US shooting at Mohahammed Cartoon conference

kneemos

Custardpi wrote: »

It was allowed because free speech is protected under the US constitution. Just as a conference organised by Muslims to draw offensive cartoons of someone right wing Texans revered would be protected. Only one side attempted to silence the other with bullets. Only one side is to blame here, that of the two gunmen & anyone who supported them.

There's always limits to free speech .
This event was presumably run by intolerant Texans out to prove a point.It was ridiculous intolerant,ignorant and unnecessary,innocent people could have died for their folly.

the_monkey

kneemos wrote: »

The anti Muslim brigade around here appear just as intractable as the jihadists.

Get over yourself ffs...

SeanW

kneemos wrote: »

There's always limits to free speech .

Indeed. You can't shout fire in a crowded theatre. But people like Anjem Chourhury are free to spread their venom, as are all the madrassas teaching hate to "Western" schoolchildren, you don't seem to have a problem with that?

What was your opinion of the Satanic Verses?

Paulownia

Inquitus wrote: »

Kind of pointlessly provocative event mind, lets all have an event to display the controversial cartoons that have caused mayhem in the past and while we are at it we'll try and draw some more. Its right up there with the Westborough Baptists for most stupid application of the first amendment. I'd say the attendees were a lovely bunch.

there is no excuse for terrorist shootings but not justifying the attack there is a difference between free speech and incitement to hatred and that meeting was about the latter, we must not attempt to justify either action.
What comes out of this is that there are a lot of stupid people in the world with time on their hands

c_man

smurgen wrote: »

how about the burning of the US flag?It's just a silly flag after all. Do you think it may be matched with violence with a few texans?

I know you're playing imagination-land but it's worth reading on what actually happened when something like the above happened

Gregory Lee "Joey" Johnson, then a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, participated in a political demonstration during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas. The demonstrators were protesting the policies of the Reagan Administration and of certain companies based in Dallas. They marched through the streets, shouted chants, and held signs outside the offices of several companies. At one point, another demonstrator handed Johnson an American flag stolen from a flagpole outside one of the targeted buildings.

When the demonstrators reached Dallas City Hall, Johnson poured kerosene on the flag and set it on fire. During the burning of the flag, demonstrators shouted such phrases as, "America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you, you stand for plunder, you will go under," and, "Reagan, Mondale, which will it be? Either one means World War III." No one was hurt, but some witnesses to the flag burning said they were extremely offended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson

So like most of the civilised world, it was dealt with through the law and courts.


Interesting to see all the victim blaming around here though.

Wang King

kneemos wrote: »

Never heard of a competition to the best cartoon.Pretty sure it would cause an uproar here too.

These people probably deserve each other in fairness .

Here's my effort

kneemos

SeanW wrote: »

Indeed. You can't shout fire in a crowded theatre. But people like Anjem Chourhury are free to spread their venom, as are all the madrassas teaching hate to "Western" schoolchildren, you don't seem to have a problem with that?

What was your opinion of the Satanic Verses?

Religious indoctrination goes on all over.Even here.

smurgen

c_man wrote: »

I know you're playing imagination-land but it's worth reading on what actually happened when something like the above happened



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson

So like most of the civilised world, it was dealt with through the law and courts.


Interesting to see all the victim blaming around here though.

I said by Muslim americans?

SeanW

kneemos wrote: »

Religious indoctrination goes on all over.Even here.

So you're OK with people calling for the murders of homosexuals, Jews, blasphemers, apostates, secularists, the subjugation of women, the imposition of Sharia law etc - and teaching these values to their children in religious schools - but you have a problem with people drawing cartoons?

How often do you read the Guardian?

kneemos

SeanW wrote: »

So you're OK with people calling for the murders of homosexuals, Jews, blasphemers, apostates, secularists, the subjugation of women, the imposition of Sharia law etc - and teaching these values to their children in religious schools - but you have a problem with people drawing cartoons?

How often do you read the Guardian?

You'll have to show me where I said all that.

RollieFingers

Ah sure they're probably chilling with their 72 virgins now

Dopes haha, no casualties apart from the gunmen? Excellent result!

Raging_Ninja

RollieFingers wrote: »

Ah sure they're probably chilling with their 72 virgins now

Dopes haha, no casualties apart from the gunmen? Excellent result!

An unarmed security guard was shot in the leg.

the_monkey

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

An unarmed security guard was shot in the leg.

And he should make a full recovery - he's an American hero.

c_man

smurgen wrote: »

I said by Muslim americans?

