What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Muhammad Cartoon Contest in Garland Tx. Hundreds of ISIS In America (1 Viewer)

You have the freedom of speech....You also have the freedom to get your a** kicked if someone takes offense to what you say.
No, actually you don't. Violence is never a justifiable response to speech that you don't like, and our laws are written with that idea in mind.
And yet the concept of "fighting words" survives, if just barely, in our jurisprudence. Actually, check that, I do not know that I could locate a case where fighting words actually provided a workable defense. I'll look.

Of interest to lawyers or Constitutional Scholars, perhaps:



88 Marq. L. Rev. 441
Marquette Law Review
Winter 2004
Article
THE TROUBLE WITH “FIGHTING WORDS”: CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE IS A THREAT TO FIRST AMENDMENT VALUES AND SHOULD BE OVERRULED

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Inciting people just because you can seems like a bad idea...What if somebody wanted to make fun of black people by having an art contest. I wonder how that would go over.
We would give them the space to destroy.

 
I feel like there's a difference between somebody drawing a cartoon that happens to offend people, so as to make a point, and an event where they're soliciting cartoons for the purpose of offending people. I agree with the folks that disapprove of the event.

Not that it excuses the two guys that apparently came ready to shoot the place up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You have the freedom of speech....You also have the freedom to get your a** kicked if someone takes offense to what you say.
No, actually you don't. Violence is never a justifiable response to speech that you don't like, and our laws are written with that idea in mind.
I didn't say it wasn't wrong or a crime but it is an option. Happens every day. You get up someone's face and say something they don't like at your own risk.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You have the freedom of speech....You also have the freedom to get your a** kicked if someone takes offense to what you say.
No, actually you don't. Violence is never a justifiable response to speech that you don't like, and our laws are written with that idea in mind.
Of course killing someone in reaction to a religious cartoon is wrong, illegal, awful and everything else but having laws in place don't stop these people from killing and they won't bring you back to life.

The people from Charlie Hedbo and the families they left behind, if they could go back in time and draw different cartoons that day, don't you think they would? Was it all worth it? As ridiculous as it is to kill someone over a cartoon it's almost as silly to draw a cartoon that may get you killed. Sometimes discretion trumps boldness.

 
I would write and say anything I believed. I would think twice however if expressing something could cause harm to me or my family.
You do realize how completely incongruous those two sentences are when it comes to criticizing Islam, right?

 
You have the freedom of speech....You also have the freedom to get your a** kicked if someone takes offense to what you say.
No, actually you don't. Violence is never a justifiable response to speech that you don't like, and our laws are written with that idea in mind.
Of course killing someone in reaction to a religious cartoon is wrong, illegal, awful and everything else but having laws in place don't stop these people from killing and they won't bring you back to life.

The people from Charlie Hedbo and the families they left behind, if they could go back in time and draw different cartoons that day, don't you think they would? Was it all worth it? As ridiculous as it is to kill someone over a cartoon it's almost as silly to draw a cartoon that may get you killed. Sometimes discretion trumps boldness.
And this is why I believe we are in for a very long, difficult battle with Islamic fundamentalism. They are willing to die for their beliefs. And we are not.

 
Last edited:
I would write and say anything I believed. I would think twice however if expressing something could cause harm to me or my family.
You do realize how completely incongruous those two sentences are when it comes to criticizing Islam, right?
Are you an expert of Islamic blasphemy and penalties? Pictures of muhammad illicit a murderous reaction in a small segment of followers. To many more it annoys them. The rest don't care. If i had a poster business I wouldn't be making posters of muhammad cartoons. Sure, I could, but I wouldn't.

How do you feel about burning the American Flag?

 
I would write and say anything I believed. I would think twice however if expressing something could cause harm to me or my family.
You do realize how completely incongruous those two sentences are when it comes to criticizing Islam, right?
Are you an expert of Islamic blasphemy and penalties? Pictures of muhammad illicit a murderous reaction in a small segment of followers. To many more it annoys them. The rest don't care. If i had a poster business I wouldn't be making posters of muhammad cartoons. Sure, I could, but I wouldn't.

How do you feel about burning the American Flag?
or dancing on one as is the current fad.

 
You have the freedom of speech....You also have the freedom to get your a** kicked if someone takes offense to what you say.
No, actually you don't. Violence is never a justifiable response to speech that you don't like, and our laws are written with that idea in mind.
Of course killing someone in reaction to a religious cartoon is wrong, illegal, awful and everything else but having laws in place don't stop these people from killing and they won't bring you back to life.

