2020 French Terrorist Beheadings and Attacks Thread

[Dolgo]

This is illustrative of why I don’t find most of the discussions over the years around these murders useful— unfortunately it seems like the people most upset about them and who want to talk about them the most see them more as an arena to field insane ideas of massive, brutal, bigoted, and totally counterproductive crackdowns against the entire Muslim population of France (who do not, contrary to what seems to be getting taken as default fact by many people in this thread, universally loathe France, French people, secularism, or Christianity)

I actually agree. Nothing is served by attacking Muslims as a whole, since that only serves to punish the innocent along with the guilty, and give the extremists new recruits from disillusioned people.

It is extremism and hate which must be choked out, not Islam, not free speech, and not religious liberty.

How do you propose choking out extremism and hatred without interfering, in some capacity, with Islam, free speech, and or religious liberty?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Such nonsense. The state can imprison you for life, at its own expense. That is a greater demonstration of force than killing you, which any punk with a knife could do. And not trivially, it demonstrates restraint in the use of force.



Your definition of "greater justice" is suspect, and actually rejected by most countries. Particularly most democratic countries! If the people wanted murderers killed by the state, wouldn't democratic countries generally do it? Actually the US is out on a limb here, which I can only explain by philosophical individualism combining with a cultural inclination to make problems go away quickly and simply.

Well there's doing everything as cheaply as possible, and if this was the 1980's I would consider that a sufficient explanation for the US wanting to retain the sociopathic method "use of lethal force against individuals". But it's a quarter century later and you're still for it, despite it being more expensive to the state than life imprisonment.

Australia abolished the death penalty in 1973, and the last execution was in 1967. That moment when a former penal colony which asked for independence without fighting a war, and still has the Queen of England as sovereign ... doesn't need execution to assert its power over the citizens. *smug*



There is an easy way around that. It's to give their children extra support in school, and adapt the school environment for them so they feel welcome, and just for any other kids present to them a model of society which is BETTER and more stimulating and more gratifying to them, than home life. Some kids don't need this, but in my opinion around half of kids in developed nations need and deserve something better than the life their own parents model for them. All of schooling should be re-oriented towards this, and away from formal education: school is a hard-won opportunity for government to model the society which children will have to live in when they leave their parents home. A necessary compromise is to give up standardization: all schools can't be the same, some must be allowed lower formal learning standards, to present a more varied choice to students (or their advocates) and there must also be some third party, a schooling advocate, who gives support to each student in choosing which school or class is best for them. Schools have their own agendas, they would cherry-pick students if they could. Parents and the religious mentors who influence them, also have an agenda, and in far too many cases have a vision of how they want their child to grow up. There needs to be a third party, an advocate for each child, and when we as a society have mastered AI, each child WILL have their own advocate to strengthen their will and knowledge, give trusted advice on life decisions, and grow up alongside each child. Perhaps there will be problems later in life, as people rebel against their childhood AI mentor, but that is a small price to pay for all the trouble we have now with "rites of passage" into adulthood. The future is bright, for individualism AND for social cohesion, and I'm sorry if my rant makes the present seem so dim.

Every problem in human society is caused by bad parenting. And though I'm sure I'd have been a good parent (at least to one child) I am glad I never took that moral risk. Parents, go easy on the religious teaching please! However sure you are of your religion, let your child find their own purpose in life. Extreme religion will force them to fight battles that probably you didn't ever have to, it's no more ethical than press-ganging child soldiers.

Asia, as a whole continent, has the lowest murder rate in the entire world at 2.9. The Americas has a murder rate of 16.3. (source from the UN) I guess the Asians are doing better parenting.

I wouldn't rule that out. However a bigger factor is (random) opportunity. Asians still believe the myth that if you work hard you'll be rich some day. It's probably not that common, but at least the kids don't know that being born poor, only a miracle will ever make them middle class.

If your logic was correct, parents in the Americas should buy canes in the dozens and apply it liberally to discipline their children. Certainly caning has a place, not sure if that place is on a child's bottom, but there is no accident for the low crime rates of many Asian countries... And I significantly doubt it is because they are "compassionate societies" with compassionate parenting styles. Rather the opposite.

I said a "compassionate society" and the context should make it plain that I meant the society the child grows up into (including school) and not the family life of the child.

But you've gone full "family values" about it. I did not attack families. I did not propose anything to make parents into better parents. I spoke only about improving the alternative to home life, which the State already provides.

To which I'll add: meals and supervised recreational time, around the clock. With bunkrooms. If kids don't even want to go home, they don't have to.

