2020 French Terrorist Beheadings and Attacks Thread

[Washington Resistance Army]

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

It's not as hard as you'd think, humans are surprisingly fragile most of the time.

But yeah this isn't shocking, France is gonna keep having these incidents happen for a long time.

[The Restored Danelaw]

And once again, Muslims do something comically shitty in a "this would be a war criminal if anyone other than Muslims did it" (see: KSA's preferred method of execution)... and immediately afterwards, the #Not AllMuslims crowd pops up.

[Kowani]

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

It's not as hard as you'd think, humans are surprisingly fragile most of the time.

Killing someone: relatively easy
Decapitating someone: not very easy
doing it with a knife: added difficulty

But yeah this isn't shocking, France is gonna keep having these incidents happen for a long time.

No, yeah, this.

[Deacarsia]

This is a disgraceful tragedy.

[Dolgo]

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.

A society has got to have the will to pursue self-discipline. If one is unwilling to accept the path of regulation, then they inevitably restrict themselves to the consequences that would otherwise be regulated. No regulation is perfect. When it comes to Muslims in France, they do not feel as social equals. They never will be, but if French society wants more harmony with them, it must train its people to respect different faiths.

Respect goes both ways. In Singapore, no religious group is permitted to harm another. Whether it be atheists against Christians, Christians against Muslims, Muslims against Christians, Buddhists against Muslims... Etc. The law applies equally.

France is already down a bad road, its policies already do not work. It needn't end freedom of expression in its entirety, merely enough to keep religious harmony. Strengthening law and order, along with harsher criminal penalties for violent criminal acts would be very wise too.

[Kyundao]

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.

Japan used option 3 on Christians by forcing them to renounce Christianity under pain of death and they did this by making them step on an image of a crucified Christ. This largely worked as Japan's Christian population was almost extinct by the time Commodore Perry arrived. If absolutely necessary (keywords: absolutely necessary), France could do the same with Muslims, but with an option to leave and never return as an alternative to the death penalty.

We should keep in mind that this isn't Singapore; France was never that diverse to begin with.

[The Restored Danelaw]

Japan used option 3 on Christians by forcing them to renounce Christianity under pain of death and they did this by making them step on an image of a crucified Christ. This largely worked as Japan's Christian population was almost extinct by the time Commodore Perry arrived. If absolutely necessary (keywords: absolutely necessary), France could do the same with Muslims, but with an option to leave and never return as an alternative to the death penalty.

Japan had the benefit of being in complete self-inflicted isolation and being some minor-ass country in the back-end of nowhere that nobody in particular cared about at an age international law didn't exist as it does now. France can't "stop being Muslims or die" its way out of this mess that France itself created in the first place, they're not China.

[Picairn]

Japan had the benefit of being in complete self-inflicted isolation and being some minor-ass country in the back-end of nowhere that nobody in particular cared about at an age international law didn't exist as it does now. France can't "stop being Muslims or die" its way out of this mess that France itself created in the first place, they're not China.

France is surrounded by Britain (its age-old rival), Germany (its old arch-enemy) and kept in check by the US (the world superpower). Can't attempt genocidal shit like that when you are in the central part of Western Europe.

[Senkaku]

And once again, Muslims do something comically shitty in a "this would be a war criminal if anyone other than Muslims did it" (see: KSA's preferred method of execution)... and immediately afterwards, the #Not AllMuslims crowd pops up.

is the counterproposal here to say "#YesAllMuslims" and then start massacring a civilian population on the basis of collective guilt for a "war crime"?

[Aeritai]

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.

Japan used option 3 on Christians by forcing them to renounce Christianity under pain of death and they did this by making them step on an image of a crucified Christ. This largely worked as Japan's Christian population was almost extinct by the time Commodore Perry arrived. If absolutely necessary (keywords: absolutely necessary), France could do the same with Muslims, but with an option to leave and never return as an alternative to the death penalty.

We should keep in mind that this isn't Singapore; France was never that diverse to begin with.

Listen I disagree with Islam, but killing Muslims for not leaving the country sounds pretty fascist to me.

EDIT: Nevermind I read that post wrong, still forcing legal Muslim citizens out of France still sounds fascist to me.

[New Lizhou]

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.

That being said, being offended doesn't excuse one from committing murder, and offending religious feelings is not enough to warrant decapitation. I recommend France reinstate the death penalty, at the very least for murder. The terrorist (the one who committed the decapitation) should be sentenced to the guillotine, provided they are found guilty in a court of law. France must make it clear that assaults against its secular state will not be tolerated.

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. It should also take the threat of Islamic terrorism far more seriously, any ethnic/religious geographic concentration should be broken up and distributed evenly across the population. This will help "dilute" radicalization. At the same time, enact laws that prohibit religions from spreading subversive and anti-government rhetoric, along with any religious group promoting disharmony. Non-citizens promoting disharmony should be deported and anti-social religious organizations should be banned.

