France train shooting: Attack 'was well prepared'
An attempted attack by a heavily armed man on a train in France last week was premeditated and well prepared, according to a French prosecutor.
Ayoub El-Khazzani, 25, was carrying 270 bullets for his assault rifle and a bottle of petrol, prosecutor Francois Molins told reporters on Tuesday.
The Moroccan's phone showed that he had watched a jihadist video shortly before launching the attack, Mr Molins added.
Prosecutors have now filed formal charges against him.
Mr Khazzani is accused of carrying out a "targeted and premeditated" jihadist attack.
He is also accused of firearms offences and "participation in a terrorist association with a view to organising one or several damaging crimes," according to prosecutors' documents quoted by the AFP news agency.
He was overpowered by passengers on the Thalys express train from Amsterdam to Paris on Friday. No-one died.
Three Americans and one Briton who overpowered the gunman were awarded medals for their bravery.
A US-born Frenchman, Mark Magoolian, and another unnamed Frenchman will also be given awards later for trying to tackle the gunman.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I didn't post this to talk about the attack, or to discuss the attacker
What he did was WRONG, and it is a crime
But why when there is a Muslim trying to attack the people we consider him a terrorist, and when he is a Non-Muslim he is just a mental or a Psycopath
so let's go back quote what was written in the article that was published in BBC News website:
"Ayoub El-Khazzani, 25, was carrying 270 bullets for his assault rifle and a bottle of petrol, prosecutor Francois Molins told reporters on Tuesday"
Where the hell is the bloody securty, anyone else could have come and kill everyone!
"The Moroccan's phone showed that he had watched a jihadist video shortly before launching the attack, Mr Molins added" :
Really???? So what you watch on Youtube represnts you, so if i was watching a Rape Crime video, does that mean that I am a Rapist?
"He is also accused of firearms offences and "participation in a terrorist association with a view to organising one or several damaging crimes," according to prosecutors' documents quoted by the AFP news agency"
Ohh no, so why they were not keeping an eye on him if he was really that dangeuorus
I wish that one day poeple will stop judging becasue you just have a long beard!
For all the QLers be careful what you watch on Youtube!
It's nice to have a proper discussion on QL for a change ..
Britexpat: Agree. Agreed. Agreed. You score 100% on that!
Wunae ,,, what i said was a reply for your last comment
"The cartoon only became a sensation, and was reprinted millions of times around the world, AFTER the attack"
The cartoon was teasing it wasn't about freedom of speech.
ANYWAY,,, time for the weekend
Have a nice weekend all
acchbaccha: good points. As I said before, the media is sometimes used to push an agenda.
I would suggest two things:
Firstly , Muslims need to unite and confront those who portray Islam or Muslims in such negative terms or insult the prophets
Secondly, your point about religion linked to terrorism is true to a point. The fact is that whilst organisations such as ETA, IRA, Bader Mynhoff etc may have 100% Christian members , they don't portray themselves as religious entities. On the other hand most Muslim ones do
I'm not understanding you Suleiman. Which law did Charlie Hebdo break?
In fact, not even for half of the world's population.
" "Leave the religions icons alone" (Jesus, Mohammad .....)" They aren't 'icons' for everybody.
Making a satirical magazine is art, Sulieman. It should be allowed. Making caricatures of whoever is art. It should be allowed, Nobody is ever forced to consume art, therefore nobody can be insulted. If somebody looks at art and doesn't like it's only his problem and nobody else's.
Just go through my post above. Have you ever heard of Christian terrorism or Christian terrorists? Have you ever heard of a Christian Bomb or a Jewish Bomb or a Hindu Bomb? Yet, the world knows that Islamic terrorism exists, Islamic terrorists exist and so does the Islamic Bomb. How were these terms come into existence? It was through the western media. The western media portrayed that everything related to Islam is bad. The western media with their "experts in Islam" who have little or no knowledge of the religion, has played an active role and is continuing to do so in full force to project a negative and tarnished image of this religion and its followers just because of the actions of a few.
Wunae,, You are wrong my friend, it is time for you to google
Charlie Hebdo Magazine announced that they will have in their coming release they will publish a caricature for the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and then those criminal send them a warning that if they did so, they will bomb them, and then Charlie Hebdo (because they are always provocative) published the magazine with the Prophet Cartoon, Boooooom
That's why I said they are both wrong ,,,,
WL ,,, I don't know what to reply to your comment!