Fortunately for the Americas, once we master AI, as you say, every child will have their own equivalent of Commander Data, who will teach the people of the world to respect each other, and happy-ever-after. Why bother with pragmatism, when we can hold out for idealistic utopias.

You missed the point, and consequently didn't lay a finger on it.

Yes, like Commander Data, but one of them for each child, who will be Captain Picard of their own starship.

It's not an utopia. There are obvious issues that will arise, but among them will not be doing dumb crimes and doing time.

Again, you are welcome to believe in such fantasies, but it doesn't apply to reality. Parenting does play a big role, but it isn't the contributor of every problem, or solution. Individualism has been a massive failure for the planet and society, but again, you believe we can have our cake and eat it too. You cannot get a cohesive society if your culture promotes the very opposite. Integration is not done voluntarily. It requires a strong state to force the people, kicking or screaming, to live in harmony.

"Kicking or screaming, into harmony". Is that meant to be an oxymoron?

Your solution to the crime problem seems to be "a more cohesive society by somehow reversing individualism" and with respect, that sounds even more impossible than reforming school to be a bigger influence on children's lives.

I'm talking about something that would take generations, maybe 30 or 40 years. You're talking about something that just happens by magic. Which of those is more "pragmatic"?

It's why as soon as Tito in Yugoslavia died, the whole place went to hell, as without their benevolent dictator, tribalistic groups decided separation was best. And without the Ethnic Integration Policy implemented by Lee Kuan Yew's government in Singapore, there'd be ethnic ghettos there today, just as there is in America, Europe, and countless other regions.

Oh I see. All we need is a strong leader to violently suppress any problems, and it will all be good.

[Albrenia]

I actually agree. Nothing is served by attacking Muslims as a whole, since that only serves to punish the innocent along with the guilty, and give the extremists new recruits from disillusioned people.

It is extremism and hate which must be choked out, not Islam, not free speech, and not religious liberty.

How do you propose choking out extremism and hatred without interfering, in some capacity, with Islam, free speech, and or religious liberty?

Honestly, as I said before, I don't know. There must be moderates in both the Muslim and French communities who know the situation better though and have ideas of ways to bring the two sides closer. I may be naive but I do not believe the only way Muslims and 'local' French can live in the same country without killing each other is by having their rights to criticize one another legally removed.

[Baltenstein]

There is no claiming. If you do something legal and a Muslim decapitates you in public for it -no matter what- you're the victim. And no, it's not wrong to intentionally, or otherwise, disrespect religious figures.

Legality doesn't come into it. Something can be morally wrong and be legal at the same time.

For example, I could walk out onto the street with a loudspeaker and suggest that all LGBT people deserve to be exterminated like vermin. Morally speaking, it's wrong. Legally speaking, it's acceptable, as hate speech laws do not cover anyone outside of race, ethnicity, or national origin where I live.

Is it wrong for people to behead others in the street? Yes. Is it wrong for people to disrespect religious figures? Absolutely.

Erm, no? Why? Outside of the beliefs of their own followers, there is absolutely no innate immunity to criticism/scorn/ridicule for figures like Muhammad, Buddha, Jesus etc, no more than for any other people.
What's next, it's wrong to disrespect political or cultural figures too?

If you want to venerate somebody from thousands of years ago, in your life, go ahead. Since when does everyone else have to do it too?

[Purpelia]

If you are offended by a comic book don't read it. If you are offended by a movie don't watch it. If you are offended by a song don't listen to it.
If you are offended by a society that allows others to enjoy things you are offended by on principal LEAVE.

The text in quotes is not from me. Chill out.

I ain't angry. I was basically adding to the point.

To elaborate a bit. Modern PC culture has produced this idiotic idea that people are entitled to be coddled and live in a world where anything that offends them is expunged from society at gunpoint. This in turn has lead to people developing a tolerance for when religious extremists demand pretty much the same thing. I mean, let's be real here. The only difference between what happened here and what the various SJW groups are demanding across the west is that the SJW don't tend to actually go and chop peoples heads of. But functionally the demand is the same "Society should follow my morals, my likes and dislikes and ban anything that offends me."

And the one and only answer to that is to stamp your foot down and say NO. Society must not bend to your or anyone elses likes and dislikes. Society must maintain freedom as a principal. And if that means people get offended excellent. That means the system is working. And it's extremely dangerous to wait until someones head get cut off to act or to only target those groups that get too much out of line because that means allowing the very foundation of freedom built up over centuries of human civilization to degrade.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

How do you propose choking out extremism and hatred without interfering, in some capacity, with Islam, free speech, and or religious liberty?

