2020 French Terrorist Beheadings and Attacks Thread

[Aeritai]

Yikes.... That's only going to paint a bad picture on the rest of the Muslim community in France. Though I have a feeling this thread is going to get heated once GHK shows up.

[Tranzoria]

The man asked students that identified with the Muslim faith to step outside knowing it would offend them to show such imagery, I don't feel any disharmony taking place.

Physically separating some kids from their class, does not feel like 'disharmony' to you?

But if he didn't separate them the Parents would be FURIOUS.

[Rusozak]

Jesus. I hope the person or people who did it are caught and put away for the rest of their pathetic lives.

You don't get to kill someone for offending your religion.

The guy was shot and killed by police. Says so in the first sentence.

[Resilient Acceleration]

The man asked students that identified with the Muslim faith to step outside knowing it would offend them to show such imagery, I don't feel any disharmony taking place.

Riight? This is paralel to years ago when I'm still in middle school. When the religion teacher was going to teach about why Islam's account of Jesus is right while the Christians' is wrong, she kindly asked the Christians in the room to leave, which they did, and that's that. It was her duty to teach us the materials, yet disharmony is also taken care of.

For the issue to rotate among thr Islamists and eventually triggered the terrorist to act is astounding.

Overall, this attack is just the symptom of a larger problem. Say 2% of the Muslim population in France is radical (which is very generous, considering the recent survey here in Indonesia where 10-15% of the population wants the secular government to be overthrown and replaced by a caliphate, even though we're a secular country whose secularism was enforced by a military dictatorship for 30 years through various anti-Islamist policies). That's still 100.000 out of 5 million. Serious efforts must be made to neutralize this problem.

[Picairn]

Frankly, I don't understand why someone would go at such lengths to decapitate a person over a freaking picture. I would be angry if a person posts insulting pictures of my nation's founders, but not to the point where I would actually carry an axe, drive to his house, then decapitate him.

[Albrenia]

Jesus. I hope the person or people who did it are caught and put away for the rest of their pathetic lives.

You don't get to kill someone for offending your religion.

The guy was shot and killed by police. Says so in the first sentence.

Wow, somehow I missed that.

Good riddance to the killer, people like that have no place in human society.

[Picairn]

Yikes.... That's only going to paint a bad picture on the rest of the Muslim community in France. Though I have a feeling this thread is going to get heated once GHK shows up.

GHK possesses an arsenal of gasoline enough to light NSG on fire. I expect this thread to suffer from the same outcome.

[Senkaku]

Not much to add, was the teacher wrong in showing the pictures of Muhammad?

I have no words… it’s sad that the country of Napoleon and De Gaulle has come to this. France is the country that pioneered the concept of liberalism, religious freedom, and secularism, but radical Muslims seek to undermine the Republic’s values.

Okay yes this is super fucked but you’re really arguing decapitating people is SO alien to “the Republic” and “the country of Napoleon”?

What’s even worse is that the usual suspects are defending this.

No one credible is arguing that decapitated teachers had it coming

[Tranzoria]

Frankly, I don't understand why someone would go at such lengths to decapitate a person over a freaking picture. I would be angry if a person posts insulting pictures of my nation's founders, but not to the point where I would actually carry an axe, drive to his house, then decapitate him.

HERE'S RELIGIOUS EXTREMIST!
Man, I make too much jokes in Serious Forums.
Well, it's also important to look at it from Muslim's shoes, are they ashamed? Most are, yes. But should they as a whole be blamed? Of course not! But, unfortunately, it's likely some will blame all of them.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

What’s even worse is that the usual suspects are defending this.

Who?

[Dolgo]

It's disrespectful to many Muslims to depict Muhammad in pictures. I don't really see why one would want to anyway, aside from intentionally provoking Muslims. I think it is irresponsible to do so, as it would very likely harm fragile relations with the Muslim community.

...

As a preventive measure, France should take religious harmony very seriously and enact laws that make it illegal to promote religious disharmony (on either side), similar to what Singapore successfully does.
Vive la France!

That, however, would mean the alteration of the very foundation of the modern French nation. There's a reason why blasphemy against Christianity, etc. isn't punished in France. Religion, all religion, conform to the nation and not the other way around. I mean, if they want to do it, sure, but I don't think they will.

