There is an interesting parallel from the paris commune
Press (in the paris commune) From 21 March, the Central Committee of the National Guard banned the major pro-Versailles newspapers, Le Gaulois and Le Figaro. Their offices were invaded and closed by crowds of the Commune's supporters. After 18 April other newspapers sympathetic to Versailles were also closed. The Versailles government, in turn, imposed strict censorship and prohibited any publication in favour of the Commune.
At the same time, the number of pro-Commune newspapers and magazines published in Paris during the Commune expanded exponentially. ... Another highly popular publication was Le Père Duchêne, inspired by a similar paper of the same name published from 1790 until 1794; after its first issue on 6 March, it was briefly closed by General Vinoy, but it reappeared until 23 May. It specialised in humour, vulgarity and extreme abuse against the opponents of the Commune.
Sounds familiar, to that other famous french self claimed "satirical" magazine.
The Paris Commune was a radical socialist, anti-religious, and revolutionary government that ruled Paris from 18 March to 28 May 1871.
The Franco-Prussian War had led to the capture of Emperor Napoleon III in September 1870, the collapse of the Second French Empire, and the beginning of the Third Republic. Because Paris was under siege for four months, the Third Republic moved its capital to Tours. A hotbed of working-class radicalism, Paris was primarily defended during this time by the radical troops of the National Guard rather than regular Army troops. Paris surrendered to the Prussians on 28 January 1871, and in February Adolphe Thiers, the new chief executive of the French national government, signed an armistice with Prussia that disarmed the Army but not the National Guard.
On 18 March, soldiers of the Commune's National Guard killed two French army generals, and the Commune refused to accept the authority of the French government. The Commune governed Paris for two months, until it was suppressed by the regular French Army during "La semaine sanglante" ("The Bloody Week") beginning on 21 May 1871.
Radicalisation of the Paris workers This discontent can be traced to the first worker uprisings, the Canut revolts, in Lyon and Paris in the 1830s A specific demand was that Paris should be self-governing with its own elected council, something enjoyed by smaller French towns but denied to Paris by a national government wary of the capital's unruly populace.
Socialist movements, such as the First International, had been growing in influence with hundreds of societies affiliated to it across France. In early 1867, Parisian employers of bronze-workers attempted to de-unionise their workers. This was defeated by a strike organised by the International. Later in 1867, a public demonstration in Paris was answered by the dissolution of its executive committee and the leadership being fined. Tensions escalated: Internationalists elected a new committee and put forth a more radical programme, the authorities imprisoned their leaders, and a more revolutionary perspective was taken to the International's 1868 Brussels Congress.
The killing of journalist Victor Noir incensed Parisians, and the arrests of journalists critical of the Emperor did nothing to quiet the city. A coup was attempted in early 1870, but tensions eased significantly after the plebiscite in May. The war with Prussia, initiated by Napoleon III in July, was initially met with patriotic fervour.
Religious persecution From the beginning, the Commune had a hostile relationship with the Catholic Church. On 2 April, soon after the Commune was established, it voted a decree accusing the Catholic Church of "complicity in the crimes of the monarchy." The decree declared the separation of church and state, confiscated the state funds allotted to the Church, seized the property of religious congregations, and ordered that Catholic schools cease religious education and become secular.
Over the next seven weeks, some two hundred priests, nuns and monks were arrested, and twenty-six churches were closed to the public. At the urging of the more radical newspapers, National Guard units searched the basements of churches, looking for evidence of alleged sadism and criminal practices. More extreme elements of the National Guard carried out mock religious processions and parodies of religious services.
Early in May, some of the political clubs began to demand the immediate execution of Archbishop Darboy and the other priests in the prison. The Archbishop and a number of priests were executed during Bloody Week, in retaliation for the execution of Commune soldiers by the regular army.
Decree on Hostages Commune leaders responded to the execution of prisoners by the Army by passing a new order on 5 April—the Decree on Hostages.