Honestly, as I said before, I don't know. There must be moderates in both the Muslim and French communities who know the situation better though and have ideas of ways to bring the two sides closer. I may be naive but I do not believe the only way Muslims and 'local' French can live in the same country without killing each other is by having their rights to criticize one another legally removed.

How about "religion is like sex, you have the right to do it but not in public" ..?

Then offending against anyone in any way because of their religion, would be an invasion of privacy, also obscene, and suitable laws that consider community standards, written against that.

I would rule out the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, tho.

[Vassenor]

The text in quotes is not from me. Chill out.

I ain't angry. I was basically adding to the point.

To elaborate a bit. Modern PC culture has produced this idiotic idea that people are entitled to be coddled and live in a world where anything that offends them is expunged from society at gunpoint. This in turn has lead to people developing a tolerance for when religious extremists demand pretty much the same thing. I mean, let's be real here. The only difference between what happened here and what the various SJW groups are demanding across the west is that the SJW don't tend to actually go and chop peoples heads of. But functionally the demand is the same "Society should follow my morals, my likes and dislikes and ban anything that offends me."

And the one and only answer to that is to stamp your foot down and say NO. Society must not bend to your or anyone elses likes and dislikes. Society must maintain freedom as a principal. And if that means people get offended excellent. That means the system is working. And it's extremely dangerous to wait until someones head get cut off to act or to only target those groups that get too much out of line because that means allowing the very foundation of freedom built up over centuries of human civilization to degrade.

I mean you lost me when you started moaning about SJWs like the term actually means something. The fact that very little of your initial premise has any connection to what's going on in the real world as opposed to what conservative pundits want you to believe is just sauce for the goose.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The text in quotes is not from me. Chill out.

I ain't angry. I was basically adding to the point.

To elaborate a bit. Modern PC culture has produced this idiotic idea that people are entitled to be coddled and live in a world where anything that offends them is expunged from society at gunpoint. This in turn has lead to people developing a tolerance for when religious extremists demand pretty much the same thing. I mean, let's be real here. The only difference between what happened here and what the various SJW groups are demanding across the west is that the SJW don't tend to actually go and chop peoples heads of. But functionally the demand is the same "Society should follow my morals, my likes and dislikes and ban anything that offends me."

And the one and only answer to that is to stamp your foot down and say NO. Society must not bend to your or anyone elses likes and dislikes. Society must maintain freedom as a principal. And if that means people get offended excellent. That means the system is working. And it's extremely dangerous to wait until someones head get cut off to act or to only target those groups that get too much out of line because that means allowing the very foundation of freedom built up over centuries of human civilization to degrade.

*posts child porn*

[Purpelia]

I mean you lost me when you started moaning about SJWs like the term actually means something. The fact that very little of your initial premise has any connection to what's going on in the real world as opposed to what conservative pundits want you to believe is just sauce for the goose.

That's the problem really. People don't see that in both cases of extreme SJW and extreme religious nuts and extreme communists, nazis, or anyone else the narrative is the same. "I hold these views to be sacrosanct. Therefore I demand you all bow down to them and ban anything that violates them." There is no fundamental difference in the thought process. The only difference is that lately Muslims have been the ones throwing bombs and killing people as opposed to the usual crowd like anarchists, ultranationalists etc.

[Vassenor]

I mean you lost me when you started moaning about SJWs like the term actually means something. The fact that very little of your initial premise has any connection to what's going on in the real world as opposed to what conservative pundits want you to believe is just sauce for the goose.

That's the problem really. People don't see that in both cases of extreme SJW and extreme religious nuts and extreme communists, nazis, or anyone else the narrative is the same. "I hold these views to be sacrosanct. Therefore I demand you all bow down to them and ban anything that violates them." There is no fundamental difference in the thought process. The only difference is that lately Muslims have been the ones throwing bombs and killing people as opposed to the usual crowd like anarchists, ultranationalists etc.

Or you're just angry that people won't treat the extremist wing as the representative one.

[Purpelia]

That's the problem really. People don't see that in both cases of extreme SJW and extreme religious nuts and extreme communists, nazis, or anyone else the narrative is the same. "I hold these views to be sacrosanct. Therefore I demand you all bow down to them and ban anything that violates them." There is no fundamental difference in the thought process. The only difference is that lately Muslims have been the ones throwing bombs and killing people as opposed to the usual crowd like anarchists, ultranationalists etc.

