Teacher beheaded in Paris suburb after showing cartoons of Prophet Mohammed to class

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Space_Time, Oct 16, 2020.

  1. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Really? In the UK people have found thermselves arrested for looking up material they needed for their exams. Iman's have complained that given they are not allowed to speak about Jihad, they cannot teach the young what it really is and hence put them off going off to join ISIS and so on. Certainly in the UK they have had their ability to speak curtailed. Why do you believe that Christians and Jews do not come out with outrageous things and that it is only Muslims?
    I agree with you that a murder is a murder. I do not agree with you in targeting Islam or all Muslims with the actions of the murderer. The line draws exactly there. Stereotyping all people of a particular group with a negative characteristic which one or a particular minority has is the bases of racism.

    so do you believe in the above. You also need to be careful not to give others the feeling that they can be a copy cat. We certainly found that when we had our terrorism in and from Ireland. Calling them all dreadful things, grouping them all together creates an us and them which is very likely to make 'them' much more strong as they fight back after the attacks they will receive every time someone who carries around the identity of Islam misuses it. In the two weeks after 9/11 British Muslims who had nothing to do with it were subject to over 200 attacks on their person and on their property.

    I don't see where your problem is here. Sharia is a type of law which people in a country going by it are obliged to follow. We also have laws we are obliged to follow. Sharia had changed throughout time to be appropriate for that time. I am guessing you are thinking of Sharia Law brought in by the States which call themselves Islam theocracy - not sure if that is the word. There they have gone back in time. It is interesting that Muhhamed did not support stoning people. That was what Christians and Jews got up to and Islam then copied them. I have zero support for these kinds of Islam and I never have. Here is what appears to have happened. The States got friendly with Saudi Arabia wanting their oil and one of the things they were allowed to do was to spread their 'wahhabi' religion far and wide. This was the sort of Islam they were teaching refugee children when they were using such people to fight the war in Afghanistan. There were democratic minded Afghans who had been fighting and supported by the US before but when many were let out of Arab jails, they were in for being religiously fanatic, - they were let out to fight in Afghanistan, the hope being that most would die. The US then started supporting them instread of the Democratic minded Afghans. Abdul Haq one of the best warriers and well respected in Afghanistan told the US what these people were like. He even learned English just so that he could do that. He said they put Muslim against Muslim and were, as they were, fanatic and asked the US to stop supporting them. I think he did this three times till it dawned on him that the CIA already knew this and they were deliberately funding and training them against all others because they knew that the democratic minded ones would make peace as soon as was possible whereas the fanatic ones would go on and on fighting. The US's motivation was apparently to bankrupt the USSR so they just wanted the ones who would carry on for long enough to do that. Interesting Bin Laden, apparently claimed he did it because he knew how the US would react and he wanted to bankrupt them. If he could have any idea of the number of deaths and injuries and hell this would cause, he no doubt is in Islam hell now ;)

    Of course but I do not think that this was what Islam was like before the Sauds and the US helping them bring that around the world and still is not for most Muslims. The British Government itself allowed the Sauds to come in and give our Muslims an education. The majority of them had previously belonged to a sort of Sufi culture. Their religious eduction was mainly learning to recite something in a language they did not know. Given that they were suffering from a lot of racism, many were drawn to these classes which they found intellectually stimulating and provided friendship and a sense of belonging. Some of them became quite extremist in their thinking and their demands on others. Eventually a British convert to Islam who was a Professor of either Islam or ME studies, went in and spoke to them and explained that what they had been being taught was just a very new kind of Islam. He taught them about Traditional Islam and Suffism and most of them seemed to be moved. His hope was that eventually there would be a UK form of Islam. He hated Wahhabism which seems to be what you are talking about.

    In the ME before the second world war the vast majority of ME Muslims practised Suffism to some extent. In that way Islam is different to some religions, it deals with looking inward and changing yourself. This of course is not true about the Islam you are speaking of. If people want to have an Islamic State that really should be up to them. I hear Christianity was well involved in early western democracy. John Keane, Professor of Politics at Sydney University believes that Islam probably had the first form of Democracy - before the Greeks. Again I think the problem is that our societies have wrongly believed that Saudi Wahhabism is Islam when it has only been around for about 200 years. I cannot remember what this was called but there was a paper brought out when the US was going into Iraq - with the intent of getting them off Islam and into 'democracy'. They had apparently taken the ideas from Bernard Lewis and his view of what happened in Turkey and believed that they had to viciously destroy them to give them the idea they could not survive with Islam. I think the paper was by Michael Hirst but I still cannot find it. He believed the US planners of that war were thinking from the wrong place. They it seems believed that Wahhabism was the religion that most Muslims went by whereas most belonged to older more stable schools like Traditional Islam. He believed that if they started reaching out to these Muslims then they would be able to find a way towards a healthy democracy but while they believed all Muslims were like terrorists and Wahhabism and treated them as such, it would end up as it did.