The people from Charlie Hedbo and the families they left behind, if they could go back in time and draw different cartoons that day, don't you think they would? Was it all worth it? As ridiculous as it is to kill someone over a cartoon it's almost as silly to draw a cartoon that may get you killed. Sometimes discretion trumps boldness.
And this is why I believe we are in for a very long, difficult battle with Islamic fundamentalism. They are willing to die for their beliefs. And we are not.
Because they live in poverty with little hope for any kind of future. It's very similar to inner city youth and gangs. And many have given their lives to defend our beliefs.

 
What is the upside in hosting a muhammad comic contest? Who thought that was a goods idea?
It's called free speech, and a big middle finger to all those who can't handle it.
You can wear what you want too but a jacket made of meat is not a good choice for a jungle hike.
So we're reducing Islamists to animals who act based solely on instinct?
If the meat jacket fits.........

Mmmmm I hope it's bacon.

 
The Boston Tea Party is revered because the rebellion against England turned out to be successful. But morally there is no huge difference between those who threw the tea into the harbor and the guys who burned down the CVS store in Baltimore.

 
I would write and say anything I believed. I would think twice however if expressing something could cause harm to me or my family.
You do realize how completely incongruous those two sentences are when it comes to criticizing Islam, right?
Are you an expert of Islamic blasphemy and penalties? Pictures of muhammad illicit a murderous reaction in a small segment of followers. To many more it annoys them. The rest don't care. If i had a poster business I wouldn't be making posters of muhammad cartoons. Sure, I could, but I wouldn't.

How do you feel about burning the American Flag?
From Wiki - Blasphemy in Islam is impious utterance or action concerning God, Muhammad or anything considered sacred in Islam. The Quran admonishes blasphemy, but does not specify any worldly punishment for blasphemy. The hadiths, which are another source of Sharia, suggest various punishments for blasphemy, including death. Various fiqhs (schools of jurisprudence) of Islam have different punishment for blasphemy, depending on whether blasphemer is Muslim or non-Muslim, man or woman. The punishment can be fines, imprisonment, flogging, amputation, hanging, or beheading. Muslim clerics may call for the punishment of an alleged blasphemer by issuing a fatwā.

If this was only an isolated concern amongst a very small portion of Muslims, then why does it keep happening?

 
General Tso chicken, is it ok to rent billboards near churches and put homosexually suggestive images of Jesus on them? That's free speech and if you tell people they cant do that it's a slippery slope. How about an American flag burning event every day near every military base and every military cemetery in the country? This is America and we need to protect even the most offensive speech. Are you ok with these things happening? They're legal but only #######s would do it, like what was going on yesterday in texas.

 
General Tso chicken, is it ok to rent billboards near churches and put homosexually suggestive images of Jesus on them? That's free speech and if you tell people they cant do that it's a slippery slope. How about an American flag burning event every day near every military base and every military cemetery in the country? This is America and we need to protect even the most offensive speech. Are you ok with these things happening? They're legal but only #######s would do it, like what was going on yesterday in texas.
what is your point?

 
I would write and say anything I believed. I would think twice however if expressing something could cause harm to me or my family.
You do realize how completely incongruous those two sentences are when it comes to criticizing Islam, right?
Are you an expert of Islamic blasphemy and penalties? Pictures of muhammad illicit a murderous reaction in a small segment of followers. To many more it annoys them. The rest don't care. If i had a poster business I wouldn't be making posters of muhammad cartoons. Sure, I could, but I wouldn't.

How do you feel about burning the American Flag?
From Wiki - Blasphemy in Islam is impious utterance or action concerning God, Muhammad or anything considered sacred in Islam. The Quran admonishes blasphemy, but does not specify any worldly punishment for blasphemy. The hadiths, which are another source of Sharia, suggest various punishments for blasphemy, including death. Various fiqhs (schools of jurisprudence) of Islam have different punishment for blasphemy, depending on whether blasphemer is Muslim or non-Muslim, man or woman. The punishment can be fines, imprisonment, flogging, amputation, hanging, or beheading. Muslim clerics may call for the punishment of an alleged blasphemer by issuing a fatwā.

If this was only an isolated concern amongst a very small portion of Muslims, then why does it keep happening?
oh, so you are an expert. It keeps happening because people are nuts. If you want to enrage the nuts, go for it. You have the right to do that. Nobody is trying to restrict your right to expression here.

