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

[mcintyre1]

General, take the religion out of it. If there was an anonymous threat issued in your town, if someone wrote on the internet that on Friday if anyone steps outside wearing a red shirt, they will be shot. Would you go out wearing a red shirt?

no, because I have a son to raise. In 10 years? I just might do it. But one thing's for certain, I'd support the people doing it.

Why would you potentially risk your life in order to wear a certain color shirt? Why not just wear a a different color shirt and continue breathing? who are you trying to impress and why are you trying to impress them?

Certainly not anyone in here. I'd do it out of principle, because I believe we have a pretty good thing going on America. Freedom isn't guaranteed. It's a relatively new concept in human history and s lot more fragile than most people realize.

You could wear a red shirt on saturday. You're free to do everything else on that friday. Out of principle you'd risk your life to exercise your right to wear a certain color shirt on one random day? Sorry general i just don't get that. Easy to say you would in this make believe hypothetical but another thing to actually wear it.

Nelson is everything that is wrong with America. Where were you born Nelson? Obviously you are not from America.I'm assuming you are French since your moto seems to be roll over and take it.

You people are ridiculous. We all have to believe in your fake macho redneck version of America or we're not Americans? People are saying we need to "take a stand" against radical Islam. Tell me, what exactly does that mean? Do you think, ultimately, IS and friends give two ####s about you wearing a Mohammad T-Shirt? They'll hate you regardless. All you've done is label yourself as the first to die if luck doesn't bounce your way and you're the incredibly unlikely victim of a terrorist attack. So, what does your "principled stand" accomplish? Do you think if enough of us "take a stand", the Muslim world will realize the error of their ways and convert? This is a problem that can only be solved internally by the "good" believers of Islam defeating the ideology of the fundamentalists among them.

If anything, inflammatory things like "Draw Muhammad" only help provide "evidence" for fundamentalists to point at when telling their followers that outsiders are evil and wrong. That doesn't mean they are evil and wrong (I don't personally care whether they draw Muhammad, though I do think it is a pointless effort), but it certainly won't help in any meaningful way.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This thread is so typical of what has happened to our country. Here we are btching between ourselves and oh hey Isis may have recruited a middle class US kid from AZ (not actually an urban hotbed) to shoot up an event in TX.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/05/report-islamic-state-claims-credit-for-texas-attack/

 

[Apple Jack]

This thread is so typical of what has happened to our country. Here we are btching between ourselves and oh hey Isis may have recruited a middle class US kid from AZ (not actually an urban hotbed) to shoot up an event in TX.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/05/report-islamic-state-claims-credit-for-texas-attack/

what's your point? there will always be bad people in the world. one guy in 300M+ shoots a couple people and you see it as what again? What does urban/non-urban have to do with anything?

 

[Ditka Butkus]

I'm sure this has already been asked (haven't read the whole thread) how would people have felt about this event if it innocent people would have lost their lives. Just seems like a ridiculous unnecessary event to me.

 

[Apple Jack]

I'm sure this has already been asked (haven't read the whole thread) how would people have felt about this event if it innocent people would have lost their lives. Just seems like a ridiculous unnecessary event to me.

Definitely putting innocent bystanders in harms way. One can live a prosperous, enjoyable, dignified life without going out of your way to provoke homicidal people. Totes cowardly to huckleberry farmfella, for whom this is all a muscle-flexing thought exercise in the abstract, but some of us live in reality and learned to chose our battles wisely at a young age. Some of us lived through 9/11 and don't really have the luxury of living in an imaginary world.

 

[Pots]

Pretty sure this thread should be 70% congratulating the police on a great job on containing and neutralizing the terrorist threat, 20% about whether or not the convention was in good taste, 10% about the identities of the terrorists, and 0% about the damn policemen uniforms. Unfortunately, a lot of people here got their priorities backwards imo.

Good job on the Garland police department taking this threat down in the best possible manner that you could ask a police department to do. May other departments learn from them and replicate their results and actions should it ever become necessary for them to do so.

 

[Apple Jack]

Would you be so kind as go in and note the percentage breakdowns of what your pretty sure each thread should be about? Don't forget to tell people to weigh heavily speaking to/congratulating parties who will never read the thread.

 

[Pots]

Would you be so kind as go in and note the percentage breakdowns of what your pretty sure each thread should be about? Don't forget to tell people to weigh heavily speaking to/congratulating parties who will never read the thread.

If you have a specific thread in mind, feel free to PM me the title and I'll be happy to oblige.

