Re: Paris Shootings.
 

I'd say he's dead M,what I'm saying is, 'I don't believe he was killed by the shot to the head' (that clearly missed).
Another (conspiracy) theory is that CH was experiencing financial difficulties.

"Before the Jan. 7 shooting that left 12 dead, before 3.7 million people marched in France, and before George Clooney wore a "Je Suis Charlie" button at the Golden Globes, Charlie Hebdo was in trouble. The satirical magazine needed funds. Sales weren't covering the cost of manufacturing, and from Nov. 4 until a few hours after the massacre, a desperate banner topped the homepage: "Charlie est en danger!"

"We need to quickly find ways to exist without depending on outside shareholders or banks," read a loosely translated post on the site asking readers for donations. Charlie Hebdo was printing 60,000 copies a week, but only selling half of them at roughly $3.50 a copy.

A week after the fatal shooting, a lot has changed. Charlie Hebdo is expected to print 3 million copiesof Wednesday's issue, its first since the Paris massacre. People across the world are clamoring to buy the magazine, which will be published in 16 languages in 25 countries.

The magazine's newfound popularity and international support could translate into a long-term increase in circulation, said Rodney Benson, a professor of media studies and sociology at New York University. The magazine has become legendary, he said. "Charlie and its moment is never going to be forgotten," said Benson, an expert on French news media."

Read more here:-
Charlie Hebdo First Issue: Magazine Was In Financial 'Danger' Before Paris Massacre


Like you said in a previous comment, it seems that whenever there's a (terrorist) attack these days, there's a conspiracy theory not far behind :)

Re: Paris Shootings.
 

So...what are you saying in that post...just to be clear?
Are you saying that someone at Charlie Hebdo organised for terrorists to go in and shoot much of the magazine's staff so that they didn't have to be paid....so that the magazine could be closed down...or are you saying it was done to increase the profile of the magazine so that it made money out of what was a loss of life talent(whether you agree with how that talent was utilised is beside the point).
Quite frankly that is a ludicrous proposition.
Was the Jewish supermarket also in trouble too...does that explain why that was a target for terrorist attacks??

It is healthy to ask questions and not always accept things on face value, but you also need to question the video clip too.......it is easy enough to manipulate videos and photographs(heck, some of it, even I can do)

Re: Paris Shootings.
 

What I'm saying is there are folk (not saying I do) who believe that when your experiencing finical difficulties if you do something that enrages folk (about 2million) you'll soon be back in the money...."ludicrous"?....perhaps.

As for the video clip being edited....hmmm,I've seen quite a few clip (one showing what a AK47 does to a human head) and I doubt they were edited to fit "conspiracy theories".

Re: Paris Shootings.
 

So when asked for your opinion you supply links?

Give us your opinion Accyexplorer, or perhaps because you are in stirring mode you would prefer to be known by your negative karma name of T?

Just a guess, but it would fit nicely with your sick ways.

Maybe Ace whole is more fitting?

Re: Paris Shootings.
 

My opinion was yes, "I think there is some truth in it".

You of all folk should know I like to sign my karma (good or bad).

Now stop with the name calling and grow up :thefinger

Re: Paris Shootings.
 

What name calling?

I always go for accuracy in my posts!

You however always manage to prove what folk suspect you to be.

As for always signing karma, you may always sign it but maybe not with your user name Mr. T?

Re: Paris Shootings.
 

If you do not believe it then why do you post it?
So Charlie Hebdo deliberately provoked the attack....is that what you are saying?......and for financial gain?

And as for videos being edited.....if you are open to the possibility of the 'establishment' twisting news to their own agenda, then you have to accept that there are others who would do whatever necessary to discredit the establishment by whatever means they can.

Re: Paris Shootings.
 

You prefer to read 'Electronic Intifada'? Seems reasonable for you.

Study the video.

Lies, all lies I tell you! Ask AccyE and MargaretR.

As I said, study the video. No trained shooter holding an AK47 would take a one handed shot at someones head running past them- he'd go for a body shot.
Pause the video, watch the angle of the AK47 on discharge and the smoke- the shot is down through the right shoulder.

So you agree he's dead? But it was all a propaganda cover up? Have you lost all touch with reality?

Re: Paris Shootings.
 

I presume the question is rhetorical.;)

Re: Paris Shootings.
 

Sky news clearly reports "shot in the head".

"Footage of France's deadliest terror attack for 40 years shows one of the gunmen shoot a policeman 'in the head' at point-blank range."

Paris Policeman Shot In Head As He Pleads For Life

If disputing that makes me a conspiracy theorist, so be it.

Re: Paris Shootings.
 

I think the in the head bit was the opinion of a news reporter watching the video. It's quite obvious to most folks that in the head at that range would make a mess so it's more likely he was shot in the body

Re: Paris Shootings.
 

Now that really is interesting!
Watch the Sky film, taken at the time.
Watch for the flame from the AK47. Assuming the shooter is under six foot he's about eight foot from the policeman when he fires. Look at the angle of the rifle.
Watch the Electronic Intifada video- it appears to be the same video but the shooter is within a foot of the policeman and shoots almost straight down. The rifle is in line with his right leg.
Only one shot fired but from a very different position. And watch the flame from the muzzle- both different.
Somebody is fixing something and I doubt if Sky had time or reason to!

Re: Paris Shootings.
 

My main motivation for reading "conspiracy theories" (apart from I like a laugh) is rather selfish (learning purposes).
I also (as you may of gathered) like to throw my findings into the mix (even if doing so makes me the "idiot").
Much like MargetR (and maybe one or two others) If someone claims an alternative explanation to a official theory, I like to try and see if there's any substance or rationale to it, instead of blindly believing what the MSM spouts.:rolleyes:

Now, there is much more at stake here than the video or the attacks and that is the powers that be are going to use it to expand wars, write away more rights and as usual increase surveillance.

17 folk get killed in France, (supposedly) over a question of free speech, and the first thing that governments want to do is use that event to take away free speech on the Internet :eek:
The very same governments that expressed no outrage whatsoever as the U.S. military killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere.

Do you not find it funny that "terrorism" is called "Foreign Policy" when we "the west" do it and "terrorism" for anyone else...actually don't answer that :rolleyes:

Re: Paris Shootings.
 

So.....are you saying that 17 people didn't actually get murdered?

And is it that you support what the terrorists were doing?

Is it that you want to be ruled by Sharia law?
Not to be able to listen to music.....to be forced to covert to Islam...and not just any brand of Islam because some brands do not confer immunity from being massacred.....ask the Yazidi tribe.....oh, no...that won't work they were massacred by ISIS(allegedly...because I guess you probably thought that was just a propaganda stunt too....along with the beheading of Alan Henning and other aid workers)....is that Foreign Policy...or terrorism?
No, don't answer that I really don't need to know.

Re: Paris Shootings.
 

I'm fed up now...time to move on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qPjZ81L77Y