Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Terrorism Strikes Again

  1. #1

    Default Terrorism Strikes Again

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54579403

    "French President Emmanuel Macron has called the beheading of a teacher in a north-western suburb of Paris an "Islamist terrorist attack".

    The victim is said to have shown controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad to his pupils. The attacker was shot dead by police.

    Mr Macron said the as yet unnamed teacher was murdered because he "taught freedom of expression".

    "They won't win... We will act," the president said from the scene.

    The attack occurred at about 17:00 local time (15:00 GMT) near a school. Anti-terror prosecutors are investigating.

    The knife-wielding attacker was shot as officers tried to arrest him in the aftermath of the attack. Police have not released any personal details about him, although French media report he was an 18-year-old man of Chechen origin who was born in Moscow.

    A trial is currently under way in Paris over a 2015 Islamist assault on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which was targeted for publishing the cartoons.

    Three weeks ago, a man attacked and wounded two people outside the magazine's former offices.

    "

    Another tragic death. As sad as it is I can't help but think of Joe Rogan's comedic take of what happened in Texas...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk04H1ZPeWQ

    More of this needs to take place. Not just form private individuals but from government agents, who should do their best to infiltrate fundamentalist communities and work to egg them on and then arrest them once they take the first illegal step. Any immigrant coming over should be forced to sign a statement stating that the use of violence against those who commit blasphemy against their religion is not acceptable.

  2. #2
    Can we require a similar statement about pledging to follow the law, even law passed by the other party, of anyone seeking to buy a gun?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Can we require a similar statement about pledging to follow the law, even law passed by the other party, of anyone seeking to buy a gun?
    Nice try but the right to guns is equivalent to the right to practice your faith, the right to vote and the right to peacefully assemble. A government banning guns is no different than a government doing away with elections or banning a religion.

  4. #4
    RIP
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Nice try but the right to guns is equivalent to the right to practice your faith, the right to vote and the right to peacefully assemble. A government banning guns is no different than a government doing away with elections or banning a religion.
    You will find that the govt. engaging in actions that effectively discriminate on the basis of religion will have a similarly dubious legal status.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Nice try but the right to guns is equivalent to the right to practice your faith, the right to vote and the right to peacefully assemble. A government banning guns is no different than a government doing away with elections or banning a religion.
    Considering how quick you are to call for bans on protests, is that really the comparison you want to make?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Considering how quick you are to call for bans on protests, is that really the comparison you want to make?
    I've never called for a ban on protests. However calling a gathering a protest does not give you extra rights. You don't get to block people going about their day. You don't get to burn other people's property. You don't get to loot.

  8. #8
    I.e., you're against most protests. As long as some protesters misbehave, you want the cops to go after all protesters. As long as they're Democrats of course.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  9. #9
    Oh, I thought this thread was about the militia terrorists plotting to kidnap and murder Michigan's governor and foment a civil war, with the President egging them on, because they think it's too much of a burden to wear masks. Lewk, I didn't see your thread decrying that.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I.e., you're against most protests. As long as some protesters misbehave, you want the cops to go after all protesters. As long as they're Democrats of course.
    Many protests are perfectly legal - I don't know why you think all protestors are lawless hooligans but that's an interesting take coming from a liberal.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Nice try but the right to guns is equivalent to the right to practice your faith, the right to vote and the right to peacefully assemble. A government banning guns is no different than a government doing away with elections or banning a religion.
    No one is banning guns They just have to say that they're against gun violence. If that's too much for you, how about a statement allowing surveillance of them in their homes, at work, and at their place of worship?
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Many protests are perfectly legal - I don't know why you think all protestors are lawless hooligans but that's an interesting take coming from a liberal.
    I believe he means that, in any given protest where most people are abiding by the law, you will nevertheless want the police to engage those few who might not be behaving equally lawfully in a manner that will severely infringe upon the 1st amendment rights of the vast majority who are lawful. So far this year, at least hundreds of examples of this kind of antidemocratic behavior on the part of the police have been documented with the help of video and testimonials, yet you don't seem to have taken much issue with cops menacing, arresting or outright attacking innocent and peaceful protesters, arresting or even injuring journalists trying to cover the protests, dragging protesters into unmarked vans without identifying themselves or articulating a justification for their actions, engaging in dubious digital surveillance of protesters, etc. He's absolutely right—and, for the record, you're really just not clever enough to pull off this "who, me?" act, or this facile attempt at turning the tables on Loki.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    No one is banning guns They just have to say that they're against gun violence. If that's too much for you, how about a statement allowing surveillance of them in their homes, at work, and at their place of worship?
    Touché
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    No one is banning guns They just have to say that they're against gun violence.
    And, if they do not, they don't get to own and use guns? I dunno man, that sounds like a ban on guns for all those people who want to own guns specifically for the purpose of—one day—being able to use them in "defense" of their right to violently oppose their enemies. Frankly, it sounds like religious discrimination as well, given that these cultists worship at the altar of hypothetical gun violence. Double whammy. It would never fly.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •