People are outraged because if the shooter was muslim people would be saying "See islam is dangerous" especially with this no go zone rhetoric that has been spewed recently.

If the shooter was black it would be "See black people are thugs, oh but they wont protest about this one".

If the shooter was hispanic it would be "Check his papers, probably an obama voter, close the borders".

But the shooter is white so he gets the benefit of the doubt and he doesn't get called "Thug" "Savage" "Terrorist" "Rag Head". When a black or arabic muslim or hispanic person commits a crime the entire black, arabic muslim or hispanic race has to condemn it and bare the burden of the crime for the rest of their life.

Yet when a white criminal commits a crime, whites never have to condemn it and they never have to carry the burden for the criminals in their race. That is why this situation is getting so much outrage by society because it's hypocritical.

Not all whites are racist
Not all blacks thugs
Not all arabic muslims terrorist
Not all hispanics illegal criminals who are obama voters

What benefit of the doubt is the murderer getting here? He is a fucking murderer by his own admission.

That's kind of bullshit, and you even touched on why. Yes, blacks are stereotyped as thugs, so when a black person does a thuggish thing it "confirms" the stereotype. Whites are stereotyped as racist, so when a white person does something that is even possibly racist thing it "confirms" that stereotype. And here is a perfect example of that: when a white guy kills some Muslims it is assumed that he did so because of racism, and whites once again get lectured on how terribly racist they all are and how good they all have it.

We all have our crosses to bear!

There were two coordinated attacks: the one on Hebdo, and the one at the Hypercacher.

Discussing the conspiracy theory angle is probably an exercise in futility if you can so casually say, "We know it was fake." I know nothing of the sort, and the videos you've posted here of the guy who laughs too much and always complains that he's being censored even though he's still on Youtube do nothing for me.

So the guy isnt some racist, angry white christian, conservative, but a super militant-atheist, libertarian ?


....the irony is killing me here xD. You guys should check out neogaf forums for some good laughs

Yeah, I guess that was unfair. Therre's also the part where he goes, "This guy getting shot in the head doesn't look exactly like I think it should. That must mean all governments and the global media are in collusion yet again, and nobody can see it but me!"

I don't watch a lot of TV news, so I can't say what they've shown. But it was freely available on the 'net on any number of news sites. It's not just a matter of colluding with a handful of major news networks per country anymore, which would still be a massive feat in itself to do that and keep it quiet. You're talking about throwing a blanket of silence over almost the entire planet except for crazy little corners of the internet, which seems... impossible. Even more so when you consider that he thinks this happens not just once or twice, but on a regular basis.

"This Jordanian pilot doesn't act like I would! This burning video is a fake!"

"These people are all crisis actors! The Boston Marathon bombing never happened!"

"This little girl looks too much like her sister! Sandy Hook is a hoax!"

And so forth.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary supporting evidence, and his claims go far beyond merely extraordinary but all he offers is insinuations that something doesn't look right and his stupid laugh.

Plus, I'm not really familiar with a ton of news sites willing to show completely unedited snuff clips.  I mean, there's usually some kind of a legal issue there, isn't there (Just a guess, tried looking up FCC guidelines, but just getting a slew of murder TV shows lol).

On web sites? I first saw it on some news site. Usually they just age gate anything that's controversial or graphic. The FCC doesn't have any say so over it.

You probably wouldn't see it on network news, but cable channels aren't under the FCC's control. They just usually don't show graphic videos because of viewer squeamishness.

Not sure how these are supposed to prove anything either way. Whoever you think is actually behind these videos, the point is to make them scary and dramatic.

The use of a green screen has been widely acknowledged in mainstream media analysis of the videos for a while now.

Uh... no. We agree that they are not really outside in the desert somewhere.