Vive la France!

Exactly my stance. Why would you even show something that would offend anyone. Likewise why would you murder someone for it.

[Dolgo]

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.

Japan used option 3 on Christians by forcing them to renounce Christianity under pain of death and they did this by making them step on an image of a crucified Christ. This largely worked as Japan's Christian population was almost extinct by the time Commodore Perry arrived. If absolutely necessary (keywords: absolutely necessary), France could do the same with Muslims, but with an option to leave and never return as an alternative to the death penalty.

We should keep in mind that this isn't Singapore; France was never that diverse to begin with.

Monocultural societies tend to be indeed more stable than multicultural ones as it is easier for people who are more alike to get along than those who are different.

African countries tend to be extremely linguistically diverse and suffer from extreme tribalism. Part of this reason is that differences between people foster misunderstanding... Misunderstandings can build up a lot over time and lead to misunderstanding on top of them.

Regardless of what France once was, what matters most is what it is today, and what it will likely further become in the future. A multicultural society can be stable and peaceful, but it requires firm interculturalism and the rule of law. Singapore is successful in this respect because it does not allow the different groups to divide each other apart. Its laws have been designed to reduce the influence of identity politics.

Don't get me wrong, I am writer myself, so I obviously don't believe in ending freedom of speech in its entirety. However, society needs to be willing to accept some restrictions for the sake of maintaining the peace. You can have a degree of freedom and a degree of control.

Edited: Corrected typo, further future*

[Mexico Superior]

People keep bringing up the death penalty, but capital punishment wouldn't be very helpful. The death penalty wouldn't impact Islamic extremists, because they believe that being killed in Jihad is a free ticket to their paradise. According to their interpretation of Islam, if you die in Jihad your sins are automatically forgiven (I'm probably over simplifying). To be executed by what they see as an anti-Islamic government, for carrying out an act in the name of Allah, would be totally acceptable in their minds. If anything death is preferable to life. If they die as a result of Jihad, they died for Allah, while fighting against the infidel. How is being a martyr, and a guaranteed ticket to paradise a deterrent? They have very little intention of simply going on about their lives after they do something like this. This terrorist was killed by the police of what he believed was an anti-Islamic power, while carrying out an act in the name of Allah. As far as he, and those who believe the same as he does, he is in paradise right now, being rewarded.

Obviously this is not the interpretation of all Muslims, but it is the one many extremists follow.

[The Restored Danelaw]

Japan had the benefit of being in complete self-inflicted isolation and being some minor-ass country in the back-end of nowhere that nobody in particular cared about at an age international law didn't exist as it does now. France can't "stop being Muslims or die" its way out of this mess that France itself created in the first place, they're not China.

France is surrounded by Britain (its age-old rival), Germany (its old arch-enemy) and kept in check by the US (the world superpower). Can't attempt genocidal shit like that when you are in the central part of Western Europe.

Given how close German and French relations are now, I'd hesitate to claim that "old arch-enemy" has continued to be so... but yeah, pretty much. France isn't just gonna commit "convert or die" now.

[The Restored Danelaw]

And once again, Muslims do something comically shitty in a "this would be a war criminal if anyone other than Muslims did it" (see: KSA's preferred method of execution)... and immediately afterwards, the #Not AllMuslims crowd pops up.

is the counterproposal here to say "#YesAllMuslims" and then start massacring a civilian population on the basis of collective guilt for a "war crime"?

Hard yes to the former, but equally hard no to the latter. It'd be pointless, also a crime against humanity iirc.

[Albrenia]

And once again, Muslims do something comically shitty in a "this would be a war criminal if anyone other than Muslims did it" (see: KSA's preferred method of execution)... and immediately afterwards, the #Not AllMuslims crowd pops up.

Why would this murder be a 'war crime'? It's a horrible crime, one which the scum who did it died to police gunfire. So, yeah, maybe back off on the crusade against an argument which isn't being made.

I'm totally against both banning blasphemy or offensive materials, and obviously against forcing the Muslim population out of France or forcing conversion.

[Senkaku]

is the counterproposal here to say "#YesAllMuslims" and then start massacring a civilian population on the basis of collective guilt for a "war crime"?

Hard yes to the former, but equally hard no to the latter. It'd be pointless, also a crime against humanity iirc.

so you've decided to believe that a large number of people are guilty of war crimes but also that punishing them would be pointless and wrong? or, more realistically, is the proposal to simply subject them to every sort of debasement, punishment, and humiliation short of death for their simple identity

[Senkaku]

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.