Or you're just angry that people won't treat the extremist wing as the representative one.

No, I am saying that if the rest of any group, be they left, right, center, religious, atheist, hetero or homosexual etc. are to have a happy life in a free society we must stop indulging their extremist counterparts. I mean, do you genuinely think that the average French Muslim wants this sort of crap laid at his feet either? And do you think they would cry out over the oppression of doing something (as long as it's not idiotic and deliberately badly executed) over dealing with it so that they don't have to live with these sorts of people too? That's part of the point here.

[Vassenor]

Or you're just angry that people won't treat the extremist wing as the representative one.

No, I am saying that if the rest of any group, be they left, right, center, religious, atheist, hetero or homosexual etc. are to have a happy life in a free society we must stop indulging their extremist counterparts. I mean, do you genuinely think that the average French Muslim wants this sort of crap laid at his feet either? And do you think they would cry out over the oppression of doing something (as long as it's not idiotic and deliberately badly executed) over dealing with it so that they don't have to live with these sorts of people too? That's part of the point here.

And who is actually doing said accommodating?

[The Restored Danelaw]

No, I am saying that if the rest of any group, be they left, right, center, religious, atheist, hetero or homosexual etc. are to have a happy life in a free society we must stop indulging their extremist counterparts. I mean, do you genuinely think that the average French Muslim wants this sort of crap laid at his feet either? And do you think they would cry out over the oppression of doing something (as long as it's not idiotic and deliberately badly executed) over dealing with it so that they don't have to live with these sorts of people too? That's part of the point here.

And who is actually doing said accommodating?

Literally everyone else is accommodating the Muslims. Any other questions?

[Dolgo]

The text in quotes is not from me. Chill out.

I ain't angry. I was basically adding to the point.

To elaborate a bit. Modern PC culture has produced this idiotic idea that people are entitled to be coddled and live in a world where anything that offends them is expunged from society at gunpoint. This in turn has lead to people developing a tolerance for when religious extremists demand pretty much the same thing. I mean, let's be real here. The only difference between what happened here and what the various SJW groups are demanding across the west is that the SJW don't tend to actually go and chop peoples heads of. But functionally the demand is the same "Society should follow my morals, my likes and dislikes and ban anything that offends me."

And the one and only answer to that is to stamp your foot down and say NO. Society must not bend to your or anyone elses likes and dislikes. Society must maintain freedom as a principal. And if that means people get offended excellent. That means the system is working. And it's extremely dangerous to wait until someones head get cut off to act or to only target those groups that get too much out of line because that means allowing the very foundation of freedom built up over centuries of human civilization to degrade.

"Modern PC culture" is a twin of modern conservative culture: freedom for me, but not for thee. The inconvenient truth is that everyone needs regulation, including you and me. Civilization is degrading because of individualism. We cannot survive if individual rights are placed above everything else. Laissez faire is destroying the environment and the social fabric by eroding the institution of public decency in the name of the supremacy of the individual.

What "Modern PC culture" actually is:

So, yes, speech requires regulation. It doesn't mean there is no freedom, it just means freedom has limits. And these limits must be applied for everyone. Laws are the price we pay for civilization. Laws that restrict oneself, that command oneself to adhere to the social contract.

[Purpelia]

No, I am saying that if the rest of any group, be they left, right, center, religious, atheist, hetero or homosexual etc. are to have a happy life in a free society we must stop indulging their extremist counterparts. I mean, do you genuinely think that the average French Muslim wants this sort of crap laid at his feet either? And do you think they would cry out over the oppression of doing something (as long as it's not idiotic and deliberately badly executed) over dealing with it so that they don't have to live with these sorts of people too? That's part of the point here.

And who is actually doing said accommodating?

The society that accepts their rhetoric and creates laws to accommodate them. Seriously, this is not difficult. And I have no interest in holding your hand on it. It's just basic old school liberalism. Equality means that there are no unequals, no group is protected from being offended and no group gets special protections, rights or privileges. And anyone who demands them for any reason is shouted down on principal. Anything else and you allow every extremist everywhere to demand the same for their group or rather the group they fraudulently claim to represent.