People like you is the reason I started this post!
I haven't said anything about ART, and people been making fun of Arabs, Muslims, Christians, Jews ..... etc, as Wunae mentioned before.
What i was trying to say "Leave the religions icons alone" (Jesus, Mohammad .....)
You can make fun of anyone else you want, all what I said people should respect other people believes, you don't need to agree with them, just respect!
I think you need to google something about Charlie Hebdo's controversial covers - the ones mocking Jesus, the pope, gays, jews, politicians, Muslims - nothing was off limits to them. The fiction that Muslims are the perpetual and repeated victims is just nonsense. The only reason people think that Charlie Hebdo exclusively mocked Muslims is because their office was firebombed, and then later a murder scene, when some Muslims tried to kill them. The jews shrugged it off, the Christians shrugged it off, the politicians shrugged it off, the gays shrugged it off.
The questions remain unanswered. Why are people allowed to make a mockery of just one religion (read Islam) and they never think of making fun of other religions including Christianity? Why has the world begun to target Islam? True some counties of the west have what is called the “freedom of expression” but when this freedom gets misused, a reaction results. It is when a few realize well that the law of the land will not listen to their feelings or sufferings and find nowhere to go to, they take the extreme decision – they take up guns. If there would have been laws in place where the Charlie Hebdo magazine publisher could have been sued in the court of law for their act, they would not they have printed such caricatures. Neither would some people have resorted to the killings.
It is absolutely absurd comparing the publishing of cheap magazines to magazines insulting religions. The two stand at opposite poles. Religion is a very sensitive matter to people on both sides of the fence. Many are tolerant. Some are not.
Michelangelo was also wrong to paint the creation in the Sixteens Chapel according to Sulieman. However, the rest of the world considers it a masterpiece of art. Obviously art seems to be the devil's work for Muslims. And - art is not disputable at all. There are no rules for art, which makes it what it is: creative, surprising, and unique.
The cartoon only became a sensation, and was reprinted millions of times around the world, AFTER the attack. Even still, if I'm offended by p rnography, I don't go around killing people who work at those magazines or who make those movies.
And you might think that what the Charlie Hebdo people did was 'wrong' in your own worldview, but they broke no law, committed no crime, and did nothing 'wrong' in the eyes of the vast majority of French people. You may think it was wrong, but I may think it's wrong for women to cover their faces. That's only an opinion based on your point of view.
But walking into an office with guns and shooting people is wrong. To compare the two actions and create some sort of sense of equivalency is something we aren't ever going to agree about.
Wunae,,, What you said is not applicable on the Media (Magazine, TV, Radio, Internet ...etc
I don't need to buy the magazine to see the photo, it was in ALL TVs and Internet website, I didn't wish to see this, and I didn't ask for it, the thing I don't get offended by anything, if someone for example told me that I am stupid, that doesn't mean that he is right, but for him to say that he should expect all kind of reactions from me!
Both were wrong, the magazine and the criminals!
It was absolute provocation, there's no disputing that. But I respond with two points - France, where the Charlie Hebdo attacks took place, was founded on 3 principles - Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. France is a secular state, and that Liberty includes, however unfortunately, the freedom to insult others. I hate to wheel out this old line, but if you don't like living in a secular country with secular laws and people who have other religious beliefs (or no religious beliefs) and your own religious experience is so important and crucial to your existence, maybe you are living in the wrong country.
And secondly, how can you say you were insulted by someone drawing a cartoon? Unless YOU go and buy it, and YOU open your eyes and look at it, and YOU then come to a view that it's insulting, you seem to have gone out of your way to make yourself insulted. Were copies of Charlie Hebdo delivered to all the mosques in town? Did the rent big billboards and put the cartoon on display on street corners and roads and shops and on tv and at the movies and in your face? No. So when you say that my freedom ends where someone else's starts becomes a weaker argument when people have actually gone out of their way, and moved themselves into a position, so as to be insulted.
On another note, who is willing to wager whether or not there will be religiously inspired killings once the movie "Muhammad" is released, by IS style religious nutters who decide amongst themselves whether or not it's okay for a bunch of Iranians to make a movie about, and featuring an actor in the role of the prophet? Already there have been Sunnis saying the movie is blasphemous and sinful etc etc. Ironically the movie is supposed to correct the image about Islam being violent. Let's wait and see.
acchabaccha: Yes there was provocation. But one does not have to react with violence. If you look at the life of the Prophet, he always dealt with provocation and abuse with civility and kindness.
