From a legal standpoint Charlie Hebdo staff was allowed to troll muslims as much as any other faction/group/whatever. They simply weren't smart enough to stop it after repeated threats and getting their locals burned. They saw that as some people wanting to shut their freedom of speech and thus kept on with it. Pretty much everyone was expecting them to be ambushed by angry mobs. Didn't think it would escalate to something like gunfire though.
Then we get some guy who thinks it clever to take hostages shortly later when the cops are still trying to vent some steam.
1. Regardless, when Hitler combined the positions of President and Chancellor after Hindenburg's death, there was a plebiscite held whether the people want this or not. And when the results came, over 90% said yes to his technically illegal move to combine the two positions. In other words, Hitler still had the support of the rest of the Germans during that time. And compound that with the apparent indifference of the populace to Kristallnacht and the establishment of the KZs.
2. The Red Guards, which mainly consisted for factory workers, peasants and a few military men, were a part of the October Revolution.
3. These Paris intellectuals didn't storm the Bastille alone. Granted, the Reign of Terror rooted from political factionalism and efforts in trying to stop it, but it seemed as if that's what the people supported during that time.
holy shit those 50 cops in a pile
its like im really watching medieval warfare
[04:55] Lianru: i3uster is actuallly quite cute
dem GIGN operators tho
- - - Updated - - -
Lol, what:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30785232US Centcom Twitter account 'hacked by Islamic State'
meanwhile austrian riot police
[04:55] Lianru: i3uster is actuallly quite cute
Like it's only twitter but at the same time you'd think they could keep their password secret...
The bloody Torygraph over The Times? You're joking.
Because the online version drops most of the bigotry and psychopathy to be a gossip rag.
Please explain why you think that newspapers are by definition more opinionated than the BBC.
Please further explain your reasoning that the BBC is a propaganda source, expounding upon the manner it which it shows itself to be propaganda, the people who turn information it receives about events into propaganda and their rationale, and the people for and against whom this propaganda is directed and for what purpose.
Does it?I really don't get the point in news papers as their whole point includes twisting the truth.
Beast's Lair: Useful Notes
(Lightweight | PDF)
Updated 01/01/15
If posts are off-topic, trolling, terrible or offensive, please allow me to do my job. Reporting keeps your forum healthy.
Seika moderates: modly clarifications, explanations, Q&A, and the British conspiracy to de-codify BL's constitution.
Democracy on Beast's Lair
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwq8Bwr9wUg
Tehehehe. It was funny him trying to defend himself on radio 4.
you know usually youtube comments arent funny but this guy
Actually, it's all true. Britain is actually divided up into hundreds of warring city states, each with their own religion or cause. Manchester is Zoroastrians only. Plymouth? No entry unless you want to meet the merciless Scentologist Police patrols. Southampton is 100% jewish, Huddersfield is completely Orthodox Christians, and in Liverpool you'll be dangling from a crane at Anfield sooner than you can say "militant theocracy" if you can't recite the names of the European Cup Winners Cup team from 1988. Exeter is Flying Spaghetti Monster territory. Now I've admitted the truth in public I will probably have my door kicked in at 5am and be transported to the gulags in the Chilterns.
[04:55] Lianru: i3uster is actuallly quite cute