 

[squistion]

You could wear a red shirt on saturday. You're free to do everything else on that friday. Out of principle you'd risk your life to exercise your right to wear a certain color shirt on one random day? Sorry general i just don't get that. Easy to say you would in this make believe hypothetical but another thing to actually wear it.

Nelson is everything that is wrong with America. Where were you born Nelson? Obviously you are not from America.

I'm assuming you are French since your moto seems to be roll over and take it.

Bet you still call them Freedom Fries.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This thread is so typical of what has happened to our country. Here we are btching between ourselves and oh hey Isis may have recruited a middle class US kid from AZ (not actually an urban hotbed) to shoot up an event in TX.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/05/report-islamic-state-claims-credit-for-texas-attack/

what's your point? there will always be bad people in the world. one guy in 300M+ shoots a couple people and you see it as what again? What does urban/non-urban have to do with anything?

Point is this is a guy who is not from poverty, well educated, there's no reason for him to go jihad. He didn't even live in the area. If they can get to him they can get to anybody.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

This thread is so typical of what has happened to our country. Here we are btching between ourselves and oh hey Isis may have recruited a middle class US kid from AZ (not actually an urban hotbed) to shoot up an event in TX.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/05/report-islamic-state-claims-credit-for-texas-attack/

what's your point? there will always be bad people in the world. one guy in 300M+ shoots a couple people and you see it as what again? What does urban/non-urban have to do with anything?

Point is this is a guy who is not from poverty, well educated, there's no reason for him to go jihad. He didn't even live in the area. If they can get to him they can get to anybody.

Religion is a fantastic tool to manipulate people.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This thread is so typical of what has happened to our country. Here we are btching between ourselves and oh hey Isis may have recruited a middle class US kid from AZ (not actually an urban hotbed) to shoot up an event in TX.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/05/report-islamic-state-claims-credit-for-texas-attack/

what's your point? there will always be bad people in the world. one guy in 300M+ shoots a couple people and you see it as what again? What does urban/non-urban have to do with anything?

Point is this is a guy who is not from poverty, well educated, there's no reason for him to go jihad. He didn't even live in the area. If they can get to him they can get to anybody.

Religion is a fantastic tool to manipulate people.

So no problem with making fun of it with cartoons that mock it, right?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

This thread is so typical of what has happened to our country. Here we are btching between ourselves and oh hey Isis may have recruited a middle class US kid from AZ (not actually an urban hotbed) to shoot up an event in TX.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/05/report-islamic-state-claims-credit-for-texas-attack/

what's your point? there will always be bad people in the world. one guy in 300M+ shoots a couple people and you see it as what again? What does urban/non-urban have to do with anything?

Point is this is a guy who is not from poverty, well educated, there's no reason for him to go jihad. He didn't even live in the area. If they can get to him they can get to anybody.

Religion is a fantastic tool to manipulate people.

So no problem with making fun of it with cartoons that mock it, right?

Nope. I sure wouldn't want to be in the area though.

 

[squistion]

This thread is so typical of what has happened to our country. Here we are btching between ourselves and oh hey Isis may have recruited a middle class US kid from AZ (not actually an urban hotbed) to shoot up an event in TX.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/05/report-islamic-state-claims-credit-for-texas-attack/

what's your point? there will always be bad people in the world. one guy in 300M+ shoots a couple people and you see it as what again? What does urban/non-urban have to do with anything?

Point is this is a guy who is not from poverty, well educated, there's no reason for him to go jihad. He didn't even live in the area. If they can get to him they can get to anybody.

And your solution is?

 

[Apple Jack]

This thread is so typical of what has happened to our country. Here we are btching between ourselves and oh hey Isis may have recruited a middle class US kid from AZ (not actually an urban hotbed) to shoot up an event in TX.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/05/report-islamic-state-claims-credit-for-texas-attack/

what's your point? there will always be bad people in the world. one guy in 300M+ shoots a couple people and you see it as what again? What does urban/non-urban have to do with anything?

Point is this is a guy who is not from poverty, well educated, there's no reason for him to go jihad. He didn't even live in the area. If they can get to him they can get to anybody.

Religion is a fantastic tool to manipulate people.

So no problem with making fun of it with cartoons that mock it, right?

Not at all. But deliberately provoking homicidal lunatics isn't really an apples to apples situation. It becomes something far beyond mere provocation of the religious at that point. You're getting into the yelling fire in a movie theater area of free speech.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

I said this earlier in the thread. Would the freedom of speech guys be ok with having a cartoon contest that makes fun of black people. Isn't being insensitive to others just because you can still wrong?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This thread is so typical of what has happened to our country. Here we are btching between ourselves and oh hey Isis may have recruited a middle class US kid from AZ (not actually an urban hotbed) to shoot up an event in TX.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/05/report-islamic-state-claims-credit-for-texas-attack/

what's your point? there will always be bad people in the world. one guy in 300M+ shoots a couple people and you see it as what again? What does urban/non-urban have to do with anything?