Aside from that, freedom of speech does give people the opportunity to offend. I get offended by many things. In return, i make my views known, but never resort to violence.
Freedom of speech carries with it responsibilities. Some people abuse the privilege , but that does not give anyone the right to resort to physical abuse or murder. There are other channels to address such issues.
Wunae ,,, Your freedom ends when the other people's starts!
You can't mock about about God and prophets (all of them not just Mohammad PBAH)
But saying this doesn't mean I am with what happened in Charlie Hebdo, that was cruel and unacceptable.
but simply people just closed their eyes, they see Islam in those acts and they think all Muslims are like this, and they are not listening to the Muslims who are condemning these crimes!
SAD!
There are two set of individuals in the world. Number one is the Good ones and number two is the Bad ones. Being Good or Bad has no affiliation with one's religion. Boko Haram which actually means "Western Education is Forbidden" are killing people in the name of being Muslims, whenever they launch attacks they do with AK 47, armored tanks and lots of sophisticated weapons(These are products of the Western Education they are against), they do all sorts of immoralities and claim to fight for Allah...... These are not the real practices of Islam..... They are not Muslims but Monsters
"Freedom of speech does not mean anyone should have the right the to insult another religion."
Actually, that's exactly what freedom of speech is. You might not like it, but last time I checked killing people who insult you makes you a criminal. Your post almost gives the impression that you think the cold blooded murder of the journalists at Charlie Hebdo was justified. And it's people who go around killing cartoonists who are giving Europeans a distorted view that Muslims are happy to murder people all day long whenever they get upset.
Britexpat: Most Muslims across the world would not also agree to the acts of Daesh. But then, the Charlie Hebdo attack was a result of d-e-l-i-b-e-r-a-t-e provocation and an open invitation to trouble from "educated" people. What was the logic behind the magazine printing of caricatures of the Holy Prophet? Was it to boost sales of their magazine? No, it was not. It was simply a planned, outright, naked, diabolical attempt to create hatred and nothing but that. Freedom of speech does not mean anyone should have the right the to insult another religion. Have you ever come across any Muslim making caricatures of Jesus Christ or any other prophet for that matter? Why do you westerners go about targeting Islam for their attacks? Have you ever come across your people insulting other religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Judaism, Druzism etc. There is line of control in the "freedom of speech" that is terribly missing in the system of the west. You cannot put in controls now due to your rules on "civil liberties." When civilians are given too much "civil liberty" they become uncivilized. You should put in a line of control for world peace and ensure it does not get crossed. The Charlie Hebdo caricatures hurt the sentiments of millions of Muslims across the world. Most Muslims are tolerant. Few are not. It is these few who go out to seek revenge. Westerners have a name for such stray incidents -- Islamic terrorism.
Look within yourself first.
A 'religion of peace' that advocates killing and raping of 'infidels'
Go figure !
You aren't wrong that the media shape the perceptions of many. I think your point seems to be that crimes happen all the time, but when it's Islamic in nature it becomes terrorism and the world panics. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I can easily provide a list of attacks deemed to be terrorist attacks in Europe in the last 10 years, and all but a tiny fraction were carried out by people who claimed to be inspired by an Islamist ideology. Are you saying that actually there were more attacks that we simply don't know about?
Were there more people killing at galleries (14 Feb 2015, 2 killed) magazines (7 Jan 2015, 12 killed) inside Jewish centers (24 May 2014, 4 killed) at airports (18 July 2012, 7 killed & 2 Mar 2011, 2 killed) or on London public transport (7 Jul 2005, 52 dead) or on a Spanish train (11 March 2004, 191 dead) by non-Islamist terrorists that I just don't know about?
acchabaccha: You are correct about media shaping public opinion...
I watch CNN, BBC and Al Jazeerah. Obviously , each has its own "bias"..
After 9/11 , there was a lot of "disinformation" used to alienate , but also garner public support for the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Having said that, Muslims also have to look within themselves. The Charlie Hebdo attacks, the murder of Lee Rigby and the ongoing propoganda by Daesh does no favours to Islam
This is an era of communication. The Media shapes public opinion and covers realities by their censorship. The media shapes the world how we see it.
