and elsewhere. As long as they continue to chant "Death to America" or death to the "Jews", they will always retain some support.

Packrat

Wibbs wrote: »

It's nowhere close to an excellent statement IMH D. I'd go so far as to call it a jingoistic, dangerous and rabble rousing statement. Her figures are wildly inaccurate for a start and the conclusions she makes are pretty risible, but it plays to the mob and the mob are remarkably uninformed.

The only area where I would be somewhat in agreement is her angle that the moderate majority make little difference in the face of any radical group, once said group reaches a tipping point and history has shown that to be the case time and time again. The question remains whether Islamism has reached that tipping point?

In certain regions it has, EG the Middle east with ISIS and all that stuff and some smaller areas on the African continent, Boko Haram etc. In Europe? I would say it's nowhere close to that point, but the various European cultures have to navigate the next decade very carefully to avoid such a tipping point.

This stuff could go either way. Folks with short memories, or those who are too young to have seen it can forget that not so long ago much of the Muslim Middle east was very "western". Hell Muslim Iraq had a very strong communist party, the PLO were Marxist with it, Muslim Iran was extremely westernised(and exploited by same), Afghanistan another very western, modern nation that was Muslim. Even today the majority Muslim nations in the far east are not nearly so radicalised. Saudi Arabia was always the most radicalised and it has spread it's message far and wide since.

In any event, fast forward two decades and we might well see a less overtly religious Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan. It was once before. It's how we move forward to avoid making things worse is the hard question.

So you agree with only one point she made; - which happens to be the central tenet of what she was speaking about, yet you mostly disagree with her argument?

The figures she used for actual numbers dead are if I may say so: irelevant.

Also; I usually agree with a lot of your posts on many topics, but do you really see Afghanistan or Syria, or Iraq becoming westernised in the next 20 years or so? Really?

Iran at a stretch maybe, but I would very much doubt it.

There is NO strong moderate group within Islam which will come forward to crush the jihadists, the only people who have been able to do this in any of those countries have been pretty brutal dictators who ironically the west have seen fit to topple or kill.

Where do you see this force for moderation coming from?

Desolation Of Smug

Ich bin hamburger.

Smiles35

lightspeed wrote: »

Have a look at the below video of Musilms marching in UK saying "Policemen go to hell" and that all should be Muslim. Should it be the case that this freedom of speech is allowed but yet we should be careful not to offend any Muslims with a cartoon picture as that kind of freedom of expression is too far?

No. They should be locked up and charged. Women are like the police in some respects in Islam. In uniform, to protect the society. So, if some want to go us-vs-them in such a way then I think the legal word is 'sedition'.

lightspeed

Noblong wrote: »

No. They should be locked up and charged. Women are like the police in some respects in Islam. In uniform, to protect the socitity. So, if some want to go us-vs-them in such a way then I think the legal word is 'sedition'.

Not sure of the point your making or its relevance? When were we debating the role of muslim women in society.

For how long do we lock the muslims with extremist views up for?

Where will the money come from to imprison all the many muslims which have either, preached hate for the west, travelled to places like Syria or known to be researching jihadist websites and material?

How do we extract any information one may have regarding a planned attack? Thanks to the laws within the EU, if arrested, we will have to ensure that they are given proper accommodation, free food and health care. There probably is different torture/interrogation techniques used in the middle east or China but the above is the worst that we can do.

One of the terrorists from the Paris attacks had already been in prison for suspected terror offences.

"A prime suspect in the attack on satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo had been imprisoned and held in a detention centre for offences connected with Islamist militancy".

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/08/paris-attack-suspect-cherif-kouchi-jailed-terror-offences-2008-charlie-hebdo


So if thousands have gone to Syria and many will eventually come back where will the resources come from to keep an eye on all of them?

Will or should taxes need to be increased for this? Tell me how putting them in prison is sufficient protection considering the above. Even if they go to prison for 5 or 10 years, they will still hold extremist views to the west upon release. Prisons cost financial and human resources, so where do the extra resources come from?

Smiles35

lightspeed wrote: »

Not sure of the point your making or its relevance? When were we debating the role of muslim women in society.

LOL

YellowFeather

Wibbs wrote: »

The only area where I would be somewhat in agreement is her angle that the moderate majority make little difference in the face of any radical group, once said group reaches a tipping point.

But that was her point. That was what she was arguing.