Sorry I don't have any real-world examples which match exactly your thought experiment. Though if you're going to argue that communist Americans in Regan's America were somehow held in higher regard than ordinary American Muslims now a days I'd love to hear it.

Nodin

kneemos wrote: »

You'll have to show me where I said all that.

In the world where I live, having a problem with Jihadis and the likes of Pamela Gellar are not mutually exclusive thoughts. Indeed, they tend to spring from the same world view.

bjork

They mostly call their sons mohammod>> Is this not defiling the prophet?

conorhal

kneemos wrote: »

There's always limits to free speech .
This event was presumably run by intolerant Texans out to prove a point.It was ridiculous intolerant,ignorant and unnecessary,innocent people could have died for their folly.

Well you guess whatever point they were trying to prove was quite definatively proved. Slow hand clap for Islam there.

Hitchens

Nodin wrote: »

In the world where I live, cloud cuckoo land

Fyp

galljga1

smurgen wrote: »

I said by Muslim americans?

Please point out where you said that.

kneemos

Nodin wrote: »

In the world where I live, having a problem with Jihadis and the likes of Pamela Gellar are not mutually exclusive thoughts. Indeed, they tend to spriing from the same world view.

Mrs Gellar is clearly a bigot.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

bjork

I just googled bible drawing art competition
and there were loads of them
Some aimed at children

:eek:

https://www.google.nl/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=bible%20drawing%20competition&oq=bible%20drawing%20competition&aqs=chrome..69i57.6702j0j4

kneemos

Patww79 wrote: »

Maybe it's been covered here in the 6 pages, but why have a mocking conference? Why mock at all? Is it a long standing thing or just a reflex to the terrorism? I'm not saying the gunmen are right, but I can't understand why the conference exists in the first place.
If it's only to draw out a couple of terrorists so they can be popped off, then fair enough.

One woman's plan to make a name for herself or just plain bigotry.

jmayo

Of all the things and places to attack, I would bet most of the visitors to that conference were carrying.

Maybe these Texecans (best John Wayne accent there) have an idea.

Rather than having to search out people with the backward idea that drawing a cartoon of a religious figures means you should be liable for execution, just get them come to you.

Hell it is just the old proverb come true...
"If the mountain won't come to Muhammad then Muhammad must go to the mountain."

bjork

jmayo wrote: »

O......
Hell it is just the old proverb come true...
"If the mountain won't come to Muhammad then Muhammad must go to the mountain."

:pac: Prophecy come true?

Kiwi in IE

kneemos wrote: »

There's always limits to free speech .
This event was presumably run by intolerant Texans out to prove a point.It was ridiculous intolerant,ignorant and unnecessary,innocent people could have died for their folly.

I struggle to fully agree with the above.

Yes the event was silly, pointless and intolerant and most likely run by a pack of unpleasant rednecks wanting a reaction.

That reaction however can never be justified. The risk of innocent people being killed was not due to the folly of the event holders, but the fact that the gunmen believed it was acceptable to kill when someone offended their religion. That is far more serious, unacceptable and dangerous than legally holding an event that will cause religious offense.

If you are going to blame the event holders for this where do you stop? If a fundy Christian gunman opened fire on an athiest event, where speakers were denying the existence of a god, as it offended his religion, would that be the fault of the event organisers too?

Groups here like the Iona Institute and Mothers and Fathers Matter are repeatedly and consistently offensive to many who don't share their beliefs. If someone decided to open fire on them because they were offended, would they then be to blame for causing offense in the first place? Of course they wouldn't!

Excusing this type of behaviour and blaming the victims for producing words/drawings rather than the perpetrators for producing weapons in response is truly bizarre logic and potentially dangerous. Equally bizarre as blaming an entire religion for the actions of a few.

jackofalltrades

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

My understanding is that it designed to give two-fingers to people who get so upset of drawing that they will go and kill people over them.
These people and their over the top reactions deserve to be ridiculed.
Free speech deserves to be defended and shouldn't be curtailed to accommodate extremists.
It's saddening that people are willing to give up their rights to free speech so easily.
It seems the Paris massacres have taught some people nothing.

bjork

THE ISLAMIC STATE has claimed responsibility for its first attack on US soil after two gunmen were killed after opening fire at an event in Texas.

“Two of the soldiers of the caliphate executed an attack on an art exhibit in Garland, Texas, and this exhibit was portraying negative pictures of the Prophet Mohammed,” the jihadist group said.
“We tell America that what is coming will be even bigger and more bitter, and that you will see the soldiers of the Islamic State do terrible things,” the group announced.

http://www.thejournal.ie/texas-shooting-2084322-May2015/

galljga1

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I struggle to fully agree with the above.