Under the decree, any person accused of complicity with the Versailles government could be immediately arrested, imprisoned and tried by a special jury of accusation. Those convicted by the jury would become "hostages of the people of Paris."
Article 5 stated, "Every execution of a prisoner of war or of a partisan of the government of the Commune of Paris will be immediately followed by the execution of a triple number of hostages held by virtue of article four." Prisoners of war would be brought before a jury, which would decide if they would be released or held as hostages.
Under the new decree, a number of prominent religious leaders were promptly arrested, including the Abbé Deguerry, the curé of the Madeleine church, and the archbishop of Paris Georges Darboy, who was confined at the Mazas prison.
The National Assembly in Versailles responded to the decree the next day; it passed a law allowing military tribunals to judge and punish suspects within 24 hours. Émile Zola wrote, "Thus we citizens of Paris are placed between two terrible laws; the law of suspects brought back by the Commune and the law on rapid executions which will certainly be approved by the Assembly. They are not fighting with cannon shots, they are slaughtering each other with decrees."
"Bloody Week" It was the final assault by the French Armed Forces that ended the Paris Commune.
21 May: Army enters Paris 22 May: Barricades, first street battles 23 May: Battle for Montmartre; burning of Tuileries Palace 24 May: Burning of Hotel de Ville; executions of Communards, the archbishop and hostages 25 May: Death of Delescluze (the last military leader of the Commune) 26 May: Capture of Place de la Bastille; more executions A contingent of several dozen national guardsmen led by Antoine Clavier, a commissaire and Emile Gois, a colonel of the National Guard, arrived at La Roquette prison and demanded, at gunpoint, the remaining hostages there: ten priests, thirty-five policemen and gendarmes, and two civilians. Arriving at an open yard, they were lined up against a wall and shot in groups of ten. According to Prosper-Olivier Lissagaray, a defender of the Commune, a total of 63 people were executed by the Commune during the bloody week. 27–28 May: Final battles; massacre at Père-Lachaise Cemetery On 28 May, the regular army captured the last remaining positions of the Commune, which offered little resistance. In the morning the regular army captured La Roquette prison and freed the remaining 170 hostages. The army took 1,500 prisoners at the National Guard position on Rue Haxo, and 2,000 more at Derroja, near Père-Lachaise.
There is an interesting parallel from the paris commune
Press (in the paris commune) From 21 March, the Central Committee of the National Guard banned the major pro-Versailles newspapers, Le Gaulois and Le Figaro. Their offices were invaded and closed by crowds of the Commune's supporters. After 18 April other newspapers sympathetic to Versailles were also closed. The Versailles government, in turn, imposed strict censorship and prohibited any publication in favour of the Commune.
At the same time, the number of pro-Commune newspapers and magazines published in Paris during the Commune expanded exponentially. ... Another highly popular publication was Le Père Duchêne, inspired by a similar paper of the same name published from 1790 until 1794; after its first issue on 6 March, it was briefly closed by General Vinoy, but it reappeared until 23 May. It specialised in humour, vulgarity and extreme abuse against the opponents of the Commune.
Sounds familiar, to that other famous french self claimed "satirical" magazine.
The Paris Commune was a radical socialist, anti-religious, and revolutionary government that ruled Paris from 18 March to 28 May 1871.
The Franco-Prussian War had led to the capture of Emperor Napoleon III in September 1870, the collapse of the Second French Empire, and the beginning of the Third Republic. Because Paris was under siege for four months, the Third Republic moved its capital to Tours. A hotbed of working-class radicalism, Paris was primarily defended during this time by the radical troops of the National Guard rather than regular Army troops. Paris surrendered to the Prussians on 28 January 1871, and in February Adolphe Thiers, the new chief executive of the French national government, signed an armistice with Prussia that disarmed the Army but not the National Guard.
On 18 March, soldiers of the Commune's National Guard killed two French army generals, and the Commune refused to accept the authority of the French government. The Commune governed Paris for two months, until it was suppressed by the regular French Army during "La semaine sanglante" ("The Bloody Week") beginning on 21 May 1871.