[Resilient Acceleration]

This is illustrative of why I don’t find most of the discussions over the years around these murders useful— unfortunately it seems like the people most upset about them and who want to talk about them the most see them more as an arena to field insane ideas of massive, brutal, bigoted, and totally counterproductive crackdowns against the entire Muslim population of France (who do not, contrary to what seems to be getting taken as default fact by many people in this thread, universally loathe France, French people, secularism, or Christianity)

I actually agree. Nothing is served by attacking Muslims as a whole, since that only serves to punish the innocent along with the guilty, and give the extremists new recruits from disillusioned people.

It is extremism and hate which must be choked out, not Islam, not free speech, and not religious liberty.

That being said, there is very little question that Islam itself, as is understood today, is problematic. The religion's opinion of homosexuals is a clear indicator. These cases can't simply be justified away as "extremism and hate" while separating Islam from it:

On 2 December 2015, in response to Union finance minister Arun Jaitley's statements in support of decriminalization of homosexuality, in India, Azam Khan, a politician of the Samajwadi Party, reportedly made homophobic remarks, labelling RSS members homosexuals because they don't marry. The next day, Kamlesh Tiwari retaliated to Azam Khan's statement and called Muhammad the first homosexual in the world.

About one lakh (hundred thousand) Muslims protested in Muzaffarnagar and demanded death penalty for Tiwari, (Death Penalty is only reserved in India for the 'rarest of rare' crimes,) with some demanding that he be 'beheaded' for 'insulting' Muhammad. Tiwari was arrested in Lucknow on 3 December 2015 by Uttar Pradesh Police. Protest rallies against his statement were held by several Islamic groups in other parts of India, most of them demanding a death penalty. He spent one year in Jail.

Junaid Hafeez, a university lecturer in Pakistan, had been imprisoned for six years when he was sentenced to death in December 2019. The charge: blasphemy, specifically insulting Prophet Muhammad on Facebook.

Pakistan has the world’s second strictest blasphemy laws after Iran, according to U.S. Commision on International Religious Freedom.

Hafeez, whose death sentence is under appeal, is one of about 1,500 Pakistanis charged with blasphemy, or sacrilegious speech, over the last three decades. No executions have taken place.

But since 1990 70 people have been murdered by mobs and vigilantes who accused them of insulting Islam. Several people who defend the accused have been killed, too, including one of Hafeez’s lawyers and two high-level politicians who publicly opposed the death sentence of Asia Bibi, a Christian woman convicted for verbally insulting Prophet Muhammad. Though Bibi was acquitted in 2019, she fled Pakistan.

It is worth pointing out that Christianity used to look more Islamist radicalism like this rather than today's western secularism. Inquisition and heretic burning and whatnot. Yet within a few centuries, the wicked teachings has been stamped out, the religion heavily reformed, and now anyone can safely criticize the religion in a positive discussion without 100.000 angry Christians demanding them to be sentenced to death.

Islam as it stands today needs to be totally re-engineered and reinterpreted the fuck out of its barbarism – not only the Islamists, but the conservatives too. Bad teachings, bad institutions, and bad leaders should be heavily deflated while more liberal, modern teachings must be supported. Parallel societies cannot be allowed to exist.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

People who use religion as an excuse to commit atrocities generally try to be as dramatic about it as possible. The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, 9/11, and for what?

The...9/11?

If you are questioning whether the World Trade Center attacks (and the Pwntagon) were religiously motivated ... yeah, it's a valid question. On the one hand, the hijackers were mostly Saudi religious nutters. On the other hand, Osama himself said it was revenge for Israeli attacks on Palestinians particularly in Gaza. I struggle with this, because it's hard to take the word of a mass-murderer. But why would he lie, knowing that the US would "dig its own grave" in an Arab country? But then, if we're going to credit Al Qaida with provoking the Afghanistan and Iraq invasion, why would he tell the truth to lessen that? If it's not clear in retrospect, it couldn't possibly have been clear to him then, so I conclude that he probably told the truth.

[North American Imperial State]

SNIP

Yer No, looking at you Sig and what you have posted noone cares what you have got to say.
Wanna be a troll, go to a different site.

[Vassenor]

I actually agree. Nothing is served by attacking Muslims as a whole, since that only serves to punish the innocent along with the guilty, and give the extremists new recruits from disillusioned people.

It is extremism and hate which must be choked out, not Islam, not free speech, and not religious liberty.

That being said, there is very little question that Islam itself, as is understood today, is problematic. The religion's opinion of homosexuals is a clear indicator. These cases can't simply be justified away as "extremism and hate" while separating Islam from it:

On 2 December 2015, in response to Union finance minister Arun Jaitley's statements in support of decriminalization of homosexuality, in India, Azam Khan, a politician of the Samajwadi Party, reportedly made homophobic remarks, labelling RSS members homosexuals because they don't marry. The next day, Kamlesh Tiwari retaliated to Azam Khan's statement and called Muhammad the first homosexual in the world.