 
General Tso chicken, is it ok to rent billboards near churches and put homosexually suggestive images of Jesus on them? That's free speech and if you tell people they cant do that it's a slippery slope. How about an American flag burning event every day near every military base and every military cemetery in the country? This is America and we need to protect even the most offensive speech. Are you ok with these things happening? They're legal but only #######s would do it, like what was going on yesterday in texas.
I spoke to flag burning a few posts back:

Posted Today, 12:43 PM

As do I. Personally I HATE flag burning. My Dad almost died in WWII fighting for that flag. It's borderline fighting words for me. But I have also been against any initiative to ban flag burning, and if a flag burning was done out of principal in defiance of people who had murdered a whole group of flag burners in Paris I would actually support that particular act.

 
General Tso chicken, is it ok to rent billboards near churches and put homosexually suggestive images of Jesus on them? That's free speech and if you tell people they cant do that it's a slippery slope. How about an American flag burning event every day near every military base and every military cemetery in the country? This is America and we need to protect even the most offensive speech. Are you ok with these things happening? They're legal but only #######s would do it, like what was going on yesterday in texas.
what is your point?
multiple points. people are for free speech when it suits them and not when it doesn't. and just because there are no laws prohibiting you're right to offensive expression doesn't mean you have to do it. If people want to host a cartoon contest to make a point, that's great, just don't do it anywhere near me or my family. I like to breath.

 
General Tso chicken, is it ok to rent billboards near churches and put homosexually suggestive images of Jesus on them? That's free speech and if you tell people they cant do that it's a slippery slope. How about an American flag burning event every day near every military base and every military cemetery in the country? This is America and we need to protect even the most offensive speech. Are you ok with these things happening? They're legal but only #######s would do it, like what was going on yesterday in texas.
what is your point?
multiple points. people are for free speech when it suits them and not when it doesn't. and just because there are no laws prohibiting you're right to offensive expression doesn't mean you have to do it. If people want to host a cartoon contest to make a point, that's great, just don't do it anywhere near me or my family. I like to breath.
that's fine and dandy, and i don't disagree.

Are you advocating some level of government enacting a law to prevent future incidents like this, or are you just lamenting the state of humanity?

 
Using the logic of some here, certain rape victims are at least partly responsible for the crimes committed against them due to the provocative clothing they wear. I guess this also means that Christians may now be somewhat justified if they lock and load in response to deeply offensive displays such as "Piss Christ" or "Hunky Jesus".

Either we have freedom of speech or we do not. What this really comes down to for those who want to assign blame to the organizers of the event instead of the gunmen is that they don't fit the correct cultural, race, religious, or political definition for victimhood so therefore their rights are null and void. "The Unpeople of Jesusland" as I've heard said.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No real updates in here.

Here's one:

The shooter was a US native, from AZ:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/official-texas-shooting-supsects-ided/story?id=30782088

Today FBI agents and a bomb squad were at Simpson's home in an apartment complex in north Phoenix conducting searches of the apartment. Officials believe Simpson is the person who sent out several Twitter messages prior to the attack on Sunday, in the last one using the hashtag #TexasAttack about half an hour before the shooting. Prior to that, the Twitter account holder had published messages sympathetic to Islamic terror groups such as ISIS.
John Iannarelli, Assistant Special Agent in Charge FBI’s Phoenix office, said authorities in Texas traced both suspects to the Phoenix apartment and that the two appear to have been roommates.

Followers of ISIS had been sending messages about the event in Texas for more than a week, calling for attacks. One referenced January's Charlie Hebdo massacre in France and said it was time for "brothers" in the United States to do their part.

Simpson was well known to the FBI. Five years ago he was convicted for lying to federal agents about his plans to travel to Africa where investigators alleged he planned to join a terror group.

The investigation into Simpson reached back to July 2007, when he was recorded saying of fighting with Islamists, “I know we can do it, man. But you got to find the right people that… Gotta have connects.”

Despite that and other recordings, a judge ruled the government did not adequately prove Simpson was going to join a terror group and Simpson was sentenced to three years’ probation for lying to investigators.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Using the logic of some here, certain rape victims are at least partly responsible for the crimes committed against them due to the provocative clothing they wear.
I was going to say "there's no such thing as an event where everyone is instructed to wear clothes that makes people want to rape you." But then I remembered about Halloween.

 
General Tso chicken, is it ok to rent billboards near churches and put homosexually suggestive images of Jesus on them? That's free speech and if you tell people they cant do that it's a slippery slope. How about an American flag burning event every day near every military base and every military cemetery in the country? This is America and we need to protect even the most offensive speech. Are you ok with these things happening? They're legal but only #######s would do it, like what was going on yesterday in texas.
what is your point?
multiple points. people are for free speech when it suits them and not when it doesn't. and just because there are no laws prohibiting you're right to offensive expression doesn't mean you have to do it. If people want to host a cartoon contest to make a point, that's great, just don't do it anywhere near me or my family. I like to breath.
that's fine and dandy, and i don't disagree.

Are you advocating some level of government enacting a law to prevent future incidents like this, or are you just lamenting the state of humanity?
I'm not advocating any law preventing freedom of expression. I'm just saying if drawing pictures of a religious character makes some people try to kill the person who drew it, then I'm fine with never drawing that particular religious character. If drawing a banana was deemed by a small sect of crazy people an offense punishable by death, guess who has two thumbs and will not be publicly drawing bananas? This guy. If that makes me less of a patriot than you, congratulations on being more american than me. I will drape the flag over your banana casket at your funeral and then I will go home, watch the game and have a beer.

 
Willie, I've been reading and much respect to your POV, I see what you're saying.

But question: let's say most people agreed with you and withheld publishing cartoons of mohammed or holding events like this.

Do you think it would end there or would there then be another subject of threats?

- Publishing books/movies examining the historicity or holiness of Mohammed or lack thereof?

- Publishing or selling the Satanic Verses and books/movies like it, all the way to Grade D stuff like "Innocence of the Muslims"?

- The way women dress?

I'm guessing you can think of a few other subjects, because the islamists believe in apartheid and suppression of speech on a long list of things. So, do you think they would just stop at the cartoon issue, or would it then be something else?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You have the freedom of speech....You also have the freedom to get your a** kicked if someone takes offense to what you say.
No, actually you don't. Violence is never a justifiable response to speech that you don't like, and our laws are written with that idea in mind.
And yet the concept of "fighting words" survives, if just barely, in our jurisprudence. Actually, check that, I do not know that I could locate a case where fighting words actually provided a workable defense. I'll look.

Of interest to lawyers or Constitutional Scholars, perhaps:



88 Marq. L. Rev. 441
Marquette Law Review
Winter 2004
Article
THE TROUBLE WITH “FIGHTING WORDS”: CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE IS A THREAT TO FIRST AMENDMENT VALUES AND SHOULD BE OVERRULED
Here's the link to the article. It's very long, but it's an interesting read.

 
You have the freedom of speech....You also have the freedom to get your a** kicked if someone takes offense to what you say.
No, actually you don't. Violence is never a justifiable response to speech that you don't like, and our laws are written with that idea in mind.
And yet the concept of "fighting words" survives, if just barely, in our jurisprudence. Actually, check that, I do not know that I could locate a case where fighting words actually provided a workable defense. I'll look.

Of interest to lawyers or Constitutional Scholars, perhaps:



88 Marq. L. Rev. 441
Marquette Law Review
Winter 2004
Article
THE TROUBLE WITH “FIGHTING WORDS”: CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE IS A THREAT TO FIRST AMENDMENT VALUES AND SHOULD BE OVERRULED
Here's the link to the article. It's very long, but it's an interesting read.
Thanks. Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech are not at conflict. Religion is a kind of speech, it is religious speech, but no kind of speech has a monopoly on other kinds of speech.

 
Willie, I've been reading and much respect to your POV, I see what you're saying.

But question: let's say most people agreed with you and withheld publishing cartoons of mohammed or holding events like this.

Do you think it would end there or would there then be another subject of threats?

- Publishing books/movies examining the historicity or holiness of Mohammed or lack thereof?

- Publishing or selling the Satanic Verses and books/movies like it, all the way to Grade D stuff like "Innocence of the Muslims"?

- The way women dress?

I'm guessing you can think of a few other subjects, because the islamists believe in apartheid and suppression of speech on a long list of things. So, do you think they would just stop at the cartoon issue, or would it then be something else?
Most people do refuse to publish or draw Muhammad cartoons. Most people don't hold events like this. I don't recall (m)any movies about Muhammad. As far as how women dress, you're talking about religion controlling government. Of course i would be opposed to that.