Radicalisation of the Paris workers This discontent can be traced to the first worker uprisings, the Canut revolts, in Lyon and Paris in the 1830s A specific demand was that Paris should be self-governing with its own elected council, something enjoyed by smaller French towns but denied to Paris by a national government wary of the capital's unruly populace.
Socialist movements, such as the First International, had been growing in influence with hundreds of societies affiliated to it across France. In early 1867, Parisian employers of bronze-workers attempted to de-unionise their workers. This was defeated by a strike organised by the International. Later in 1867, a public demonstration in Paris was answered by the dissolution of its executive committee and the leadership being fined. Tensions escalated: Internationalists elected a new committee and put forth a more radical programme, the authorities imprisoned their leaders, and a more revolutionary perspective was taken to the International's 1868 Brussels Congress.
The killing of journalist Victor Noir incensed Parisians, and the arrests of journalists critical of the Emperor did nothing to quiet the city. A coup was attempted in early 1870, but tensions eased significantly after the plebiscite in May. The war with Prussia, initiated by Napoleon III in July, was initially met with patriotic fervour.
Religious persecution From the beginning, the Commune had a hostile relationship with the Catholic Church. On 2 April, soon after the Commune was established, it voted a decree accusing the Catholic Church of "complicity in the crimes of the monarchy." The decree declared the separation of church and state, confiscated the state funds allotted to the Church, seized the property of religious congregations, and ordered that Catholic schools cease religious education and become secular.
Over the next seven weeks, some two hundred priests, nuns and monks were arrested, and twenty-six churches were closed to the public. At the urging of the more radical newspapers, National Guard units searched the basements of churches, looking for evidence of alleged sadism and criminal practices. More extreme elements of the National Guard carried out mock religious processions and parodies of religious services.
Early in May, some of the political clubs began to demand the immediate execution of Archbishop Darboy and the other priests in the prison. The Archbishop and a number of priests were executed during Bloody Week, in retaliation for the execution of Commune soldiers by the regular army.
Decree on Hostages Commune leaders responded to the execution of prisoners by the Army by passing a new order on 5 April—the Decree on Hostages.
Under the decree, any person accused of complicity with the Versailles government could be immediately arrested, imprisoned and tried by a special jury of accusation. Those convicted by the jury would become "hostages of the people of Paris."
Article 5 stated, "Every execution of a prisoner of war or of a partisan of the government of the Commune of Paris will be immediately followed by the execution of a triple number of hostages held by virtue of article four." Prisoners of war would be brought before a jury, which would decide if they would be released or held as hostages.
Under the new decree, a number of prominent religious leaders were promptly arrested, including the Abbé Deguerry, the curé of the Madeleine church, and the archbishop of Paris Georges Darboy, who was confined at the Mazas prison.
The National Assembly in Versailles responded to the decree the next day; it passed a law allowing military tribunals to judge and punish suspects within 24 hours. Émile Zola wrote, "Thus we citizens of Paris are placed between two terrible laws; the law of suspects brought back by the Commune and the law on rapid executions which will certainly be approved by the Assembly. They are not fighting with cannon shots, they are slaughtering each other with decrees."
"Bloody Week" It was the final assault by the French Armed Forces that ended the Paris Commune.
21 May: Army enters Paris 22 May: Barricades, first street battles 23 May: Battle for Montmartre; burning of Tuileries Palace 24 May: Burning of Hotel de Ville; executions of Communards, the archbishop and hostages 25 May: Death of Delescluze (the last military leader of the Commune) 26 May: Capture of Place de la Bastille; more executions A contingent of several dozen national guardsmen led by Antoine Clavier, a commissaire and Emile Gois, a colonel of the National Guard, arrived at La Roquette prison and demanded, at gunpoint, the remaining hostages there: ten priests, thirty-five policemen and gendarmes, and two civilians. Arriving at an open yard, they were lined up against a wall and shot in groups of ten. According to Prosper-Olivier Lissagaray, a defender of the Commune, a total of 63 people were executed by the Commune during the bloody week. 27–28 May: Final battles; massacre at Père-Lachaise Cemetery On 28 May, the regular army captured the last remaining positions of the Commune, which offered little resistance. In the morning the regular army captured La Roquette prison and freed the remaining 170 hostages. The army took 1,500 prisoners at the National Guard position on Rue Haxo, and 2,000 more at Derroja, near Père-Lachaise.