Yes the event was silly, pointless and intolerant and most likely run by a pack of unpleasant rednecks wanting a reaction.

That reaction however can never be justified. The risk of innocent people being killed was not due to the folly of the event holders, but the fact that the gunmen believed it was acceptable to kill when someone offended their religion. That is far more serious, unacceptable and dangerous than legally holding an event that will cause religious offense.

If you are going to blame the event holders for this where do you stop? If a fundy Christian gunman opened fire on an athiest event, where speakers were denying the existence of a god, as it offended his religion, would that be the fault of the event organisers too?

Groups here like the Iona Institute and Mothers and Fathers Matter are repeatedly and consistently offensive to many who don't share their beliefs. If someone decided to open fire on them because they were offended, would they then be to blame for causing offense in the first place? Of course they wouldn't!

Excusing this type of behaviour and blaming the victims for producing words/drawings rather than the perpetrators for producing weapons in response is truly bizarre logic and potentially dangerous. Equally bizarre as blaming an entire religion for the actions of a few.

Kiwi, you are putting ideas in my head re the Iona Institute, Mothers and Fathers Matter and the like.

Egginacup

A conference on drawing cartoons of Mohammed!!

WTF is wrong with these simpletons that they think this is a great little idea? "I know Goober, let's draw cartoons of Mohammed just to piss off the ragheads, hee-hee, snigger-snigger"

I'd expect more mature antics from kindergarten kids.

jmayo

bjork wrote: »

THE ISLAMIC STATE has claimed responsibility for its first attack on US soil after two gunmen were killed after opening fire at an event in Texas.

“Two of the soldiers of the caliphate executed an attack on an art exhibit in Garland, Texas, and this exhibit was portraying negative pictures of the Prophet Mohammed,” the jihadist group said.
“We tell America that what is coming will be even bigger and more bitter, and that you will see the soldiers of the Islamic State do terrible things,” the group announced.

http://www.thejournal.ie/texas-shooting-2084322-May2015/

Actually that last line has a touch of comical Ali.
Maybe he has come out of retirement and joined the other ex Ba'athist party members in ISIS ?

jmayo

Egginacup wrote: »

A conference on drawing cartoons of Mohammed!!

WTF is wrong with these simpletons that they think this is a great little idea? "I know Goober, let's draw cartoons of Mohammed just to piss off the ragheads, hee-hee, snigger-snigger"

I'd expect more mature antics from kindergarten kids.

I hear next month they have a competition to draw pictures of gay Russian leaders :rolleyes:

c_man

Egginacup wrote: »

A conference on drawing cartoons of Mohammed!!

WTF is wrong with these simpletons that they think this is a great little idea? "I know Goober, let's draw cartoons of Mohammed just to piss off the ragheads, hee-hee, snigger-snigger"

I'd expect more mature antics from kindergarten kids.

So let me get this straight. You read the news article on the shooting, and your main take-away from is a criticism/mocking of the event organisers... Nothing on the maniacs who tried to shoot people because of cartoons... Right, well I guess that says a lot tbh.

BoJack Horseman

c_man wrote: »

I guess that says a lot tbh.

The latent & guarded jihadi endorsement throughout the thread is remarkable.

jackofalltrades

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Yes the event was silly, pointless and intolerant and most likely run by a pack of unpleasant rednecks wanting a reaction.

I'd agree with all of your post apart from this section.
The event was making a very strong point, and the reaction to it proved it even more.
People should be able to have an art exhibition without having to spend $10,000 on security.
You should be able to draw a religious figure without having to fear for your life.
I also don't see how in general terms that drawing someone can be considered intolerant.

wretcheddomain

Depictions lampooning the prophet Mohammed is Islamic blasphemy law. The folks drawing the depictions of Mohammed were not Muslims and, by extension, did not commit any offence - not to religious law nor state/federal law. The latter, of course, being most relevant in this case.

The Islamic extremists who, to put it mildly, interrupted proceedings had intent to kill a large number of people. This is an offence not only to Muslim law, but also to state and federal law.

The legal fundamentals of this case, however obvious, need to be sketched out. Why, you might ask? Because there are those liberals who will side with the latter law-breaking side as the victim as opposed to the former law-abiding side who are falsely considered the aggressors. The inverse nature of liberal morality is always exposed when cases such as this arise.

It begs the question, though, of what the scale and magnitude of a crime would have to be in order for liberals to side with the real victims for once?