Again, I am opposed to suppressing anything on the basis of religion. That does not mean I'm going to host and advertize a muhammad art exhibit at my gallery.

 
Bottom line:

In American we should be able to satirize or even belittle any or all religions (or beliefs) without fear of violence. If we tip-toe around lunatics they win.

 
General Tso chicken, is it ok to rent billboards near churches and put homosexually suggestive images of Jesus on them? That's free speech and if you tell people they cant do that it's a slippery slope. How about an American flag burning event every day near every military base and every military cemetery in the country? This is America and we need to protect even the most offensive speech. Are you ok with these things happening? They're legal but only #######s would do it, like what was going on yesterday in texas.
what is your point?
multiple points. people are for free speech when it suits them and not when it doesn't. and just because there are no laws prohibiting you're right to offensive expression doesn't mean you have to do it. If people want to host a cartoon contest to make a point, that's great, just don't do it anywhere near me or my family. I like to breath.
that's fine and dandy, and i don't disagree.

Are you advocating some level of government enacting a law to prevent future incidents like this, or are you just lamenting the state of humanity?
I'm not advocating any law preventing freedom of expression. I'm just saying if drawing pictures of a religious character makes some people try to kill the person who drew it, then I'm fine with never drawing that particular religious character. If drawing a banana was deemed by a small sect of crazy people an offense punishable by death, guess who has two thumbs and will not be publicly drawing bananas? This guy. If that makes me less of a patriot than you, congratulations on being more american than me. I will drape the flag over your banana casket at your funeral and then I will go home, watch the game and have a beer.
that's your personal choice. Mine too, by the way. I have never drawn a Mohammed cartoon, and I doubt I ever will. Thankfully, our decision to draw or not to draw is a constitutional right; one that our forefathers died for.

We should applaud those brave souls in Texas who have the guts to exercise their constitutionally protected speech, regardless of the mortal peril they place themselves in. These fine folks are Patriots. We shouldn't vilify them for purposefully antagonizing the overly sensitive.

 
General Tso chicken, is it ok to rent billboards near churches and put homosexually suggestive images of Jesus on them? That's free speech and if you tell people they cant do that it's a slippery slope. How about an American flag burning event every day near every military base and every military cemetery in the country? This is America and we need to protect even the most offensive speech. Are you ok with these things happening? They're legal but only #######s would do it, like what was going on yesterday in texas.
what is your point?
multiple points. people are for free speech when it suits them and not when it doesn't. and just because there are no laws prohibiting you're right to offensive expression doesn't mean you have to do it. If people want to host a cartoon contest to make a point, that's great, just don't do it anywhere near me or my family. I like to breath.
that's fine and dandy, and i don't disagree.

Are you advocating some level of government enacting a law to prevent future incidents like this, or are you just lamenting the state of humanity?
I'm not advocating any law preventing freedom of expression. I'm just saying if drawing pictures of a religious character makes some people try to kill the person who drew it, then I'm fine with never drawing that particular religious character. If drawing a banana was deemed by a small sect of crazy people an offense punishable by death, guess who has two thumbs and will not be publicly drawing bananas? This guy. If that makes me less of a patriot than you, congratulations on being more american than me. I will drape the flag over your banana casket at your funeral and then I will go home, watch the game and have a beer.
that's your personal choice. Mine too, by the way. I have never drawn a Mohammed cartoon, and I doubt I ever will. Thankfully, our decision to draw or not to draw is a constitutional right; one that our forefathers died for.

We should applaud those brave souls in Texas who have the guts to exercise their constitutionally protected speech, regardless of the mortal peril they place themselves in. These fine folks are Patriots. We shouldn't vilify them for purposefully antagonizing the overly sensitive.
I don't think they're are patriots. They're just being #######s because they can. About 2 or 3 rungs above westboro baptist church people.

 
Willie, I've been reading and much respect to your POV, I see what you're saying.

But question: let's say most people agreed with you and withheld publishing cartoons of mohammed or holding events like this.

Do you think it would end there or would there then be another subject of threats?

- Publishing books/movies examining the historicity or holiness of Mohammed or lack thereof?

- Publishing or selling the Satanic Verses and books/movies like it, all the way to Grade D stuff like "Innocence of the Muslims"?

- The way women dress?

I'm guessing you can think of a few other subjects, because the islamists believe in apartheid and suppression of speech on a long list of things. So, do you think they would just stop at the cartoon issue, or would it then be something else?
Most people do refuse to publish or draw Muhammad cartoons. Most people don't hold events like this. I don't recall (m)any movies about Muhammad. As far as how women dress, you're talking about religion controlling government. Of course i would be opposed to that.