The way I see it, they've got three choices:

1. Continue with the status quo.

2. Change laws to protect religious harmony at the necessary cost of restricting freedom of expression, along with enacting the death penalty for murderers. This would please Muslims and even some Christians by prohibiting people from disparaging their religion publicly (including other religious groups). The death penalty would give the public a sense of justice for extremists who feel the aforementioned concessions are not enough and commit murder anyway.

3. Change laws to assimilate Muslims into the greater whole and or pass anti-Muslim laws that exclude them from French society.

The status quo is not working. 2 is pragmatic, but would require France to depart from its secular liberal norm. 3 might be popular, but will only inflame tensions even more. I'm guessing the first option will continue until the majority becomes impatient enough to elect a radical right-wing government to do the third option. The second option would be best in my opinion. Singapore maintains its religious harmony by using a similar strategy to 2.

[Tranzoria]

What’s even worse is that the usual suspects are defending this.

Who?

Yeah, both people on both ends died?

[Albrenia]

What’s even worse is that the usual suspects are defending this.

Who?

Likely the tiny element of leftists who are certifiably insane, and the large imaginary army the right wing always points to of rabid extremists.

[Tranzoria]

That, however, would mean the alteration of the very foundation of the modern French nation. There's a reason why blasphemy against Christianity, etc. isn't punished in France. Religion, all religion, conform to the nation and not the other way around. I mean, if they want to do it, sure, but I don't think they will.

But Singapore isn't that big or diverse. I think Number 1.
t's not the Government's fault, it's the Extremi-oh, wait scratch that you are right.
The way I see it, they've got three choices:

1. Continue with the status quo.

2. Change laws to protect religious harmony at the necessary cost of restricting freedom of expression, along with enacting the death penalty for murderers. This would please Muslims and even some Christians by prohibiting people from disparaging their religion publicly (including other religious groups). The death penalty would give the public a sense of justice for extremists who feel the aforementioned concessions are not enough and commit murder anyway.

3. Change laws to assimilate Muslims into the greater whole and or pass anti-Muslim laws that exclude them from French society.

The status quo is not working. 2 is pragmatic, but would require France to depart from its secular liberal norm. 3 might be popular, but will only inflame tensions even more. I'm guessing the first option will continue until the majority becomes impatient enough to elect a radical right-wing government to do the third option. The second option would be best in my opinion. Singapore maintains its religious harmony by using a similar strategy to 2.

[Picairn]

Likely the tiny element of leftists who are certifiably insane, and the large imaginary army the right wing always points to of rabid extremists.

Leftists, communists, and SJWs wish to be as powerful and omnipotent like the rightwing routinely makes them out to be. Reality? Europe and the US are governed by center-right to far-right governments.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Now I'm going to flame you in such a foul and personal way that it will make you literally cry. How could I even know those personal things about you? You won't just want me warned, you'll want my post removed. But if it's going to make you feel uncomfortable then don't open the spoiler:

F. You. For lying to me. I feel cheated out of a colorful insult. /heavy sarcasm mods pls don't descend on me thanks

That helps my point, thanks. Suppose you're a kid brought up Muslim, but without fasting at Ramadan or veiling the women or any of that. Your parents do want you to be Muslim but they also want you to get along with other French kids and later in society, without the impediment of religious observance several times a day. Of course there are plenty of Muslims like that, probably the majority in Western countries, but chances are the subject will never come up.

So you stay in the room and see the cartoon of Muhammed. It's just a caricature of a bearded Arab guy, and not even as you'd feared, a portrait or serious reconstruction of what the man himself looked like. But now you feel offended in a different way: even though you don't personally have the inhibition, you feel like your religion is being mocked for the silly inhibition against anything purporting to be an image of Muhammed.

Then you have to explain it to the other Muslim kids who did leave the room. IF they will still talk to you.

[Dolgo]

But Singapore isn't that big or diverse. I think Number 1.
t's not the Government's fault, it's the Extremi-oh, wait scratch that you are right.
The way I see it, they've got three choices:

1. Continue with the status quo.

2. Change laws to protect religious harmony at the necessary cost of restricting freedom of expression, along with enacting the death penalty for murderers. This would please Muslims and even some Christians by prohibiting people from disparaging their religion publicly (including other religious groups). The death penalty would give the public a sense of justice for extremists who feel the aforementioned concessions are not enough and commit murder anyway.

3. Change laws to assimilate Muslims into the greater whole and or pass anti-Muslim laws that exclude them from French society.