    I just found the paper but it will not copy and paste. Look for Bernard Lewis Revisited by Michael Hirst.

    In the ME before the second world war the vast majority of ME Muslims practised Sufism at least as part of their practice of Islam. That means that unlike some religions like for instance Wahhabis, they worked on themselves from within. That is what Buddhism does. May call things by different names but genuinely spirituality is basically the same and this is not about dogmatism.

    Of course most Muslims are not terrorists and have the same dangers from them as everyone else. In the UK when there is a terrorist attack there is many many attacks on Muslims - usually women for some reason. I think the Westminster Government helps this by blaming it on 'Muslims'. In Scotland while expressing horror at the event our Government warns that extra police will be out and if any one tries to take this out on our Muslims there will be serious consequenses. Very few of our Muslims are attracted to terrorism. They say they feel they have a good relationship with our Government and Police which seems to help them to feel they belong. If you take out war against Muslims in general then there will be a comeback. I heard last night that Macron who earlier correctly said that French Muslims had not been given the same chances as other French people, including being put in poor housing, was saying a couple of days ago that he was going to 'behead' Muslims organisations. This was because ofone man who committed this murder and he is dead. To blame it as it appears on all Muslims first of all tells French people it is correct to hate Muslims that they are not decent people. It could build up to much more terrorist like activity from Muslims in France. It could also result In Muslims in France finding themselves in a similar position to what Jews found themselves in in Germany after WW1. It is not impossible that what VotreAltresse talks about France being on the edge of civil war could be right. At a guess between those who want to harm all Muslims and those who find that idea abhorent.


    The US has a massive responsibility for the development of extremist Islam from Afghanistan and of course with what it has been up to in the ME these last almost 20 years. It appears to be for Israel. Have you heard of Clean Break?
    https://medium.com/dan-sanchez/clean-break-to-dirty-wars-d5ebc5fda9f9[/QUOTE]

    (I have had nighmares with this, deleting itself and copying itself. I need to leave it now and hope all is answered and only once!)
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2020
  2. Goomba

    Goomba Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    10,717
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I agree, they must, but “people” shouldn’t readily assume that certain actions won’t have affects on a supernatural and cosmic level, hence the misunderstanding in all of this.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2020
  3. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think you may have misread the first part - most likely my lack of ability to write clearly rather than your reading ability :)

    With most the rest you are preaching to the choir. Most of the problem is the media and the our Gov't .. idiots like Trump do not help.

    Remember when we had the row over the use of the term "Islamic Terrorism" - It is correct to call out this term as a massive generalization - for the reasons discussed - one that should not be used by the Media and others .. as a whole lot of people are unfairly targeted.

    What the Media didn't do is correct the term - and educated the public on why this is the right term. The correct term is "Radical Islamist Terrorism" - and if you really wanted to be correct .. Saudi inspired - radical Islamist Terrorism.

    This should be followed by discussion of A) what an Islamist Is and B) that not all Islamists are the Saudi inspired radical kind.

    I disagree with you 100% on Sharia. There is a difference between 1) having a religious belief - and 2) forcing that belief on others through Law. There is also a difference between Laws which serve as protection from direct harm (rape, murder, theft) and laws which curtail essential liberty.

    We do not have a theocracy -and 2 ) The Gov't has no legitimate authority to mess with essential liberty - of its own volition - Period .. never mind doing so on the basis of religious belief.

    Sharia is 1) Evil and 2) in violation of at least some of the teachings of the Prophet.

    Last - I agree completely that it is the US and its allies that created this problem - and together have done far worse that these bands of terrorists. Arming these terrorists with tens of thousands of tons of sophisticated military equipment is not the solution to the problem.
     
  4. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Yes I did wonder if I had read the first bit wrong after I read the next.

    My best knowledge of it is some paper I found on it some time ago which was on how Sharia Law was then (prior to Colonialism when the Sauds did not have any influence). It said that throughout history it had changed in order to be able to properly address the situation of the time. It made a big deal of how it was used to end disputes.

    Sharia Law as practiced by the Saud's takes it back to some concept of what they believe it was like at the beginning. I do not know what it was like then but I have heard that Muhhamed was light on punishment compared to that given by Jews and Christians of the time and he would have liked to be even more lenient but he had to take into account the reactions of those around him - that you have to move at a certain pace when you are changing people's minds.