About one lakh (hundred thousand) Muslims protested in Muzaffarnagar and demanded death penalty for Tiwari, (Death Penalty is only reserved in India for the 'rarest of rare' crimes,) with some demanding that he be 'beheaded' for 'insulting' Muhammad. Tiwari was arrested in Lucknow on 3 December 2015 by Uttar Pradesh Police. Protest rallies against his statement were held by several Islamic groups in other parts of India, most of them demanding a death penalty. He spent one year in Jail.

Junaid Hafeez, a university lecturer in Pakistan, had been imprisoned for six years when he was sentenced to death in December 2019. The charge: blasphemy, specifically insulting Prophet Muhammad on Facebook.

Pakistan has the world’s second strictest blasphemy laws after Iran, according to U.S. Commision on International Religious Freedom.

Hafeez, whose death sentence is under appeal, is one of about 1,500 Pakistanis charged with blasphemy, or sacrilegious speech, over the last three decades. No executions have taken place.

But since 1990 70 people have been murdered by mobs and vigilantes who accused them of insulting Islam. Several people who defend the accused have been killed, too, including one of Hafeez’s lawyers and two high-level politicians who publicly opposed the death sentence of Asia Bibi, a Christian woman convicted for verbally insulting Prophet Muhammad. Though Bibi was acquitted in 2019, she fled Pakistan.

It is worth pointing out that Christianity used to look more Islamist radicalism like this rather than today's western secularism. Inquisition and heretic burning and whatnot. Yet within a few centuries, the wicked teachings has been stamped out, the religion heavily reformed, and now anyone can safely criticize the religion in a positive discussion without 100.000 angry Christians demanding them to be sentenced to death.

Islam as it stands today needs to be totally re-engineered and reinterpreted the fuck out of its barbarism – not only the Islamists, but the conservatives too. Bad teachings, bad institutions, and bad leaders should be heavily deflated while more liberal, modern teachings must be supported. Parallel societies cannot be allowed to exist.

And yet whenever calls to erode LGBT rights come up, it's conservative Christians demanding it in the name of their religion.

[Resilient Acceleration]

That being said, there is very little question that Islam itself, as is understood today, is problematic. The religion's opinion of homosexuals is a clear indicator. These cases can't simply be justified away as "extremism and hate" while separating Islam from it:



It is worth pointing out that Christianity used to look more Islamist radicalism like this rather than today's western secularism. Inquisition and heretic burning and whatnot. Yet within a few centuries, the wicked teachings has been stamped out, the religion heavily reformed, and now anyone can safely criticize the religion in a positive discussion without 100.000 angry Christians demanding them to be sentenced to death.

Islam as it stands today needs to be totally re-engineered and reinterpreted the fuck out of its barbarism – not only the Islamists, but the conservatives too. Bad teachings, bad institutions, and bad leaders should be heavily deflated while more liberal, modern teachings must be supported. Parallel societies cannot be allowed to exist.

And yet whenever calls to erode LGBT rights come up, it's conservative Christians demanding it in the name of their religion.

I mean, it's obviously still is a problem, though the mosque imam near my dad's office is far more comfortable in advocating for LGBT people to be thrown off the roof than western homophobes. Really, a lot of the difference can be attributed to mere time, as the west modernized and liberalized first.

[North American Imperial State]

Beheaded by a terrorist because he showed a cartoon of Muhammad is horrifying.
Did he do anything wrong by showing them, no he didn't.

All these Islamic extremists are doing is harming multicultural relations that normal muslims just want to be apart of and also gives fuel for the far-fight extremists to bring out their bigots heads out.

[Dolgo]

It's why as soon as Tito in Yugoslavia died, the whole place went to hell, as without their benevolent dictator, tribalistic groups decided separation was best. And without the Ethnic Integration Policy implemented by Lee Kuan Yew's government in Singapore, there'd be ethnic ghettos there today, just as there is in America, Europe, and countless other regions.

Oh I see. All we need is a strong leader to violently suppress any problems, and it will all be good.

Yes.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Oh I see. All we need is a strong leader to violently suppress any problems, and it will all be good.

Yes.

I can't believe I'm having this conversation.

OK, is there a 'strong leader' currently that you admire?

[Duraludon]

It's truly horrible.

[Australian rePublic]

Not again. Poor France!