That nine people were responsible for the Twin Tower attacks was a ridiculous statement on her part, but the premise of what she is saying is true.

Wibbs

lightspeed wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by navigate? Does that mean we bow down to the wants of the growing muslim population and change our way of life such as freedom of expression to ensure we dont offend muslims?

I didn't say that and wouldn't support that. Appeasement has never worked when faced with any radical ideology.

I assume we also need to allow radical muslim preachers continue to enjoy freedom of speech and march chanting that all who are not muslim should burn in hell and "policemen go to hell".

Yes, because freedom of speech is enshrined in our post enlightenment cultural mindset and to remove it is to let muppets like that win. However such freedom of speech stops when any threats are made those making such threats should be hit with the full force of the law. I'd also throw out too much leftist nonsense about moral equivalency and pussy footing around different cultures. That guff leads to cases like the Rotherham child rape guff(which the leftie types pretty much ignored when it came out).

Why is it that many muslims have come to European shores ? isnt it the case that many have come as refugees fleeing persecution and they want to enjoy the freedoms of the west?

I'd reckon more often than not such migrations are economic. That and moving to countries that previously colonised them and now give them more options to travel from historical reasons(and guilt). I'd clamp down on that guff too.

Why is the infidel infested London area so popular with the wealthy from Saudi Arabia or other parts of the middle east? Should'nt they be so disgusted seeing so many women in mini skirts at night, some even driving, and some even with men accompanying them.

Why is the same area so popular with the rich from the former Soviet Union? It's where the money is and where the services for such types are. The wealthy types from Saudi you mention are not much of an issue in the radicalised nutter scheme of things(though their home country is).

As it has been for centuries , religion in the middle east is used to control the poor so the absolute monarchy can stay in power.

In SA yes, but elsewhere it's far more complex than that.

Same goes for Iran and elsewhere. As long as they continue to chant "Death to America" or death to the "Jews", they will always retain some support.

"They" never said either of those things. And most certainly didn't say that Israel was to be driven into the sea or any of that. That's US/Israeli propaganda. This propaganda stuff runs both ways. Always. And just as some youngfella in Gaza believes one version, others believe the other. The truth is to be found in the middle and takes some digging.

Packrat wrote: »

So you agree with only one point she made; - which happens to be the central tenet of what she was speaking about, yet you mostly disagree with her argument?

It was her rabble rousing, backed up by BS numbers pulled outa her arse is what I disagreed with. All she did was play to the mob and it seems to be the right tactic. No doubt I could find similar on youtube from "the other side" where some Muslim type was playing to the mob with equal levels of BS behind it.

The figures she used for actual numbers dead are if I may say so: irelevant.

When facts become irrelevant, no matter how eloquent the argument based on them is, then it's game over for debate.

Also; I usually agree with a lot of your posts on many topics, but do you really see Afghanistan or Syria, or Iraq becoming westernised in the next 20 years or so? Really?

Iran at a stretch maybe, but I would very much doubt it.

If this was 1960 and we could have this same argument, we'd be looking at a western Iran, ditto for Iraq and Afghanistan. If I was to ask you to peer into your crystal ball and ask you to divine the future and spot which nations in the ME would go batshít fundy I'd bet the farm those three would be right down your list(and Iraq only went down this road post Gulf war don't forget). Things can and do change with remarkable speed. EG If I was to ask you in 1910 which nation would attempt to wipe its Jews from the earth, Germany wouldn't have been near the top of the hit parade. It had about the most integrated Jewish population in Europe(hence the Nazi's had to come up with specific "blood laws", because so many Germans had Jewish relatives and close ancestors). Places like France and Spain would have been higher and places like Russia, Poland, Bosnia etc would have been much closer to the top. In those cultures pogroms were a national sport. So you see things can change and it can be very hard to judge where they will go.

Where do you see this force for moderation coming from?

Where it has always come from, the youth and the middle classes.

YellowFeather wrote: »

That nine people were responsible for the Twin Tower attacks was a ridiculous statement on her part, but the premise of what she is saying is true.

Not really. Yes these radicals can call on community succour and support, even when it's a blind eye being turned. However we can say that of many such movements, not least the movements on both sided in the north of our Ireland. Did that mean all Irish people were supporters of one or t'other? Nope, not even close, but it only needs a small number who do.

Menas

Boring username wrote: »

A most revealing response. A beacon of democracy is violently attacked, in a week where 12 journalists people were massacred for defending their right to free speech.

