Deadly attack on office of French magazine Charlie Hebdo
Source: BBC
At least two gunmen have attacked the Paris office of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, killing a number of people, French media report.
Witnesses spoke of sustained gunfire at the office as the attackers opened fire with Kalashnikov assault rifles.
The satirical weekly has courted controversy in the past with its depiction of news and current affairs.
Its latest tweet was a cartoon of the Islamic State militant group leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30710883
= new reply since forum marked as read
And for some odd reason, the title of this Parisian weekly is "Charlie". 
It was hilarious...
And there's this article about those claims
Why the Muslim 'No-Go-Zone' Myth Won't Die
There's no evidence of extremist takeover of areas in Europe or the United States. So why do the claims continue?
Have you heard about the areas of Europe, or perhaps even of the United States, that are run by jihadists and which non-Muslims can't even enter?
Don't get too worried if you haven't: They don't exist. Or maybe you have, if you watch Fox News or read snippets of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's speech about Islamic extremism. While politics is rife with falsehoods, myths, and baseless rumors, it's often tough to see exactly where a claim comes from, and how it reaches a wider audience—including, for example, a Republican governor with apparent presidential aspirations and a reputation as a sober policy wonk. Here, however, it's possible to follow forensic traces and see how some small elements of truth metastasized into an outlandish claim.
<snip>
But where did the claim come from in the first place? Like many political myths, there's a partial basis in fact that has become exaggerated into a hyperbolic and, in this case, inflammatory and dangerous claim.
<snip>
The third factor is what are known as "Zones Urbaines Sensibles," or "sensitive urban zones," in France. These areas are defined by their socioeconomic status—they're characterized by high unemployment, high rates of public housing, and low educational attainment. As it happens, many of these areas are populated largely by poor immigrants from the Muslim world, creating a neat but misleading correlation. Some of the "no-go" coverage has suggested that police and other emergency services dare not go into these areas. The United States is sadly not immune to dangerous city areas where emergency-service providers feel unsafe, so in that way this is a universal phenomenon. But as BusinessWeek notes, it's not the case that the government has written these zones off; in fact, they've been designated for further attention and work on urban renewal.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/paris-mayor-to-sue-fox-over-no-go-zone-comments/384656/
Last edited Wed Jan 7, 2015, 01:00 PM - Edit history (1)
people here are watching? 
have a new word in my vocabulary.
so we could all watch your supposedly superior news.
but unless your smug sense of superiority is matched by a financial status
that would allow you to fly us all out to the UK, what possible point -- beyond
the joy of snobbery, of course -- is there in scolding people for watching news that's available to them in their own country?
affect a superior attitude and make.a baseless accusation of your own, lol
By the way, I was exposed to the BBC when you were still soiling your nappies. 
but I'm sure there are some excuses and understandings we will hear about.
sarcasm
Two in this case; clean up the mess, feel bad they didn't get proper mental health care, apologize to anyone, anywhere, who is insulted by anything. The best solution would be to end the free press in the Western world, because it is all the fault of the west and our evil, disrespectful ways. Mars has little gravity and no atmosphere because of freedom of the press in the evil, western world.
This needs to leave the news now before more stupid people get the wrong ideas.
So the daily presence of protesters outside abortion clinics has nothing to do with a certain subset of Christians, and their presence as a common denominator in every instance of violence against abortion providers (i.e. non-believers) is a coincidence and not a "continuing organized threat"? Or that Dominionists are a myth? I guess the liberal-controlled media has been deceiving me. Thank you for setting me straight. No! I mean "thank you for correcting my misperception". "Setting me straight" might have implied that I had previously been gay and I would not want to fall afoul of the Christians pushing the "kill the gays" legislation. Oh wait, they don't exist either.
The Bible is as bad as the Koran in those respects. We're just lucky to have a government designed by people who did not want any religion to become the arbiter of secular law. The fact that we do not have the abuses of parts of the Muslim sphere is not because fundamentalist Christianity is so sweet and multi-culturally tolerant...
Response to Gore1FL (Reply #162)
Response to LanternWaste (Reply #146)
Response to cosmicone (Reply #54)
We've seen what a wonderland they have built in Libya.
Given the choice between a secular dictatorship or batshit crazy, I'd go with secular.
You must be a fan of the Saudis...
Some people are only obsessed with those that give aid to the Palestinians.
They would rather see a failed state than anyone who challenges the status quo.
That's why Saudi, Bahrain, Qatar, Uganda, Morroco and many more get a pass on ruling by decree or abuses of human rights, call it selective poutrage.
The use of radical Islamists to counter foes is well documented from the Taliban to Hamas.
ALways a good read...."Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel's creation
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123275572295011847
Jesus
And here I was thinking that something like this would be impossible in a country where civilian ownership of such weapons was illegal. Who would have thought that people conspiring to commit murder would be so depraved as to violate the law? Besides, France is not a "gun culture", so the premise of your subject line does not even apply.
Seriously, I think this event was exceptional enough that it is outside the bounds of normal control measures, much like legal restrictions on explosives did not stop the Unabomber or the first World Trade Center attack, nor did restrictions on what you can take onto an airplane stop the 9/11 hijackers, nor did chemical weapons laws stop Aum Shinrikyo from releasing nerve gas in a Tokyo subway. Crazy, dedicated people with an intent to kill generally find a way to do so. Whether or not a "good guy with a gun" could have done anything about the "bad guy with a gun" is exactly as valid a question to ask as whether or not the police (aka "good guys with guns"
could have done anything about it.