The status quo is not working. 2 is pragmatic, but would require France to depart from its secular liberal norm. 3 might be popular, but will only inflame tensions even more. I'm guessing the first option will continue until the majority becomes impatient enough to elect a radical right-wing government to do the third option. The second option would be best in my opinion. Singapore maintains its religious harmony by using a similar strategy to 2.

Keep in mind the bolded was added by the above user as their reply to mine, I think they messed up the formatting. No big deal.

Just because Singapore is smaller (a city-state) does not mean their methods can be dismissed. They are still humans, and for their size, have a great deal of diversity. Actually more so than France.

(from Wikipedia)

Religions in Singapore:
33.2% Buddhism
18.8% Christianity
18.5% No religion
14.0% Islam
10.0% Taoism and
folk religion
5.0% Hinduism
0.6% other

Religions in France:
51% Christianity
—45% Catholicism
—6% Other Christian
40% No religion
5% Islam
3% Other
1% Undeclared

91% of French people are either secular or Christian.

Singapore has more than double the concentration of Muslims than France, despite this, they are one of the most harmonious societies in the world. It is not an accident, but rather because of deliberate social engineering by the government to maintain racial, ethnic, and religious harmony.

[Tranzoria]

Keep in mind the bolded was added by the above user as their reply to mine, I think they messed up the formatting. No big deal.

Just because Singapore is smaller (a city-state) does not mean their methods can be dismissed. They are still humans, and for their size, have a great deal of diversity. Actually more so than France.

(from Wikipedia)

Religions in Singapore:
33.2% Buddhism
18.8% Christianity
18.5% No religion
14.0% Islam
10.0% Taoism and
folk religion
5.0% Hinduism
0.6% other

Religions in France:
51% Christianity
—45% Catholicism
—6% Other Christian
40% No religion
5% Islam
3% Other
1% Undeclared

91% of French people are either secular or Christian.

Singapore has more than double the concentration of Muslims than France, despite this, they are one of the most harmonious societies in the world. It is not an accident, but rather because of deliberate social engineering by the government to maintain racial, ethnic, and religious harmony.

Wow, thanks for helping me realize.

[Albrenia]

I mean, since in most nations in the West we have a large amount of different religions living together, one must learn to live with others not respecting one's faith. It's not an excuse to hurt anyone, and usually not even an excuse to be mildly annoyed at the people.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

That, however, would mean the alteration of the very foundation of the modern French nation. There's a reason why blasphemy against Christianity, etc. isn't punished in France. Religion, all religion, conform to the nation and not the other way around. I mean, if they want to do it, sure, but I don't think they will.

The way I see it, they've got three choices:

1. Continue with the status quo.

2. Change laws to protect religious harmony at the necessary cost of restricting freedom of expression, along with enacting the death penalty for murderers. This would please Muslims and even some Christians by prohibiting people from disparaging their religion publicly (including other religious groups). The death penalty would give the public a sense of justice for extremists who feel the aforementioned concessions are not enough and commit murder anyway.

3. Change laws to assimilate Muslims into the greater whole and or pass anti-Muslim laws that exclude them from French society.

The status quo is not working. 2 is pragmatic, but would require France to depart from its secular liberal norm. 3 might be popular, but will only inflame tensions even more. I'm guessing the first option will continue until the majority becomes impatient enough to elect a radical right-wing government to do the third option. The second option would be best in my opinion. Singapore maintains its religious harmony by using a similar strategy to 2.

2. Restricting freedom of expression is least justified for religion. Religions claim all sorts of subjects that should still be in the realm of political speech.

How about restricting on the basis of intent? The law is sufficient to determine the intent of speech, beyond a reasonable doubt. So just pass a law against "speech primarily intended to anger or offend" ... the Charlie Hebdo stuff probably wouldn't pass that bar, and some scenes in movies would be in trouble too ... and take some hints from what works for online platforms. No more trolling.

[Albrenia]

How about restricting on the basis of intent? The law is sufficient to determine the intent of speech, beyond a reasonable doubt. So just pass a law against "speech primarily intended to anger or offend" ... the Charlie Hebdo stuff probably wouldn't pass that bar, and some scenes in movies would be in trouble too ... and take some hints from what works for online platforms. No more trolling.

I really don't like the idea of restricting speech just to prevent offense. As much as I find the 'offense is taken not given' crowd to usually be a bunch of assholes wanting to be bigots, I'm also not one for punishing speech by law unless it's a direct threat.

It's on Muslims in this case to live with people printing pictures of their Prophet. People who do it just to offend them are generally assholes, and it's fine to call them out for that.

