Paris manhunt: 3 gunmen at large, 12 shot dead at Charlie Hebdo offices

[prophecyfulfilled]

http://rt.com/news/220603-manhunt-paris-charlie-hebdo/

No terrorist group has yet claimed responsibility for the attack. However, an Islamic State militant praised the attack on the French satirical magazine on Wednesday.

"The lions of Islam have avenged our Prophet," Abu Mussab, who fights for IS insurgents in Syria, told Reuters via internet connection. "These are our lions. It's the first drops – more will follow," he said, speaking via an internet connection from Syria. He added that he and his fellow fighters are happy about the incident.

Mussab said he did not know the gunmen who carried out the attack, but added "they are on the path of the emir [IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi]....and our Sheikh Osama (bin Laden)."

Reports suggest that the cartoons portraying Prophet Mohammed published earlier by the satirical paper were the reason for the attack. The gunmen reportedly called out the victims by name, shouting: “We have avenged the prophet."

The religion of peace at it again.

[azureline**]

---

@gleee58 wrote:

---

@katymatey* wrote:

Left identity card in car?  🙂

Smart as well as a fanatical murdering barstool.

---

Or was an easy target to be set up by someone else.

---

It's a possibility I suppose but sometimes they actually leave stuff behind. Didn't that happen some time ago? a sim card?

[fiestas*girl]

Totally agree. I don't think it was only religion that the publication attacked, but to what purpose? 

satirical humour, freedom of speech, democracy

all those things we as a civilised democratic society enjoy, while some loser religious fantatics want to rule all of us and inhibit our speech and remove our democratic rights

[azureline**]

---

@the_hawk* wrote:

---

@azureline** wrote:

I don't speak for Polks but I suspect you should offer one for your accusation. It was clearly incorrect.

---

I would think she will get in the same dream as Polks does for her insults in regards to rocks

---

I have no idea what that means.

[raptor_rebooted]

---

@j*oono wrote:

Not seeing that here Julia.

---

so by "everyone" you meant a few 

posters here?  or reaction in australia so far?

sorry, i was looking at the bigger picture.

[icyfroth]

While I don't condone the attack on Charlie Hebdo and the murder of it's editor and cartoonists, I think their cartoons were disgusting, went way beyond satire, and used as a direct attack against Islam.

[icyfroth]

---

@azureline** wrote:

---

@the_hawk* wrote:

---

@azureline** wrote:

I don't speak for Polks but I suspect you should offer one for your accusation. It was clearly incorrect.

---

I would think she will get in the same dream as Polks does for her insults in regards to rocks

---

I have no idea what that means.

---

Perhaps get back on topic and let Polks speak for herself

[polksaladallie]

---

@azureline** wrote:

---

@the_hawk* wrote:

---

@azureline** wrote:

I don't speak for Polks but I suspect you should offer one for your accusation. It was clearly incorrect.

---

I would think she will get in the same dream as Polks does for her insults in regards to rocks

---

I have no idea what that means.

---

Something in the water today I think.

Lunch time, and Happy BIrthday Elvis.  

[azureline**]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

While I don't condone the attack on Charlie Hebdo and the murder of it's editor and cartoonists, I think their cartoons were disgusting, went way beyond satire, and used as a direct attack against Islam.

---

Agreed, however I haven't looked at their other "work".

I don't like satire though so wouldn't be able to have a non biased opinion about them.

[azureline**]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@azureline** wrote:

---

@the_hawk* wrote:

---

@azureline** wrote:

I don't speak for Polks but I suspect you should offer one for your accusation. It was clearly incorrect.

---

I would think she will get in the same dream as Polks does for her insults in regards to rocks

---

I have no idea what that means.

---

Perhaps get back on topic and let Polks speak for herself

---

Oh, come on, Julia has been speaking for DDB and you didn't complain.

In case you haven't noticed, I have been on topic but thanks for the instructions....................

[raptor_rebooted]

---

@fiestas*girl wrote:

Totally agree. I don't think it was only religion that the publication attacked, but to what purpose? 

satirical humour, freedom of speech, democracy

all those things we as a civilised democratic society enjoy, while some loser religious fantatics want to rule all of us and inhibit our speech and remove our democratic rights

---

some countries still have specific

blasphemy  laws.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law

the french cartoons were not violating any

laws, as far as i know.

would it be legal in australia?