There was a satirical magazine back then whose writers were guillotined as well? Damn
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:52 am
by Lost Memories
Aureumterra III wrote:There was a satirical magazine back then whose writers were guillotined as well? Damn
There doesn't seem to be mentions of that. But if you want to force a parallel in that sense, there were journalists killed somewhere in there.
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:05 am
by Ors Might
If you’re saying that people shouldn’t be surprised when “disrespecting Islam” gets you decapitated, you are indirectly stating that not only should non-muslims disrespect Islam, they should be actively hostile to it. If Islam is so filled with rapid frothing extremists that non-muslims have to police their behavior around not only Muslims but other non-muslims or be at reasonable risk of being beheaded, then Islam is a threat to non-muslims. That is what you’re implying when you say that people shouldn’t be surprised when non-muslims get killed for not following Islamic laws like not showing depictions of Muhammed.
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:23 am
by Freiheit Reich
What is funny is that Muslims that hate non-Muslims continue to move to non-Islamic nations. I am sure land is cheap in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are wealthy and will likely be happy to open their borders to Muslims from poorer nations. There is plenty of open space for them.
If you hate non-Muslims, please move to a country where your beliefs are acceptable and welcomed like Pakistan, The Maldives, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or Iran.
France and other western nations, please restrict immigration from nations that favor Islam over other religions. Please stop allowing innocent people to die because it feels good to allow people from nations that hate non-Muslims. Before letting immigrants in, ask yourself how they treat religious minorities in their own countries. Also ask if they allow Muslims to change their religion openly in such countries. If the answer is 'no', restrict immigration from there. Rand Paul has the right idea about this. Geert Wilders is another politician with good sense on this issue.
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:27 am
by The Alma Mater
Freiheit Reich wrote:What is funny is that Muslims that hate non-Muslims continue to move to non-Islamic nations. I am sure land is cheap in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are wealthy and will likely be happy to open their borders to Muslims from poorer nations. There is plenty of open space for them.
If you hate non-Muslims, please move to a country where your beliefs are acceptable and welcomed like Pakistan, The Maldives, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or Iran.
France and other western nations, please restrict immigration from nations that favor Islam over other religions. Please stop allowing innocent people to die because it feels good to allow people from nations that hate non-Muslims. Before letting immigrants in, ask yourself how they treat religious minorities in their own countries. Also ask if they allow Muslims to change their religion openly in such countries. If the answer is 'no', restrict immigration from there. Rand Paul has the right idea about this. Geert Wilders is another politician with good sense on this issue.
Was the muslim in question not born and raised in France?
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:27 am
by Trollzyn the Infinite
Reminder that the rule against depicting Muhammad is strictly to prohibit Muslims from turning into idol worshipers and therefor has no bearing on non-believers.
Psychos gonna psycho.
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:40 am
by Glorious Hong Kong
Time to draw even MORE cartoons of Mohammed and burn even MORE copies of the Qur'an, livestreamed the whole world over. Emmanuel Macron should do just that if he wants to send the message that freedom of expression is ABSOLUTE. This is also an attack on French culture and values. When are these entitled terrorist fucks (by which I mean actual terrorists like this piece of shit and not aLl MuSlImS) going to realize that the whole fucking world doesn't revolve around their ego, their god, or their "prophet"? The more they try to murder us, the more cartoons should be published and the more their religion should be trolled, insulted, and mocked to death.