Point is this is a guy who is not from poverty, well educated, there's no reason for him to go jihad. He didn't even live in the area. If they can get to him they can get to anybody.

And your solution is?

That is the question, Squiz, and I surely don't have it. I just thought there might be more brainstorming on that issue, which to me seems front and center.

Willie cranked up the debate, about what we would or should do in this situation, and his points are valid. I don't know that any of us would go running up to a mosque with a cartoon of a naked Mohammed holding an AK47 and shout "See! See!" at everyone leaving Friday evening prayers. And yet everyone seems to agree that the right to criticize religions via pictures exists.

Meanwhile there is this problem with Isis and AQ inspired attacks occurring in our country possibly without any real definition of where it might come from. Seems to me that's a bigger issue.

 

[Apple Jack]

This thread is so typical of what has happened to our country. Here we are btching between ourselves and oh hey Isis may have recruited a middle class US kid from AZ (not actually an urban hotbed) to shoot up an event in TX.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/05/report-islamic-state-claims-credit-for-texas-attack/

what's your point? there will always be bad people in the world. one guy in 300M+ shoots a couple people and you see it as what again? What does urban/non-urban have to do with anything?

Point is this is a guy who is not from poverty, well educated, there's no reason for him to go jihad. He didn't even live in the area. If they can get to him they can get to anybody.

Was Tim McVeigh from urban poverty? Fort Hood guy? VTech guy? Aurora guy? The urban poor tend to have a far more practical relationship with murder.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This thread is so typical of what has happened to our country. Here we are btching between ourselves and oh hey Isis may have recruited a middle class US kid from AZ (not actually an urban hotbed) to shoot up an event in TX.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/05/report-islamic-state-claims-credit-for-texas-attack/

what's your point? there will always be bad people in the world. one guy in 300M+ shoots a couple people and you see it as what again? What does urban/non-urban have to do with anything?

Point is this is a guy who is not from poverty, well educated, there's no reason for him to go jihad. He didn't even live in the area. If they can get to him they can get to anybody.

Religion is a fantastic tool to manipulate people.

So no problem with making fun of it with cartoons that mock it, right?

Not at all. But deliberately provoking homicidal lunatics isn't really an apples to apples situation. It becomes something far beyond mere provocation of the religious at that point. You're getting into the yelling fire in a movie theater arena of free speech.

Let's scale it back a bit. As I recall this started in Denmark with a picture of Mohammed with a missile in his turban. That's maybe not Nash, but it seems like a perfectly acceptable political point pithily made.

Hebdo got more pointed, but then they are a satirical magazine that mocks several religions. But again they were making a serious political point.

The Garland event is either about proving a point about free speech or purposefully taunting extremists, or both.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This thread is so typical of what has happened to our country. Here we are btching between ourselves and oh hey Isis may have recruited a middle class US kid from AZ (not actually an urban hotbed) to shoot up an event in TX.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/05/report-islamic-state-claims-credit-for-texas-attack/

what's your point? there will always be bad people in the world. one guy in 300M+ shoots a couple people and you see it as what again? What does urban/non-urban have to do with anything?

Point is this is a guy who is not from poverty, well educated, there's no reason for him to go jihad. He didn't even live in the area. If they can get to him they can get to anybody.

Was Tim McVeigh from urban poverty? Fort Hood guy? VTech guy? Aurora guy? The urban poor tend to have a far more practical relationship with murder.

The VaTech and Aurora killers were plumb crazy, let's leave them out. - It's a good point, especially as to McVeigh and Fort Hood. I don't think that McVeigh coordinated with any groups (IIRC) though I think I recall he was involved with some militia group. Ft Hood killer was in contact with Alawaki. I think it's groups reaching out and inspiring via twitter, facebook and elsewhere on the net to just about anyone is really concerning.

 

[glvsav37]

This thread is so typical of what has happened to our country. Here we are btching between ourselves and oh hey Isis may have recruited a middle class US kid from AZ (not actually an urban hotbed) to shoot up an event in TX.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/05/report-islamic-state-claims-credit-for-texas-attack/

what's your point? there will always be bad people in the world. one guy in 300M+ shoots a couple people and you see it as what again? What does urban/non-urban have to do with anything?

Point is this is a guy who is not from poverty, well educated, there's no reason for him to go jihad. He didn't even live in the area. If they can get to him they can get to anybody.