Santa Cruz

Egginacup wrote: »

A conference on drawing cartoons of Mohammed!!

WTF is wrong with these simpletons that they think this is a great little idea? "I know Goober, let's draw cartoons of Mohammed just to piss off the ragheads, hee-hee, snigger-snigger"

I'd expect more mature antics from kindergarten kids.

Seeing that two of the "ragheads" were left lying in their own blood on a Texas St I reckon the event was a great success

galljga1

Egginacup wrote: »

A conference on drawing cartoons of Mohammed!!

WTF is wrong with these simpletons that they think this is a great little idea? "I know Goober, let's draw cartoons of Mohammed just to piss off the ragheads, hee-hee, snigger-snigger"

I'd expect more mature antics from kindergarten kids.

Yeah and they only got two assholes. They were hoping for more.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Kiwi in IE

Egginacup wrote: »

A conference on drawing cartoons of Mohammed!!

WTF is wrong with these simpletons that they think this is a great little idea? "I know Goober, let's draw cartoons of Mohammed just to piss off the ragheads, hee-hee, snigger-snigger"

I'd expect more mature antics from kindergarten kids.

A atheist conference denying the existence of God!

WTF is wrong with these simpletons that they think this is a great little idea? Let's deny that God exists just to piss off the fundies, hee hee, snigger, snigger. They deserve to have a couple of gunmen turn up, that's a fair price to pay for causing religious offence!

See where I'm going with this?

IrishTrajan

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

A atheist conference denying the existence of God!

WTF is wrong with these simpletons that they think this is a great little idea? Let's deny that God exists just to piss off the fundies, hee hee, snigger, snigger. They deserve to have a couple of gunmen turn up, that's a fair price to pay for causing religious offence!

See where I'm going with this?

No, he really doesn't. He ignores the transgressions because their skin isn't white, like most of the left-wing.

BoJack Horseman

IrishTrajan wrote: »

No, he really doesn't. He ignores the transgressions because their skin isn't white, like most of the left-wing.

The far-left in their stupidity has just fallen for the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' fallacy.

They are willing to passively endorse fundamentalist Islam once it counters 'the west'/capitalism etc....

Kiwi in IE

IrishTrajan wrote: »

No, he really doesn't. He ignores the transgressions because their skin isn't white, like most of the left-wing.

Hey I'm left wing and liberal!

pmasterson95

This is more like it. I was wondering where these eejits were. It just took 24 hours to make up the excuses!

Custardpi

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What an interesting, thoroughly logical & relevant point. You know, I feel exactly the same way about 50 Shades Of Grey, the recent Dumb & Dumber sequel & the career of Ryan Tubridy. No good reasons for any of them to exist. Now, where's my AK47?

BoJack Horseman

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Hey I'm left wing and liberal!

Ditto..... However there is a next level of leftie.

Fundamentally, once its an attack on the west, or western values, the ends justify the means.
Apologising for the jihadis is the response.

IrishTrajan

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Hey I'm left wing and liberal!

You have my condolences.

Kiwi in IE

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Ditto..... However there is a next level of leftie.

Fundamentally, once its an attack on the west, or western values, the ends justify the means.
Apologising for the jihadis is the response.

Yeah apologising for jihadis is insane. But so is assuming that Muslims are jihadis just because a few happen to be. That's like saying all Christians are the same as Fred Phelps.

IrishTrajan

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Yeah apologising for jihadis is insane. But so is assuming that Muslims are jihadis just because a few happen to be. That's like saying all Christians are the same as Fred Phelps.

Nobody is saying they're all Jihadist. But a disproportionate number of them are.

I'm of the belief economic circumstances are more important as to why they have a high number of fanatics, but that does not excuse the fact that Islam does have a disproportionate number of people willing to kill for any slight against it, real or imagined.

Custardpi

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Yeah apologising for jihadis is insane. But so is assuming that Muslims are jihadis just because a few happen to be. That's like saying all Christians are the same as Fred Phelps.

The thing is, Fred Phelps beliefs are not all that far away from what would have been considered mainstream Christianity a mere few hundred years ago. Christianity in the West has been largely (though by no means completely) tamed & guided away from such extremism. This did not happen by accident or by Christianity suddenly copping itself on. Many brave men & women struggled against censorship & restrictions on their beliefs in order to bring that about, often at the cost of their own lives. We owe the many victims of Autos da Fé & the torture chambers of the Inquisition a huge debt of gratitude for their sacrifice. We also owe them a world in which religious tyranny of any kind can never again be allowed to terrorise its opponents into silence.