    My understanding is that Sharia Law is not static. Like I said it had changed throughout its time. I would have thought it would vary depending on who was in charge of it. If this came from the position of the Sauds and even to the best of my knowledge Iran, then it would be using dated/fierce punishments. If it came from Traditionalists or others it likely would be more like it apparently was before colonialisation.

    So my understanding is that Sharia Law can be extremely just and can help people avoid violence and what I read gave me the idea that this is where the line about Islam being the religion of peace came from. I read that through careful mediation these courts were able to calm down what could otherwise have turned very violent. That is what I read it was like prior to Colonialism. I accept that in a country where there are people of different religions it would not be suitable to them which is why Muhhamed allowed each religion to take care of their own matters which on things like family issues ought not to be a problem now.

    Now on a much lighter note.

    Our Muslims are allowed to use Sharia Law povided it does not go against British Law. This is mainly to do with family matters, divorce, inheritence etc. We already allowed Jews their Beth Din courts so it was just giving them equal rights.

    This article talking about the extremist worry about such courts in the US makes this point
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/f...nned-under-a-1952-immigration-law/ar-BB18f0J9

    In addition each person has the right to go by either British Law or Sharia or Beth Din. Of course you could have someone feeling or indeed being forced to go for the religious one when they wanted to go by the British and if so people would need to be there but I see no problem in the right as stated, nothing evil in the arrangement. In reality in Western Countries it would (unless behind the scenes pressure) only be done by people who agree with it. I think most of the countries who have brought in Sharia since WW2 have possibly brought in the Saudi or Iranian and what not type but that is of course an extremist form of Sharia and although I would not be supporting going in to destroy these places to get them acting properly, it certainly is to be hoped that this sort of thing changes soon. The Sauds for instance have some Shia women who dared to protest for equal rights in jail possibly facing having their heads chopped off - to give one example. However that does not rule out the possibility of good and just Sharia.

    Very well put.
     
  5. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,278
    Likes Received:
    22,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What happened to that teacher wasn't a supernatural event. It's quite readily explainable.
     
    quiller and scarlet witch like this.
  6. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course sharia is practiced differently in different places - but this does not save it. - and in fact is part of the problem. Anyone can make up anything they want pretty much - new Regime comes in .. straight back to OT Law .. Where we are supposed to kill the whole town if some in that town have taken to worshiping other Gods.

    Or one day .. some religious leader might decide that Cat's are Satanic - inspiring a cat torture and killing spree throughout the land.

    Or one day - they might come after you for some heresy. I wasn't joking about the Cat's .. and I am not Joking about religious law being evil - Theocracy is Evil - and Sharia fits the bill - what is not to hate.

    Folks often confuse law where one is punished for acting out against another person with law dealing with conduct relating to essential liberty .. cant remember the terms .. the Philosophy of Law class I took was many moons ago :)

    but you don't talk about law - and put both these into the same bin . and you kind of did that.

    We all agree that we need to give some authority power - to punish violators of "Protection from Harm" type of crimes .. Murder, Rape, Theft .. cruise missiles .. and so on. Classical Liberalism and Republicanism in complete agreement on this .. Enlightenment thinkers came up with this .. unt basis for the Social Contract.. veir lassee..

    So in the Declaration .. we separate out this law .. from law relating to Essential Liberty .. and these two paths diverge - not talking about the same legal principles as one can be applied to the other .. nope ... sorry .. new species.

    Essential liberty is put 'Above the legitimate authority of Gov't" .. and that is an interesting but lengthy convo you may have heard from me before ..

    Society has advanced .. These ideologies need to be called out for what they are .. perhaps not directly - in your face kind of thing .. but these conversations need to be had ... in a civil way .. as we are having right now.

    During the whole 911 aftermath .. followed by the Iraq war ... followed by the war in Syria .. and a slice of Libya and Yemen on the side..

    MUSLIMS - have been making my argument ... standing up for their Religion - and to do this you need to distinguish between an Islamist - and non Islamist - between an Islamist and an El Saud inspired Islamist.

    If you are some Shia -from Iran - and I have known many from Iran - Persia .. Sure things are not like here - but they are not like the Land of El Saud .. stull it is not good there in many ways....

    but if we are talking terrorism - this global mess .. the head choppers - still running around.. This is all on El Saud .. and the 80 Blood Feud Israel/Palestinian - doesn't count for the OH OHOOHHHOHOH crowd who always run that direction .. is a different situation .. and completely different magnitude .. and unrelated in many ways .. Shia are not going round doing what "Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, the Muhajadeem in all the stans .. chechens and so on the extremists in Pakistan and India Mumbai Bombing."