Religion is a fantastic tool to manipulate people.

So no problem with making fun of it with cartoons that mock it, right?

Not at all. But deliberately provoking homicidal lunatics isn't really an apples to apples situation. It becomes something far beyond mere provocation of the religious at that point. You're getting into the yelling fire in a movie theater arena of free speech.

Let's scale it back a bit. As I recall this started in Denmark with a picture of Mohammed with a missile in his turban. That's maybe not Nash, but it seems like a perfectly acceptable political point pithily made.

Hebdo got more pointed, but then they are a satirical magazine that mocks several religions. But again they were making a serious political point.

The Garland event is either about proving a point about free speech or purposefully taunting extremists, or both.

or baiting a hook that the fish bit on immediately and expected.

wether you agree or not about holding this cartoon contest, its proving harder and harder to defend Islam as a religion of peace.

"Artists" have been doing stupid #### for years against religion and other political views. I remember a long while ago, there was something about a cross in piss or something like that. Distasteful, yes. Provoking, yes. Have anyone shoot up the venue? No.

Even the gay marriage rallies at the supreme court have been heated but each side being mostly civil. But I'm sure radical islamists would not act the same.

Echoing Jon Stewart last night..."You just can't shoot people."

 

[moleculo]

I said this earlier in the thread. Would the freedom of speech guys be ok with having a cartoon contest that makes fun of black people. Isn't being insensitive to others just because you can still wrong?

depends on what you mean by "ok". By no means do I think people should do such a thing, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to do so without fearing for their lives.

Look - there are two events that were both wrong, and these wrongs are not even close to being equal.

First, people should not publicly taunt psychopaths nor mock religions. Shame on them for doing that, but this still falls under the scope of constitutionally protected free speech.

Second, people should not try to kill those that express their free speech, no matter how distasteful it may be.

Event two is WAAAAAAAAY worse than scope one. They aren't even in the same stratosphere. It's mindboggling that people are drawing some sort of equivalence between the two, or justify the second with the first. It's ludicrous that the focus, at least in this thread, is on the first event.

 

[Apple Jack]

I said this earlier in the thread. Would the freedom of speech guys be ok with having a cartoon contest that makes fun of black people. Isn't being insensitive to others just because you can still wrong?

depends on what you mean by "ok". By no means do I think people should do such a thing, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to do so without fearing for their lives.

Look - there are two events that were both wrong, and these wrongs are not even close to being equal.

First, people should not publicly taunt psychopaths nor mock religions. Shame on them for doing that, but this still falls under the scope of constitutionally protected free speech.

Second, people should not try to kill those that express their free speech, no matter how distasteful it may be.

Event two is WAAAAAAAAY worse than scope one. They aren't even in the same stratosphere. It's mindboggling that people are drawing some sort of equivalence between the two, or justify the second with the first. It's ludicrous that the focus, at least in this thread, is on the first event.

Who did that? Also, when it's apparent that if you do the first the second is likely to follow, you are yourself a threat to the public at that point.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I find it interesting no one has made reference to the nature of the cartoons. What did they depict? We're they mocking? Serious? Insightful? Fair? Funny?

Does that matter at all in your views?

Here are three that the organizer posted on facebook. I don't find them especially insightful but I'm no art critic.

https://www.facebook.com/pamelageller/photos/pb.193266897438.-2207520000.1430767145./10153318389802439/?type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/pamelageller/photos/pb.193266897438.-2207520000.1430767145./10153318087452439/?type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/pamelageller/photos/pb.193266897438.-2207520000.1430767145./10153316525732439/?type=3&theater

I'm going to say the first one is not that outrageous. I realize the image of Mohammed as an angry sword wielding zealot would be seen as a slur, but it also seems to have a point that is being made about free speech, "You can't draw me!" "That's why I draw you!" The other two are caricaturish and third one plainly tries to paint islam as a whole.

 

[Apple Jack]

Reminds me of the good ol' days when mixing threads called for a public stoning.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

I said this earlier in the thread. Would the freedom of speech guys be ok with having a cartoon contest that makes fun of black people. Isn't being insensitive to others just because you can still wrong?

depends on what you mean by "ok". By no means do I think people should do such a thing, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to do so without fearing for their lives.

Look - there are two events that were both wrong, and these wrongs are not even close to being equal.

First, people should not publicly taunt psychopaths nor mock religions. Shame on them for doing that, but this still falls under the scope of constitutionally protected free speech.

Second, people should not try to kill those that express their free speech, no matter how distasteful it may be.