But in the medium term, France could severely restrict Muslim immigration, up to and inclusive of a temporary ban on ALL Muslim immigration along Trump lines while stepping up surveillance of those who show even the slightest hint of radicalization (particularly the youth) and immediately intervening to deprogram them before it is too late, and withdraw from the EU with its porous borders, "human rights" protections and "hate speech" laws that effectively silence legitimate criticism of Islam and protect Muslims and ONLY Muslims from being called out on their theocratic BS like how it is in my country.
In the longer term, Muslim and other recent immigrants should be limited in where in the country they can settle down upon arrival in such a way as to prevent the emergence of ethnic and religious enclaves where voluntary apartheid may continue to be practiced while simultaneously increasing racial, cultural, and religious diversity in previously monocultural neighborhoods and communities and reducing xenophobia and bigotry in the process. They should also be restricted in what schools they can send their kids to, at least for one generation. However, commercial areas, workplaces, and universities should not be subjected to these restrictions, else Chinatown cease to exist and I lose access to my monthly quota of Chinese (and maybe some Indian) food. This will facilitate the rapid integration and economic success of the native-born offspring of immigrants similar to what has happened with Chinese and Korean-Americans without completely killing off their culture and heritage. Native-born descendants of immigrants currently residing in an existing, impoverished, problematic, ethnic enclave should be encouraged to move elsewhere in the country with financial incentives and tax breaks, for instance.
There is an interesting parallel from the paris commune
Press (in the paris commune) From 21 March, the Central Committee of the National Guard banned the major pro-Versailles newspapers, Le Gaulois and Le Figaro. Their offices were invaded and closed by crowds of the Commune's supporters. After 18 April other newspapers sympathetic to Versailles were also closed. The Versailles government, in turn, imposed strict censorship and prohibited any publication in favour of the Commune.
At the same time, the number of pro-Commune newspapers and magazines published in Paris during the Commune expanded exponentially. ... Another highly popular publication was Le Père Duchêne, inspired by a similar paper of the same name published from 1790 until 1794; after its first issue on 6 March, it was briefly closed by General Vinoy, but it reappeared until 23 May. It specialised in humour, vulgarity and extreme abuse against the opponents of the Commune.
Sounds familiar, to that other famous french self claimed "satirical" magazine.
The Paris Commune was a radical socialist, anti-religious, and revolutionary government that ruled Paris from 18 March to 28 May 1871.
The Franco-Prussian War had led to the capture of Emperor Napoleon III in September 1870, the collapse of the Second French Empire, and the beginning of the Third Republic. Because Paris was under siege for four months, the Third Republic moved its capital to Tours. A hotbed of working-class radicalism, Paris was primarily defended during this time by the radical troops of the National Guard rather than regular Army troops. Paris surrendered to the Prussians on 28 January 1871, and in February Adolphe Thiers, the new chief executive of the French national government, signed an armistice with Prussia that disarmed the Army but not the National Guard.
On 18 March, soldiers of the Commune's National Guard killed two French army generals, and the Commune refused to accept the authority of the French government. The Commune governed Paris for two months, until it was suppressed by the regular French Army during "La semaine sanglante" ("The Bloody Week") beginning on 21 May 1871.
Radicalisation of the Paris workers This discontent can be traced to the first worker uprisings, the Canut revolts, in Lyon and Paris in the 1830s A specific demand was that Paris should be self-governing with its own elected council, something enjoyed by smaller French towns but denied to Paris by a national government wary of the capital's unruly populace.
Socialist movements, such as the First International, had been growing in influence with hundreds of societies affiliated to it across France. In early 1867, Parisian employers of bronze-workers attempted to de-unionise their workers. This was defeated by a strike organised by the International. Later in 1867, a public demonstration in Paris was answered by the dissolution of its executive committee and the leadership being fined. Tensions escalated: Internationalists elected a new committee and put forth a more radical programme, the authorities imprisoned their leaders, and a more revolutionary perspective was taken to the International's 1868 Brussels Congress.
The killing of journalist Victor Noir incensed Parisians, and the arrests of journalists critical of the Emperor did nothing to quiet the city. A coup was attempted in early 1870, but tensions eased significantly after the plebiscite in May. The war with Prussia, initiated by Napoleon III in July, was initially met with patriotic fervour.