    ALL share the same Sunni - Salafi - Extremist El Saud inspired Ideology.. -- who are still teaching their children to hate Christians, Jews, and other Muslims that do not share their extremist perspective ...
     
  7. Jeannette

    Jeannette Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    37,994
    Likes Received:
    7,948
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Alexa, I think you should read the New Testament before comparing faiths, because you have some misconceptions of Christianity.
    Do not judge the actions of an individual with the teachings of a faith. Conversion to another faith from Islam is a capital offense, and we have quite a few Saints who became martyrs because they dared to leave Islam. This shouldn't though be a reflection on the average Muslim - who can be very kind hearted. I remember reading about a Crusader in the Holy Land who had suffered a spine injury and was being carried around by a kind hearted Muslim.

    I don't believe Sharia can change, because the directives Mohamed's 'angel' gave him, confirmed to all Muslims the superiority of the Arabic standards of that day and age. This is a cultural supremacism and self love which would be akin to nationalism - and that's a sin in Christianity. A Christian is supposed to strive for perfection of soul in order to unite with the Divine after death, and that requires humility and a stepping out of ones own self and ego.

    As an example, if a Christian robs or murders another, it is a sin regardless of whether that person is a Buddhist, Muslim or what not. In the Quran, Hadith or the Jewish Talmud, I don't believe it's considered wrong if someone lies to a person of a different faith. Because of this, it becomes a worldly political attainment instead of only a faith and an inner perfection.

    That many Muslims believe Christians want to gain politically, and want to laud their faith over others, has to do with projection. They are misinterpreting the commercial actions of Christians with Christianity itself.


    Anyway you can't compare Christianity with the other Abrahamic faiths - even though they follow many of the same moral laws. If some of the laws on murder, robbery etc. have become more equitable universally, it's because of the spread and dominance of Christianity through the Church, missionaries, colonizing, trade, or what not.

    Anyway this is how I see things.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2020
  8. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Again this is about you believing Sharia works as it currently does in States like Saudi Arabia. That is not Sharia. Sharia apparently comes from 4 sources, The Koran, The teaching of Muhhamed, Universal Agreement among scholars and analogy. That is the difference between genuine Sharia and some people wanting to rule others. I believe that Egypt has these scholars who they sometimes ask for their opinion on issues - not often though.


    I know you weren't joking but as I have already said Sharia is not what you think it is. What these States are up to is not Sharia as it is the State and not the group of scholars making their judgenments on the Koran and the teaching of Muhhamed with analogy.

    If we are talking about Sharia Law we would need to include it because most Sharia is apparently about private spiritual practice.

    Here is the BBC on Sharia

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/sharia_1.shtml

    and here is a short video by a man who says though not a Muslim he teaches what Sharia is in the US.

     
  9. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female

    You do not believe some Christians come out with outrageous things. You must be hiding. The US has a great many extremist Christians. I believe it is not impossible it could become a Theocratic State.


    I am not going to answer the rest of this. You have misunderstood what I was saying.
     
  10. Buri

    Buri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,723
    Likes Received:
    6,426
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  11. Esau

    Esau Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    16,714
    Likes Received:
    2,330
    Trophy Points:
    113
    basically this and why frances utter double standards are plain to see.
     
  12. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Religious texts are a bad source for law. Full Stop. Folks can interpret anything they want out of them .. and often do.

    Sharia is exactly what I think it is .. Law made on the basis of "God Says So"

    "God Says So" = really bad justification for law. Full Stop.
     
  13. Jeannette

    Jeannette Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    37,994
    Likes Received:
    7,948
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female

    There are Christian fundamentalists, which cannot separate their faith from their own traditions, but that's considered spiritual immaturity. There are also elitists such as the Pentacostals who think everyone else is going to hell, and that Christianity only came into existence with the printing press. Before that it was hiding underground somewhere. They irk me no end.

    I have heard stupidities such as a volunteer in Lesbos that was helping a refugee saying it's probably the first time they came in contact with a Christian - yet the Christian Churches in Syria go back to the time of Christ.

    Provincial yes! Evangelicals can be very provincial and have no idea what's going on in the world. Unfortunately, because of that, they can be easily manipulated. It doesn't mean though that Evangelicals are not the kindest people in the world. They are! If they support Israel, it's because they believe they are under attack. They have no idea what is going on. They didn't even know there was a genocide of Christians, because they don't even know there are Christians in Syria.

    Anyway, I can't understand where anyone would get the idea that a Christian would want to kill a homosexual - or anyone for that matter? Sounds like a lot of anti Christian propaganda or projection to me.
     
