This is the English forum, there's a French speaking forum. Show some respect.
That's my view and I hold it far more strongly after my time abroad. It's not just disrespectful to the new country to not learn the language, it puts you in an incredibly vulnerable position with regards to every day living if you can't at least conduct your business affairs in the local language or one of the official languages.

I'm going back to China and I haven't decided whether Mandarin is good enough for the year or if I should bother with Cantonese. But at least I bothered to learn at least the official language while I was there last time rather than being a lazy foreigner.

A few bad apples can screw things up for the whole bunch. Therefor it makes sense to get rid of the bad apples. It's not rocket science.
If you have an actual better idea, feel free to share it.

The police doesn't decide on the fate of anyone, the law does. The police are there to arrest people and bring them to court because criminals have a tendency to not show up by themselves. If you don't like the law, you can try to change the law via the democratic process, or you can move to a deserted island where there is no law and live there. When you are within the borders of a state you're automatically subject to its laws whether you agreed on them or not.

Can you rephrase the question? It's not entirely clear to me what exactly you're asking.

Well, the French cartoonist's right to live was violated, they are now dead. The government does indeed have the authority to decide - within the laws of the state - over the fate of those who committed the acts of murder.
If you don't want to live under rule of law, you can always move to a deserted island as I said above. There is to the best of my knowledge no functioning country on Earth without a rule of law so if you say the government should have no authority to decide over anyone's fate, there is no existing and functioning example of any anarchist country that you could bring forth.

crap, they were saying something about paris, but i thought it was some memorial from long ago, dammit

Bilingual people aren't the problem, the problem are people who only speak the language of their homeland and don't speak the local language of the country they moved to, in the case of Germany that would be the German language.
I just visited Berlin last summer and in some parts of the city the German language seems to have become some kind of theoretical unknown mystery.

Btw I'm bilingual myself (German & English) as my family lived in the US for several years.

I don't buy this. If there's tens of thousands of Muslims willing to fight, die and kill to implement Sharia law on countries, then their must be millions behind them who agree with them but aren't fighting for various reasons. Yes extremists exist in every religion, but the fact that so many Muslims are extremist and literally believe unbelievers should be beheaded makes me realize that the framework and structure in Islam in society that creates these people.

Muslim societies in the Middle-East as a whole are primitive and reactionary, this isn't bigotry or racism it's a fact. No one civilized thinks that another person should die for not believing in their religion, no one civilized thinks drinking alcohol should mean getting 50 lashes, or thinks women shouldn't be able to drive or wear anything but a black sheet that only shows their eyes.

Je Suis Charlie

I don't understand the connection between that response and what I ask in the quoted part. Anyway, about the bad apples, I thought you were referring to the whole group of Islamist around the world, even those who have not break any law because in the part I quoted you talked about "Islamist" and bringing them to the justice, like if being islamist is enough to consider any person a criminal. Besides, you specify the Muslims should be the ones to do it, being like ones have more rights to exist than the others, which I don't agree.



Hahaha, don't take the word so literal, as police is the main concept for liberty restrict, not just the arm force of goverments administrations.
And I am sure you make Kelsen happy on his grave; lot of time since I don't cross into a positivist idea.
Well, the law isn't a divine entity, is not Alpha neither Omega. Law is the instrument used by politics to control citizens. Moderns states claim about democracy and all that crap, even begin wars for it, but in reality goverments wants power and more power, and that cost citizens liberties.




Sure: For what reason should be islamist condemned or placed in jail? Either way, this part of my post was about the first inquiry I have at the beginning. I mean, you talking about islamist as a whole group instead the terrorist, so don't' bother about it.



There is a country (or was), is called United States of America. Seriously, BEST Constitution ever. Also, did you know that is the most original Constitution all over the world? Most countries have reformed their whole Constitution, while USA has just make some amendment.

You see, when USA was conceived as a State, the whole idea was to establish a liberalism system were WE THE PEOPLE is OVER the State, not UNDER; that means that the State has to respond to the citizens, not the contrary. The common law (Rules in USA, UK, Australia I think, and a few other countries) is more consequence with liberties because concerns more to Penal / Criminal Law, while Roman Law (Based on. Most westerns countries adopted it) use Civil Law against citizens.

The whole point in my first response to you was that there is not a legit authority to decide about islamism fate, based on what I explained starting this post. However, your next answer clarify you are referring to those islamist who perform terrorist acts and we both agree with that. Were I disagree is the part of Muslisms taking Islamism fate by their hand.

The thing is that enabling, encouraging have legal meaning as per the verb to instigate, and they have other more physical meanings which you are trying to express somewhat poorly. 'They had it coming' also doesn't help, as you are using it too literally, when it's not a literal expression at all, but figurative, and it implies responsibility in a moral or legal sense rather than purely physical or causal responsibility. Alternatives: it was coming, they knew they were targets, they accepted the risks.

Also the thing with your examples, is that there is no way to express satire of Islam without 'having it coming'. There are ways to walk at night, or leave your home, that disencourage foul play. I'd say having bodyguards, locked doors, etc... shows these people absolutely did not want 'it' to get them, they didn't want to be martyrs, though literally they knew that yes 'it' could come. Which does not mean 'they had it coming', it does show they acknowledged 'it' might. Martyrs for freedom of speech seems apt to me therefore, and tragic at several levels.
In practice, the difference between the two approaches has been way larger in the past...

Hi.

Sorry, not following you. You mean between Social State and a Liberal State, or the relation between State ~ Citizens?

Wicca is too young to have skeletons and Buddhism has its share of skeletons as well:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

The only religion I know of that has both withstood the test of time and has not trampled others is Jainism - a religion that at its core focuses on being harmless.

I just heard on the radio, a policeman killed in Paris, hope this isn't a sign of something more sinister on the way :(

Oh hell neither was I haha, we were just talking religion and he actually said exactly what you quoted. I have known a few to have such a belief.

*sad face*

you don't need to, it's a fact:) If you'll dig in to history you'll learn that theoretically Islam is one of the most understanding and peaceful religions. Hell, just few hundred years ago Islamic world was pushing science forward while rest of Europe was mostly fighting with each other. The fact that now it somehow managed to completely flip over is just saddening.

The one thing I always wonder: If Allah is almighty and wants people to die, why does he send some cockblocked young guys instead of just giving those people that should die a heart attack or traffic accident or something?
On the other hand, if the terrorists believe Allah to be almighty, why do they question his authority by taking revenge in their own hands? They say essentially: Allah, we are better judges than you are.