Religious persecution From the beginning, the Commune had a hostile relationship with the Catholic Church. On 2 April, soon after the Commune was established, it voted a decree accusing the Catholic Church of "complicity in the crimes of the monarchy." The decree declared the separation of church and state, confiscated the state funds allotted to the Church, seized the property of religious congregations, and ordered that Catholic schools cease religious education and become secular.
Over the next seven weeks, some two hundred priests, nuns and monks were arrested, and twenty-six churches were closed to the public. At the urging of the more radical newspapers, National Guard units searched the basements of churches, looking for evidence of alleged sadism and criminal practices. More extreme elements of the National Guard carried out mock religious processions and parodies of religious services.
Early in May, some of the political clubs began to demand the immediate execution of Archbishop Darboy and the other priests in the prison. The Archbishop and a number of priests were executed during Bloody Week, in retaliation for the execution of Commune soldiers by the regular army.
Decree on Hostages Commune leaders responded to the execution of prisoners by the Army by passing a new order on 5 April—the Decree on Hostages.
Under the decree, any person accused of complicity with the Versailles government could be immediately arrested, imprisoned and tried by a special jury of accusation. Those convicted by the jury would become "hostages of the people of Paris."
Article 5 stated, "Every execution of a prisoner of war or of a partisan of the government of the Commune of Paris will be immediately followed by the execution of a triple number of hostages held by virtue of article four." Prisoners of war would be brought before a jury, which would decide if they would be released or held as hostages.
Under the new decree, a number of prominent religious leaders were promptly arrested, including the Abbé Deguerry, the curé of the Madeleine church, and the archbishop of Paris Georges Darboy, who was confined at the Mazas prison.
The National Assembly in Versailles responded to the decree the next day; it passed a law allowing military tribunals to judge and punish suspects within 24 hours. Émile Zola wrote, "Thus we citizens of Paris are placed between two terrible laws; the law of suspects brought back by the Commune and the law on rapid executions which will certainly be approved by the Assembly. They are not fighting with cannon shots, they are slaughtering each other with decrees."
"Bloody Week" It was the final assault by the French Armed Forces that ended the Paris Commune.
21 May: Army enters Paris 22 May: Barricades, first street battles 23 May: Battle for Montmartre; burning of Tuileries Palace 24 May: Burning of Hotel de Ville; executions of Communards, the archbishop and hostages 25 May: Death of Delescluze (the last military leader of the Commune) 26 May: Capture of Place de la Bastille; more executions A contingent of several dozen national guardsmen led by Antoine Clavier, a commissaire and Emile Gois, a colonel of the National Guard, arrived at La Roquette prison and demanded, at gunpoint, the remaining hostages there: ten priests, thirty-five policemen and gendarmes, and two civilians. Arriving at an open yard, they were lined up against a wall and shot in groups of ten. According to Prosper-Olivier Lissagaray, a defender of the Commune, a total of 63 people were executed by the Commune during the bloody week. 27–28 May: Final battles; massacre at Père-Lachaise Cemetery On 28 May, the regular army captured the last remaining positions of the Commune, which offered little resistance. In the morning the regular army captured La Roquette prison and freed the remaining 170 hostages. The army took 1,500 prisoners at the National Guard position on Rue Haxo, and 2,000 more at Derroja, near Père-Lachaise.
There was a satirical magazine back then whose writers were guillotined as well? Damn
Borderlands of Rojava wrote:I remember hearing that numerous muslim youth disrupted the moment of silence held in French schools for the victims of the Bataclan massacre. I also remember reading about a riot that occurred in a mainly Muslim neighborhood in Belgium after said suspects were arrested.
ALso note that these terrorists were walkin around openly in said Belgian community for weeks; with most people there being fully aware of who they were and what they did. On the upside, eventually someone reported their presence to the cops. So there are decent people there.
