Well, the 'War on Terror' hasn't exactly been a success. Yes, we weakened them in countries like Afghanistan - to see their strength grow in places like Yemen and North Africa.

Is that a reason to stop fighting?

the last time someone declared a 'War on Terror', it turned out to be a national embarrassment for them.

Sounds like somebody is talking about Iraq.

And so begins the long game of containment.

He told the French National Assembly that the Islamist gunmen who murdered 17 people in Paris had wanted to kill the "spirit of France", but had failed.

He was speaking after funeral ceremonies were held for seven of the people who died in last week's attacks.

This week's edition of the magazine targeted by the gunmen is to show a cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

Charlie Hebdo's previous depictions of the Prophet are said to to have prompted the attack on its offices which left 12 people dead, including the satirical magazine's editor and four other cartoonists.

The cartoon shows the Prophet weeping while holding a sign saying "Je suis Charlie" ("I am Charlie") - a slogan widely used following the attack on the magazine to express support - under the headline "All is forgiven".

French lawmakers - meeting in the National Assembly for the first time since the events of last week - observed a minute's silence for the victims before singing the national anthem, the Marseillaise.

Mr Valls told them the huge unity demonstrations attended by millions across France on Sunday were a "magnificent response" to the violence, before adding: "We are at war against jihadism and terrorism... but France is not at war against Islam and Muslims."

He announced a series of measures that "draw on the lessons" from last week's attacks, including creating "specific quarters" for jihadists in prisons and tighter surveillance of the internet and social media.

"We must respond to this exceptional situation with exceptional measures," said the prime minister, but ruled out "exceptional measures which deviate from the principles of law and values".

France's defence ministry has deployed 10,000 troops at sites including synagogues, mosques and airports in response to the attacks.

Fuck you.

Quote from: Mad Max on January 13, 2015, 01:43:08 PM

I prefer to be raised by two loving, competent parents.

What if you're bullied at school over it?

"Communists shouldn't have been openly communist. . ."

"Charlie Hebdo shouldn't have drawn the cartoons. . ."

"Women shouldn't get drunk and wear slutty clothes. . ."

"Gay people shouldn't be allowed to be parents. . ."

. . .

I'd call you a fucking retard if I didn't already know you were trying to get a reaction.

Just because it doesn't have an evolutionary benefit, it doesn't mean homosexuality isn't natural. . .

. . .

All I'm really getting from you is that correct propositions ought to be restrained due to the fact that some people may take offence--regardless of the integrity of such people--and could potentially boil over into a witch hunt.

It's just tacit masochism. You can't avoid these people. It's exactly the sort of fear that you're propagating which will inevitably lead to such a phenomenon, as we prostrate ourselves to militant lunatics and either lose our rights or our moral integrity.

We have to face this, now, or it will ferment and the toxicity will increase.

I really don't know how this thread has got out of hand.

The only implication my side is making here is that these Muslim students are cunts and ought not do it; they're essentially using the values of France as a weapon against the values of France, by not criticising senseless violence.

And, like I say, we can even ignore the moral superiority of the French (and, by extension, the Western World) in this situation and still see that this is a fucking retarded way to act.

I don't see how it isn't relevant. "Here's something to prove you're loyal, and we're going on a witch hunt against everyone who doesn't comply."

Ignoring the fact that we have the moral high ground here, I still don't see how you can't find fault with people not honouring dead satirists in the face of senseless murder.

I'd be saying the same if Jews refused to honour the dead after a mass murder like that of Baruch Goldstein's.

I don't know actually, it seems like allowing them to choose not to honour those who died is just as important for freedom of expression as allowing them (Cartoonists) to draw muhammed. Sure it makes them look like jackasses, but it's their choice.

Nobody is arguing their freedom should be revoked.

Not standing for a minutes silence is not dishonouring anyone.

Not only does it dishonour those who died, it dishonours the very foundation of France as a country.

If you don't think the actions of those specific students was in some way condemn-able, then you really are quite seriously morally confused. Explicitly choosing to go against the simple precedent of remembrance being exercised is quite a clear repudiation of the memory of those being remembered. . . You can't reach any other conclusion.

I'm pretty sure I missed some morality point that was brought up.

I don't know what else we would be talking about. Nobody's arguing they shouldn't be allowed to exercise their freedom to expression in light of this; nobody's arguing that legal action should be taken against them.

We're saying this is something you ought not to do, and they're shitty human beings for it. No doubt you agree, but just because it's a right it doesn't mean you need to add any caveats like "Well, we shouldn't stop them because it's a right." We all know that, and we're all intelligent enough to understand the implications of taking away such a right from a minority.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 12, 2015, 06:08:35 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 12, 2015, 06:06:40 PM

They're not different at all.

The point is moral, not legal.

Not adhering to the pledge of allegiance is illegal?

I'm referring to your comment about them being within legal 'jurisdiction' to exercise a lack of respect. They have the same legal guarantees in both instances, but the difference between the two within this jurisdiction is a moral discrepancy.

They're not different at all.

The point is moral, not legal.