Again, I am opposed to suppressing anything on the basis of religion. That does not mean I'm going to host and advertize a muhammad art exhibit at my gallery.
We don't see many muslim books or movies because we are largely not muslim in this country. But we obviously know of two examples where the author and one of a moviemaker were threatened with death. I can think of two books and a movie: Satanic Verses (worldwide prize winning literature), Infidel by Ayaan Ali (controversial but literary and personal), and Innocence of the Muslims by Sam Basil (bottom of the barrel youtube fodder).

I tend to agree with your earlier hypo from last night: no, I wouldn't publish the cartoons. But then I would publish one Mohammed cartoon in a newspaper if it had a political point and if the cartoonist was someone I respected. I think the Hebdo publications were appropriate. I think the Danish newspaper cartoon of Mohammed with a missile in his turbin was appropriate. It's political commentary.

And I think if we all shook hands and agreed that we would not pubish such cartoons anymore even for proper editorial reasons, then we would see the next demand. We probably can't imagine what it is.

Let's also remember that the far, far, far majority of muslims who came to this country came here to escape all that horror and oppression. They are looking to us and they want to be a part of this society. Many muslims have no problem with the cartoons, many muslims want full freedom of speech, many muslims want to talk about Mohamed and islam freely and openly, and they are here in America's arms demanding to do that. We should support them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why are cops wearing camouflage?
These were Garland town cops, 40 guys, who knew there was a risky situation and showed up prepared for it. Instead of Hebdo/Paris or Copenhagen, with a chase, dead innocent civilians (let's guess what two men with AK47's and possibly explosives would have done in a closed small town convention center), Synagogues and Jewish citizens under attack or threat, we ended up with two dead terrorists and a single cop who checked in for aid and then was checked out.

Let's hear it for the cops.
None of that supports why they were wearing camouflage. From who are they hiding? Aren't they trying to do the exact opposite of hiding? And how would camos even help if they were trying to hide?

Its just more of the militarization of police in the US and its horse####.
The militarization (be it camo, the guns they had one them at the time, the training they've had) likely saved tens of lives in this incident alone. How in the world two guys with AK47s and bombs on their person didn't end up killing a single innocent person at an event like this is outstanding.

 
About 2 or 3 rungs above westboro baptist church people.
This is a good comparison.
I also agree that it's a good comparison.

Kind of interesting that nobody has taken a shot at the Westboro people, but most of the folks in this thread seem to take it as a given that violence is the inevitable outcome of drawing a Mohammed cartoon.
Sure, that's one interesting thing. Another interesting thing is that everyone thinks the Westboro folks are dirtbags but that doesn't seem to be the prevailing sentiment here about the cartoon folks.

 
About 2 or 3 rungs above westboro baptist church people.
This is a good comparison.
I also agree that it's a good comparison.

Kind of interesting that nobody has taken a shot at the Westboro people, but most of the folks in this thread seem to take it as a given that violence is the inevitable outcome of drawing a Mohammed cartoon.
I think I've taken shots at the Westboros about a million times, but they're wackos. What disturbs me about Pam Geller is that she gets attention on Fox News and is treated as some sort of hero for her Muslim baiting. It's disgusting IMO.

 
This was all about, because they could.....not about if they should. Who attends this type of event? I'm picturing skinheads and KKK types.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
About 2 or 3 rungs above westboro baptist church people.
This is a good comparison.
I also agree that it's a good comparison.

Kind of interesting that nobody has taken a shot at the Westboro people, but most of the folks in this thread seem to take it as a given that violence is the inevitable outcome of drawing a Mohammed cartoon.
I think I've taken shots at the Westboros about a million times, but they're wackos. What disturbs me about Pam Geller is that she gets attention on Fox News and is treated as some sort of hero for her Muslim baiting. It's disgusting IMO.
has anyone ever brought assault rifles to try to stop the Westboro folks?

 
WK, in the abstract I probably agree with you, but that's pretty much the B-story here. They just saved a bunch of people. And let's face it terrorists showed up with AK47's and explosives, that's a pretty military situation.
I understand. Its definitely the B story. And it appears that the cops did a good job here.