  14. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    3,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @alexa @Esau

    And it's false :
    [​IMG]
    "Why we don't wait that he is old enough to understand ?"
    "We should do it as we're stronger"

    [​IMG]
    "Filming Holocaust"
    "Hide your belly"

    [​IMG]
    Right picture "Don't mock"
     
  15. Jeannette

    Jeannette Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    37,994
    Likes Received:
    7,948
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Again this is about you believing Sharia works as it currently does in States like Saudi Arabia. That is not Sharia. Sharia apparently comes from 4 sources, The Koran, The teaching of Muhhamed, Universal Agreement among scholars and analogy. That is the difference between genuine Sharia and some people wanting to rule others. I believe that Egypt has these scholars who they sometimes ask for their opinion on issues - not often though.

    [/QUOTE]

    How can a faith that believes anything said that is contrary to the Quran is an insult, be open to discussion? Wouldn't that be an oxymoron? I once read that there is a religious contest for Islamic students, that consists of memorizing the Quran. There was no discussion about the faith, no interpretation of the different passages; only rote. Whoever was the best at memorizing the Quran was the champion Islamic scholar.

    As for the BBC. I call it the British Bullsh*ting Corp and stopped watching it 15 years ago. I wouldn't believe anything from the Guardian either. They're just as bad. I read that the BBC will be now coming out with a propaganda documentary demonizing Assad, who is the most tolerant and secular leader in the Middle East, and has been protecting Christians and other minorities for years.

    Assad's major support in Syria comes though from the Sunni Muslims, who do not want Sharia law and who like the freedom they have under the Assad government. So I don't know what in the damn world the BBC is up to.

    The BBC documentary will also be lauding the White Helmets which is supported by the British government and is the propaganda arm of the Al Nusra terrorists - if you can believe it.

    The animal in the video below with the black cap, was revealed in another video as the official photographer of the White Helmets. So take it as you may.

     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2020
  16. Goomba

    Goomba Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    10,717
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yes, it’s certainly explainable on a material level.

    But the French cannot argue without a doubt that their denigration of the Prophet and the teacher’s murder were not directly connected on a dimensional inverse, especially considering what the Prophet represents in Islam.

    Incidentally, why is no one complaining about the fact that said teacher was showing underage kids pornographic images? ;)
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2020
  17. Goomba

    Goomba Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    10,717
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Have they ever denied the Holocaust?
     
  18. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    OK a few notes. I was mistaken that Charlie Hebdo had previously refused cartoons of Christianity. That was Jyllands-Posten the newspaper who originally published the cartoons.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/feb/06/pressandpublishing.politics

    2nd the belief that France will allow anything to be published because that is Free Speech is bogus. Charlie Hebdo itself under its original name Hara-Kiri was banned.

    Read more: https://www.inquisitr.com/1736517/c...s-were-targeted-by-cartoonists/#ixzz6cF1mLQUR

    Looking for motivation for the publication of these cartoons in Denmark is not difficult

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Judicial_investigation_of_Jyllands-Posten_(October_2005_–_January_2006)[/quote]

    and again the idea that France is a place where free speech is allowed is simply not true. In France there is not even Political freedom.



    https://www.france24.com/en/20160120-france-boycott-israel-bds-law-free-speech-antisemitism
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2020
  19. Ronald Hillman

    Ronald Hillman Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2020
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You need to get in your head that printing cartoons do not get people killed, murderous religions that make images of their sky fairy punishable by death get people killed. Stop defending the indefensible and blaming the victim.
     
    quiller likes this.
  20. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    3,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @alexa I don't pretend that the condition of free speech is perfect in France. In fact, it's getting worse and worse as leftists produce more anti free speech law.
     
    quiller and Ronald Hillman like this.
  21. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    3,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There was a knife attack near the cathedral of Nice, one dead, many wounded.
     
  22. Ronald Hillman

    Ronald Hillman Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2020
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
  23. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    3,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
  24. Ronald Hillman

    Ronald Hillman Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2020
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The sad fact is that they believe what they are doing is moral and right, this is the danger when we tolerate fundamentalism of any flavour.
     
  25. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    It is interesting to see where France cries out for Free Speech and where it denies it. Free Speach to produce disgusting cartoons of Muhhamed over and over knowing that these tend to attract extremists and violence. Cartoons which almost certainly were created to degrade Muslims as Denmark moved to the far right while Muslim countries were being attacked by the West. This is all ok.

    Supporting work to stop the breaking of International Law by Israel - not acceptable free speech in France.
     

Share This Page