[Dolgo]

How about restricting on the basis of intent? The law is sufficient to determine the intent of speech, beyond a reasonable doubt. So just pass a law against "speech primarily intended to anger or offend" ... the Charlie Hebdo stuff probably wouldn't pass that bar, and some scenes in movies would be in trouble too ... and take some hints from what works for online platforms. No more trolling.

I really don't like the idea of restricting speech just to prevent offense. As much as I find the 'offense is taken not given' crowd to usually be a bunch of assholes wanting to be bigots, I'm also not one for punishing speech by law unless it's a direct threat.

It's on Muslims in this case to live with people printing pictures of their Prophet. People who do it just to offend them are generally assholes, and it's fine to call them out for that.

In a perfect world, people would chillax and have a sense of humour, but we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world with a great deal of religious diversity. Some of which includes religious extremists. Unless you're going to exclude it from France (hard to do without excluding a bunch of people who are not extremists), the nation must adapt. If it doesn't, then it must accept the state of disharmony as a consequence for permitting laissez faire communication on religious topics.

You can't have your cake (have the freedom) and eat it (have the harmony) too. Unfortunate as it is, that is the reality. Like I said, either you accept the status quo, enact restrictions on speech to ensure religious harmony, or exclude Muslims from French society. Neither option is ideal, but the second is the least worst. You can have order, at the very small price (in my view) of not publishing in the media egregiously offensive material that harms religious harmony.

Singapore faced severe rioting in its early past, the only way the government put a stop to that was restricting how people can communicate to one another. There is no other way.

[Kowani]

He decapitated him on the street with a knife?
fucking rambo

[Albrenia]

I really don't like the idea of restricting speech just to prevent offense. As much as I find the 'offense is taken not given' crowd to usually be a bunch of assholes wanting to be bigots, I'm also not one for punishing speech by law unless it's a direct threat.

It's on Muslims in this case to live with people printing pictures of their Prophet. People who do it just to offend them are generally assholes, and it's fine to call them out for that.

In a perfect world, people would chillax and have a sense of humour, but we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world with a great deal of religious diversity. Some of which includes religious extremists. Unless you're going to exclude it from France (hard to do without excluding a bunch of people who are not extremists), the nation must adapt. If it doesn't, then it must accept the state of disharmony as a consequence for permitting laissez faire communication on religious topics.

You can't have your cake (have the freedom) and eat it (have the harmony) too. Unfortunate as it is, that is the reality. Like I said, either you accept the status quo, enact restrictions on speech to ensure religious harmony, or exclude Muslims from French society. Neither option is ideal, but the second is the least worst. You can have order, at the very small price (in my view) of not publishing in the media egregiously offensive material that harms religious harmony.

Singapore faced severe rioting in its early past, the only way the government put a stop to that was restricting how people can communicate to one another. There is no other way.

That seems like a bad road to go down. Maybe not if the extremists are suddenly okay with all the other ways non-believers violate their religion, but I don't see the chances of that being very high.

[Sarderia]

The man asked students that identified with the Muslim faith to step outside knowing it would offend them to show such imagery, I don't feel any disharmony taking place.

Riight? This is paralel to years ago when I'm still in middle school. When the religion teacher was going to teach about why Islam's account of Jesus is right while the Christians' is wrong, she kindly asked the Christians in the room to leave, which they did, and that's that. It was her duty to teach us the materials, yet disharmony is also taken care of.

For the issue to rotate among thr Islamists and eventually triggered the terrorist to act is astounding.

Overall, this attack is just the symptom of a larger problem. Say 2% of the Muslim population in France is radical (which is very generous, considering the recent survey here in Indonesia where 10-15% of the population wants the secular government to be overthrown and replaced by a caliphate, even though we're a secular country whose secularism was enforced by a military dictatorship for 30 years through various anti-Islamist policies). That's still 100.000 out of 5 million. Serious efforts must be made to neutralize this problem.

I think that they are also implementing serious efforts to neutralize these problems. The problem about radicalism - be it religious, or ideological like Communist/Socialist/Anarchist etc. is that they spread like wildfire. It only takes a few moment, perhaps a month or two or three to familiarize people with radical ideals, anything it is. Each government need to devote more resources in combatting these ideologies with ideologies. You can't kill of an idea - you're just creating martyrs for them. We need to fight fire with fire, arguments with arguments - once you prove them wrong it's a house of cards breaking down for the entire radical ideology.