But I bring this up because its an important issue. You said this was a "pretty military situation." But its not. This was a situation with US citizens on US soil. That's a policing situation. And the goals of the police - to protect and serve the community - are very different than those of a military. Its an important distinction that needs to be preserved and, unfortunately, those lines are blurring more every day.
Due to situations like this, where extremists bring AK47s and bombs to kill US citizens on US soil.

 
About 2 or 3 rungs above westboro baptist church people.
This is a good comparison.
I also agree that it's a good comparison.

Kind of interesting that nobody has taken a shot at the Westboro people, but most of the folks in this thread seem to take it as a given that violence is the inevitable outcome of drawing a Mohammed cartoon.
Sure, that's one interesting thing. Another interesting thing is that everyone thinks the Westboro folks are dirtbags but that doesn't seem to be the prevailing sentiment here about the cartoon folks.
I think it's a good comparison in that both groups are deliberately attempting to give offense.

In the case of Westboro, I agree that they're dirtbags. I don't necessarily feel the same way about the cartoon people (all I know about them is what I've read in this thread, so I could change my mind on that). Ordinarily, I'm not a fan of being gratuitously offensive. But given the violence and intolerance of certain corners of the Muslim community, I'm happy to make an exception in that case. I'm one of the people who thinks it would be ideal for every newspaper to publish a Mohammed cartoon every day until Muslims join the rest of us in the 21st century. They apparently need to be offended much more often so they can grow a thicker skin.

Do you think people who burn the flag are automatically dirtbags? Or is it sometimes understandable (even if you personally disapprove) to be deliberately offensive as a way to get your point across?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
About 2 or 3 rungs above westboro baptist church people.
This is a good comparison.
I also agree that it's a good comparison.

Kind of interesting that nobody has taken a shot at the Westboro people, but most of the folks in this thread seem to take it as a given that violence is the inevitable outcome of drawing a Mohammed cartoon.
I think I've taken shots at the Westboros about a million times, but they're wackos. What disturbs me about Pam Geller is that she gets attention on Fox News and is treated as some sort of hero for her Muslim baiting. It's disgusting IMO.
I meant "taking shots" literally, not figuratively.

 
Willie, I've been reading and much respect to your POV, I see what you're saying.

But question: let's say most people agreed with you and withheld publishing cartoons of mohammed or holding events like this.

Do you think it would end there or would there then be another subject of threats?

- Publishing books/movies examining the historicity or holiness of Mohammed or lack thereof?

- Publishing or selling the Satanic Verses and books/movies like it, all the way to Grade D stuff like "Innocence of the Muslims"?

- The way women dress?

I'm guessing you can think of a few other subjects, because the islamists believe in apartheid and suppression of speech on a long list of things. So, do you think they would just stop at the cartoon issue, or would it then be something else?
Most people do refuse to publish or draw Muhammad cartoons. Most people don't hold events like this. I don't recall (m)any movies about Muhammad. As far as how women dress, you're talking about religion controlling government. Of course i would be opposed to that.

Again, I am opposed to suppressing anything on the basis of religion. That does not mean I'm going to host and advertize a muhammad art exhibit at my gallery.
We don't see many muslim books or movies because we are largely not muslim in this country. But we obviously know of two examples where the author and one of a moviemaker were threatened with death. I can think of two books and a movie: Satanic Verses (worldwide prize winning literature), Infidel by Ayaan Ali (controversial but literary and personal), and Innocence of the Muslims by Sam Basil (bottom of the barrel youtube fodder).

I tend to agree with your earlier hypo from last night: no, I wouldn't publish the cartoons. But then I would publish one Mohammed cartoon in a newspaper if it had a political point and if the cartoonist was someone I respected. I think the Hebdo publications were appropriate. I think the Danish newspaper cartoon of Mohammed with a missile in his turbin was appropriate. It's political commentary.

And I think if we all shook hands and agreed that we would not pubish such cartoons anymore even for proper editorial reasons, then we would see the next demand. We probably can't imagine what it is.

Let's also remember that the far, far, far majority of muslims who came to this country came here to escape all that horror and oppression. They are looking to us and they want to be a part of this society. Many muslims have no problem with the cartoons, many muslims want full freedom of speech, many muslims want to talk about Mohamed and islam freely and openly, and they are here in America's arms demanding to do that. We should support them.
I think all books, cartoons, movies, political commentary are legal, fine and whatever else you want to say about them. I'm opposed to any law restricting expression. We should not fear violence for exercising our right to expression. In reality we do though. It's not right but it's a fact.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top