And yet, in all this, of all the possible responses you could choose from......your only contribution is to chastise the OP for bringing this act of war to public knowledge? REALLY?

No, I was pointing out that there are already three threads open on the subject. How much freedom of speech do you want?

Son Of A Vidic

lightspeed wrote: »

i think its is inevitable that paramilitary groups will form across Europe and there will be attacks on mosques and Muslims as a result.

I think not. We already have a multitude of Neo-Nazi groups across Europe. And most sound & rational people won't subscribe to such hate.

lightspeed

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I think not. We already have a multitude of Neo-Nazi groups across Europe. And most sound & rational people won't subscribe to such hate.

Given the large amount of people flocking abroad for Jihad which will come back to western shores devout on launching their holy war, i think attitudes will change quite quickly. What happens if the governments of the west cant watch all of extremist prior to putting them in prison or upon releasing them?

How will there not be another attack? It's inevitable that there will be and as governments continue to allow more migration of muslims into Europe, are the majority of European citizens going to nod their head and say that is ok?

That is why the likes of UKIP, Golden Dawn (Neo-nazi party in Greece), National Front in France are all getting more support because, what the people actually want is not at all represented by politicans and western governments.

Even to a lesser extent, the emigration of people from Eastern European countries to more developed countries in the EU, appears to be something that a large section of the UK for example dont want. If a referendum was held in each European country in the EU as to whether we should continue to allow muslim refugees into Europe, how many would vote yes?

Highly unlikely, there would be any. I have not heard of one politician state that muslim peolple who come here need to respect western cultures such as the freedom of expression expressed by Charlie Hebdo and that if they cant respect westurn culture, they should go live in a country with Sharia imposed. Why can no politician say this publicly?

If asked most people in Europe if they feel the same clearly the answer is yes.

Mr. Incognito

Drakares wrote: »

Posted this in the other thread but it will be lost among the arguments. An excellent statement on Islam:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

This woman is loud, stupid and inacurate.

Excellent? Shes an idiot.

Wurzelbert

maybe we can just copy the posts from the paris attack thread over to this one…think pretty much all has been said there already…

Letree

This latest attack in Germany has absolutely nothing to do with Islam.

Letree

Letree wrote: »

This latest attack in Germany has absolutely nothing to do with Islam.

What was it then, suppression of the press?

Wurzelbert

Letree wrote: »

This latest attack in Germany has absolutely nothing to do with Islam.

do we know that? source?

K4t

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Im sick of every liberal with a multicultural wet dream ignoring the reality and danger islam poses at present by just saying "not all muslims are violent"

So , it only takes one and when we continue to allow the extremists preach and allow thousands travel to get training to carry out terrorist attacks and return to the west, the peaceful majority of muslims are irrelevant.

People would rather defend the non-violent Muslims than attack the Jihadists and Islam itself.


Whereas I don't feel the need to defend the non-violent Muslims, because just as they do not pose a physical threat to me, I do not pose a physical threat to them.

StinkyMunkey

Just because you have the right to free speech, doesn't mean you should exercise it at the cost of offending people. If someone walks up to me and says my wife is a bint, that's his right of free speech, but he won't be able to excercise it so quick again with a broken jaw. Now apply that to someone with the belief in divine law over the power of the laws of man. Is it right that people should kill, harm, destroy property according to them beliefs, not to me it isn't, but then again it really doesn't matter in their eyes what I think.

Why are their jihadists attacking civilians in the west? Maybe because of their countries foreign policies! Or people knowingly insulting things held very dearly to their hearts. There is no excuse for attacks on people or property in my eyes because of religious beliefs, but that how I see the world not them.

Jihadists are slaughtering thousands in Africa and the Middle East, all because they don't follow their set of beliefs, people who just wanna live in peace, people innocent of everything and "guilty" only of having a different set of beliefs.

Why insult people with religious beliefs who you know will wanna kill you, because you have a right to free speech, eh no. Muslim extremists are the bane of the modern world, but the fact is they are here and have been created by the western constant meddling in their affairs. Obama has the right idea, when everyone was calling for blood in Syria, he was like no **** that. But his countries policies and other countries unfortunately have created the bane on the world which is Islamic extremists.

Wurzelbert

Letree wrote: »

This latest attack in Germany has absolutely nothing to do with Islam.

again, what’s your source for that info? all i can see so far is that two suspects have been arrested, though no info on their nationality or ethnicity or religion so far…