Japan used option 3 on Christians by forcing them to renounce Christianity under pain of death and they did this by making them step on an image of a crucified Christ. This largely worked as Japan's Christian population was almost extinct by the time Commodore Perry arrived. If absolutely necessary (keywords: absolutely necessary), France could do the same with Muslims, but with an option to leave and never return as an alternative to the death penalty.

We should keep in mind that this isn't Singapore; France was never that diverse to begin with.

yes, telling people to flee the country or face literal medieval torture chambers and execution is certainly one approach to dealing with your country's marginalized populations

[Senkaku]

Japan had the benefit of being in complete self-inflicted isolation and being some minor-ass country in the back-end of nowhere that nobody in particular cared about at an age international law didn't exist as it does now. France can't "stop being Muslims or die" its way out of this mess that France itself created in the first place, they're not China.

France is surrounded by Britain (its age-old rival), Germany (its old arch-enemy) and kept in check by the US (the world superpower). Can't attempt genocidal shit like that when you are in the central part of Western Europe.

Oh look, complacency about genocide ever rearing its head again in the democratic postindustrial West! love to see it; go read up on the Infernal Columns of the Vendee if you want to learn about genocide or religious rebellion in France

[The Restored Danelaw]

Hard yes to the former, but equally hard no to the latter. It'd be pointless, also a crime against humanity iirc.

so you've decided to believe that a large number of people are guilty of war crimes but also that punishing them would be pointless and wrong? or, more realistically, is the proposal to simply subject them to every sort of debasement, punishment, and humiliation short of death for their simple identity

If that's what it takes for shit like "people being decapitated in the street for the great crime of showing a caricature of some guy who died 1400 years ago" to stop? Yes.

[Dolgo]

People keep bringing up the death penalty, but capital punishment wouldn't be very helpful. The death penalty wouldn't impact Islamic extremists, because they believe that being killed in Jihad is a free ticket to their paradise. According to their interpretation of Islam, if you die in Jihad your sins are automatically forgiven (I'm probably over simplifying). To be executed by what they see as an anti-Islamic government, for carrying out an act in the name of Allah, would be totally acceptable in their minds. If anything death is preferable to life. If they die as a result of Jihad, they died for Allah, while fighting against the infidel. How is being a martyr, and a guaranteed ticket to paradise a deterrent? They have very little intention of simply going on about their lives after they do something like this. This terrorist was killed by the police of what he believed was an anti-Islamic power, while carrying out an act in the name of Allah. As far as he, and those who believe the same as he does, he is in paradise right now, being rewarded.

Obviously this is not the interpretation of all Muslims, but it is the one many extremists follow.

The death penalty is not about the perpetrator, nor is it merely about its potential deterring effect. It's about asserting the monopoly of violence that the state (should) hold. In the event a citizen of the state is unlawfully killed, the state must re-assert its power by taking the life of the murderer. This also gives the public a greater sense of justice and sends the message that certain crimes will carry the ultimate punishment.

As for religious extremists, there's no easy way around that. Certainly they would feel like a hero regardless of what was done against them. In the end, their existence cannot be tolerated by society once they commit murder. After being found guilty in a court of law, the just decision of the state is to sentence them to capital punishment.

[Albrenia]

so you've decided to believe that a large number of people are guilty of war crimes but also that punishing them would be pointless and wrong? or, more realistically, is the proposal to simply subject them to every sort of debasement, punishment, and humiliation short of death for their simple identity

If that's what it takes for shit like "people being decapitated in the street for the great crime of showing a caricature of some guy who died 1400 years ago" to stop? Yes.

You'd probably think it unfair if you were exiled for the crimes of people who share a trait with you though, right?

Collective guilt is bullshit.

[The Restored Danelaw]

If that's what it takes for shit like "people being decapitated in the street for the great crime of showing a caricature of some guy who died 1400 years ago" to stop? Yes.

You'd probably think it unfair if you were exiled for the crimes of people who share a trait with you though, right?

Collective guilt is bullshit.

If it was a trait I wasn't able to change, yeah probably.

[Senkaku]

so you've decided to believe that a large number of people are guilty of war crimes but also that punishing them would be pointless and wrong? or, more realistically, is the proposal to simply subject them to every sort of debasement, punishment, and humiliation short of death for their simple identity

If that's what it takes for shit like "people being decapitated in the street for the great crime of showing a caricature of some guy who died 1400 years ago" to stop? Yes.

and as we all know, throughout history it's been proven that collectively holding an entire population responsible and inflicting massively disproportionate punishment on a previously mostly tranquil civilian population through a police force behaving more like an occupying army is a great way to reduce social tension and prevent unrest! this will go well, can't wait to see all the stopping of crime in France your program would bring

[Aeritai]

Well if there is one thing I learned from this thread, is that people are willing to punish innocents for the action of one.

History is repeating itself once again.