When it comes to reporting incidents committed by Muslims, there is disparity on an international scale on coverage. There exists a double standard in the media when acts committed by Muslims receive more international attention than similar action committed by any other ethnic or religious group.
There was an informational vacuum that developed after 9/11. Individuals framed as “experts on Islam” created misconceptions about the faith and its followers. As such, every time a Muslim did something wrong it got added to the list and got referenced the next time another Muslim did something wrong. This did not happen with other extremist groups such as the white supremacist and their acts were considered as “individual anomalies” rather than evidence of a trend.
It was this media that created a public panic portraying Muslims as terrorist threats. Thus the new word “Islamaphobia” was conjectured to show that Muslims were a threat to security. “Islamic terrorism” became the dominant coverage on TV shows in the West, and let’s not forget the term “Islamic Bomb” that suddenly came into existence. Supporting this belief led to the production of the film “Fitna” by Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders which simply added fuel to the fire of hatred in the West against Muslims.
It is time now the West needs to review the idea of its own “Self” and the “Other.” The representation of Muslims in the western media and the western world has to change.
But he didn't use religion to justify his actions Brit. In fact his defence lawyer is claiming he never fired a single shot (I think this might technically be true since his rifle jammed) and he's just the victim of a huge misunderstanding.
One of the perverse benefits about the emergence of those numpties ISIS is that all the loonies who want to kill in the name of God have been leaving Europe to go and kill people in the name of God in Syria and Iraq, instead of killing in their home countries.
Indeed brit!
People will use religion to justify their actions. Strange when all religions are against murder and killing of innocents.
sake of God**
Wunae, He is either a pussy, honest or a mental
this is what I was trying to say!
Most of people who were doing crimes in the name of "GOD" (while God never asked anyone to), were saying we did this is the sake on God, but this one is quite different, isn't he?
"so why they were not keeping an eye on him" - good question. It's now revealed that Ayoub was known to authorities in France, Belgium and Spain. I can only guess that there are now so many people who the authorities are attempting to watch that they can now not watch all of them, all the time.
What strikes me as odd is if he is indeed someone with strongly held beliefs and was attempting to commit a religiously inspired attack, why did he try to defend himself and say that he simply found the weapons 'in a park' near the train station. If you love your God so much you want to kill people, at least be ballsy enough to say so, and not turn to jelly and deny it when your plan fails. Doesn't sound like he is that religious to me. At least the Al Qaeda guys have the courage to say what they truly believe.
Yes WT, they are trying to, but as long as there are a good Muslims, and there are non Muslims who can understand who is who, everything is going to be fine! and we can get rid of them
WT, watching something doesn't mean that you enjoy it, there are a lot of horrible videos on the internet that happened in some countries shows Army Men Killing (Syria, Iraq ,,,,,etc), Torturing and Raping people.
You watch it because you just want to know what the hell is happening, that doesn't make a criminal of you
But I do agree with you that Boko Haram and ISIS are all psychopaths and criminals. The problem is that they commit their crimes in the name of Islam. They are doing their best to make Islam look bad.
"Watching a Rape Crime video, does that mean that I am a Rapist?" Well, at least you have a tendency enjoying something bad happening to someone else. Not a very human trace in you, isn't it?
brit: Sadly for the past 3 years so many crimes have been done by Arabs "Who think that they are Muslims" and yes I understand that people in Europe started to think that all the Arabs and Muslims are trouble makers!
But all what pisses me off is tagging ِMuslims only as "Terrorists", while anyone else can be, Terrorism has no religion
The Co-Pilot in the German Airplane! (They called him Insane!)
All the shooting in the US that happened in Shopping malls! (They are all Psychopaths)
The atheist who killed the Muslims in the US (He is Mental)
and and and .....
Why can't we be subjective! not all of us, at least the Media and the news channels
Sulieman: You make some valid points. However, it all comes back to actions, perceptions and stereotyping.
Most of us have pre-concieved perceptions of nationalities, races, religions. Sadly, the press plays on these and sensationalises certain crimes in order to pander to a certain cross section or sell papers.
From what i have read, this individual was known to the French security services and should have been under observation.
Such are the times we live in. Muslims are in focus and have to bear the brunt of such reprting. having said that, Muslims also have to realise that their own actions / inactions are causing such problems.