When the mother of a terrorist along with the rest of his entire family and everyone in the neighborhood praises him as a "martyr", they get no sympathy from me. Behavior such as this is why Israel had the right idea when it decided that the homes of terrorists should be demolished. France (and Belgium) should be more like Israel instead of cucking for extremists.
Freiheit Reich wrote:What is funny is that Muslims that hate non-Muslims continue to move to non-Islamic nations. I am sure land is cheap in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are wealthy and will likely be happy to open their borders to Muslims from poorer nations. There is plenty of open space for them.
If you hate non-Muslims, please move to a country where your beliefs are acceptable and welcomed like Pakistan, The Maldives, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or Iran.
France and other western nations, please restrict immigration from nations that favor Islam over other religions. Please stop allowing innocent people to die because it feels good to allow people from nations that hate non-Muslims. Before letting immigrants in, ask yourself how they treat religious minorities in their own countries. Also ask if they allow Muslims to change their religion openly in such countries. If the answer is 'no', restrict immigration from there. Rand Paul has the right idea about this. Geert Wilders is another politician with good sense on this issue.
Well said, but bear in mind that I'm from a country that favors Islam and regards non-Muslims like myself as inferior despite our superior economic status and the Muslim majority's failure to emulate our success.
Freiheit Reich wrote:What is funny is that Muslims that hate non-Muslims continue to move to non-Islamic nations. I am sure land is cheap in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are wealthy and will likely be happy to open their borders to Muslims from poorer nations. There is plenty of open space for them.
If you hate non-Muslims, please move to a country where your beliefs are acceptable and welcomed like Pakistan, The Maldives, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or Iran.
France and other western nations, please restrict immigration from nations that favor Islam over other religions. Please stop allowing innocent people to die because it feels good to allow people from nations that hate non-Muslims. Before letting immigrants in, ask yourself how they treat religious minorities in their own countries. Also ask if they allow Muslims to change their religion openly in such countries. If the answer is 'no', restrict immigration from there. Rand Paul has the right idea about this. Geert Wilders is another politician with good sense on this issue.
Was the muslim in question not born and raised in France?
Anzorov, a Chechen refugee granted a 10-year residency in France in March, had a record of juvenile delinquency but was unknown to intelligence officials. He ran from the scene after killing Paty, but was chased down and fatally shot by police.
French police brought 10 people in for questioning, including one of Anzorov’s grandparents, his parents and a 17-year-old brother.
Source: New York Post
The suspect was an ingrate who spit on the country that generously took him in with open arms. Like Ilhan Omar.
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:Reminder that the rule against depicting Muhammad is strictly to prohibit Muslims from turning into idol worshipers and therefor has no bearing on non-believers.
Psychos gonna psycho.
But but there is nO cOmPuLsIoN iN IsLaM!
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:43 am
by Lowell Leber
Rebel Fardelshufflestein wrote:I feel like Muslims are starting to make France part of their own. Not in Government, but in Culture. Of course, they have the right, which I respect, but, like everyone, I don't like the Fact VERY FEW, not all, are not reminding themselves this isn't North Africa or Syria, it's France.
What gives not natives an inherent right to change the culture of their host country?
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:48 am
by Aeritai
Look I disagree with Islam, but I don't see how limiting Muslims from immigrating to other countries is going to help.
Other than that this just sounds like collective punishment.
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:50 am
by Trollzyn the Infinite
Aeritai wrote:Look I disagree with Islam, but I don't see how limiting Muslims from immigrating to other countries is going to help.
Other than that this just sounds like collective punishment.
Gotta keep them out, y'know?
It's not about protecting people. It's about being bigoted.
Freiheit Reich wrote:What is funny is that Muslims that hate non-Muslims continue to move to non-Islamic nations. I am sure land is cheap in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are wealthy and will likely be happy to open their borders to Muslims from poorer nations. There is plenty of open space for them.
If you hate non-Muslims, please move to a country where your beliefs are acceptable and welcomed like Pakistan, The Maldives, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or Iran.
France and other western nations, please restrict immigration from nations that favor Islam over other religions. Please stop allowing innocent people to die because it feels good to allow people from nations that hate non-Muslims. Before letting immigrants in, ask yourself how they treat religious minorities in their own countries. Also ask if they allow Muslims to change their religion openly in such countries. If the answer is 'no', restrict immigration from there. Rand Paul has the right idea about this. Geert Wilders is another politician with good sense on this issue.
Was the muslim in question not born and raised in France?
If he was born in France and hates non-Muslims, he can easily move to a country where his beliefs are respected and blasphemy laws will condemn those who insult Muhammad. Besides, the suspect is believed to have been born in Moscow. However, I doubt his beliefs would fit in in Russia either.
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:14 am
by Freiheit Reich
Aeritai wrote:Look I disagree with Islam, but I don't see how limiting Muslims from immigrating to other countries is going to help.
Other than that this just sounds like collective punishment.
Because once they achieve a majority, they will push for shariah law. Look at how 'moderate' Islamic nations are gradually losing their freedoms of religion. Malaysia is one that comes to mind.
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out “infidels,” and move toward a 100% Muslim society, which has been experienced to some degree in:
Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:15 am
by Shofercia
Can't say that I like the direction that France be-heading.
Aeritai wrote:Look I disagree with Islam, but I don't see how limiting Muslims from immigrating to other countries is going to help.
Other than that this just sounds like collective punishment.
Because once they achieve a majority, they will push for shariah law. Look at how 'moderate' Islamic nations are gradually losing their freedoms of religion. Malaysia is one that comes to mind.
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out “infidels,” and move toward a 100% Muslim society, which has been experienced to some degree in:
Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
Do you not know how the spread of religion worked-who am I kidding, of course you don’t.
The Alma Mater wrote: Was the muslim in question not born and raised in France?
If he was born in France and hates non-Muslims, he can easily move to a country where his beliefs are respected and blasphemy laws will condemn those who insult Muhammad. Besides, the suspect is believed to have been born in Moscow. However, I doubt his beliefs would fit in in Russia either.
I always considered "if you do not like it here, leave" to be a cowardly and silly attitude. One should improve, not run away.
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:18 am
by Trollzyn the Infinite
Shofercia wrote:Can't say that I like the direction that France be-heading.
Booooo. Get off the stage!
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:20 am
by -Ocelot-
Shofercia wrote:Can't say that I like the direction that France be-heading.
Doesn't Russia hold hostage an entire nation where Islamism thrives (Chechnya)?
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:20 am
by Insaanistan
Albrenia wrote: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. I don't care if they wiped their ass on a holy text, just get them fired for that sort of thing, you don't get to hurt people over it.
Islamically speaking, you are correct.
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:21 am
by Whitemore
Shofercia wrote:Can't say that I like the direction that France be-heading.
Aeritai wrote:Look I disagree with Islam, but I don't see how limiting Muslims from immigrating to other countries is going to help.
Other than that this just sounds like collective punishment.
Because once they achieve a majority, they will push for shariah law. Look at how 'moderate' Islamic nations are gradually losing their freedoms of religion. Malaysia is one that comes to mind.
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out “infidels,” and move toward a 100% Muslim society, which has been experienced to some degree in:
Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
According to sharīa itself, non-Muslims are not subject to follow it. There is one story of how in one Caliphate, a Christian and Muslim were caught drinking. They put the Muslim and jail and let the Christian go. Why? Christians are allowed to drink.
Albrenia wrote: 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.
Advertisements showing alcohol and women in bikinis will also be very offensive to Muslims. These will also need to be banned to ensure 'harmony.' Next, alcohol and pork will need to be banned to ensure 'harmony.' Extremists will not be happy until the nation is 100% their particular Islamic faith. Do not negotiate with these terrorists. In their eyes they will win. If you cater to their demands, they please Allah. If they die while spreading their faith, they will please Allah and go to Paradise. Better to tell them that if they don't like it, they can move out. Why should true French people (whose families have been in France for over 200 years) have to change to please immigrants and the children/grandchildren of immigrants?
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:39 am