Event two is WAAAAAAAAY worse than scope one. They aren't even in the same stratosphere. It's mindboggling that people are drawing some sort of equivalence between the two, or justify the second with the first. It's ludicrous that the focus, at least in this thread, is on the first event.

Without the first the second does not happen.

 

[rockaction]

I said this earlier in the thread. Would the freedom of speech guys be ok with having a cartoon contest that makes fun of black people. Isn't being insensitive to others just because you can still wrong?

depends on what you mean by "ok". By no means do I think people should do such a thing, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to do so without fearing for their lives.

Look - there are two events that were both wrong, and these wrongs are not even close to being equal.

First, people should not publicly taunt psychopaths nor mock religions. Shame on them for doing that, but this still falls under the scope of constitutionally protected free speech.

Second, people should not try to kill those that express their free speech, no matter how distasteful it may be.

Event two is WAAAAAAAAY worse than scope one. They aren't even in the same stratosphere. It's mindboggling that people are drawing some sort of equivalence between the two, or justify the second with the first. It's ludicrous that the focus, at least in this thread, is on the first event.

Who did that? Also, when it's apparent that if you do the first the second is likely to follow, you are yourself a threat to the public at that point.

Are you actually going to start making an argument that you can't hold these events out of public safety concerns?

 

[Apple Jack]

I said this earlier in the thread. Would the freedom of speech guys be ok with having a cartoon contest that makes fun of black people. Isn't being insensitive to others just because you can still wrong?

depends on what you mean by "ok". By no means do I think people should do such a thing, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to do so without fearing for their lives.

Look - there are two events that were both wrong, and these wrongs are not even close to being equal.

First, people should not publicly taunt psychopaths nor mock religions. Shame on them for doing that, but this still falls under the scope of constitutionally protected free speech.

Second, people should not try to kill those that express their free speech, no matter how distasteful it may be.

Event two is WAAAAAAAAY worse than scope one. They aren't even in the same stratosphere. It's mindboggling that people are drawing some sort of equivalence between the two, or justify the second with the first. It's ludicrous that the focus, at least in this thread, is on the first event.

Who did that? Also, when it's apparent that if you do the first the second is likely to follow, you are yourself a threat to the public at that point.

Are you actually going to start making an argument that you can't hold these events out of public safety concerns?

"Can't?" No. But while safe from a court of law, I'm still going to say that some of any blood shed as a result is on the hands of the event organizers. As will anybody with a shred of common sense.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Freedom of speech is very important in this country. When I was a kid, the American Nazi Party sought to have a march in Skokie, Illinois, in the midst of a bunch of Holocaust survivors. There was outrage, but the ACLU fought on behalf of the Nazis. And they should have.

But protecting their right to speak is one thing; celebrating it is quite another. The Nazis were scum. They were deliberately trying to get a reaction and they didn't care how terrible it would be for survivors to have to witness that. We can protect their right to free speech, but still condemn them for the content of their message.

It's the same here. Pam Geller's group had no intention other than to antagonize Muslims. She is consistently incendiary, and looks for media headlines. She has spoken out in favor of internment of American Muslims (along with that other Fox News hack, Michele Malkin), just like we did to the Japanese during Workd War II. She's a disgusting, disgusting human being. How anyone could defend this garbage is beyond me (and no I'm not talking about her right to do it, again I'm talking about the content of her message.)

Yaknow, Iran held an Holocaust Cartoon Competition...

http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-holocaust-cartoon-contest-draws-hundreds-of-entries/

... and we're about to do business with them.

That's an actual government that did this.

 

[Parrothead]

I said this earlier in the thread. Would the freedom of speech guys be ok with having a cartoon contest that makes fun of black people. Isn't being insensitive to others just because you can still wrong?

depends on what you mean by "ok". By no means do I think people should do such a thing, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to do so without fearing for their lives.

Look - there are two events that were both wrong, and these wrongs are not even close to being equal.

First, people should not publicly taunt psychopaths nor mock religions. Shame on them for doing that, but this still falls under the scope of constitutionally protected free speech.

Second, people should not try to kill those that express their free speech, no matter how distasteful it may be.

Event two is WAAAAAAAAY worse than scope one. They aren't even in the same stratosphere. It's mindboggling that people are drawing some sort of equivalence between the two, or justify the second with the first. It's ludicrous that the focus, at least in this thread, is on the first event.

Who did that? Also, when it's apparent that if you do the first the second is likely to follow, you are yourself a threat to the public at that point.

Are you actually going to start making an argument that you can't hold these events out of public safety concerns?

"Can't?" No. But while safe from a court of law, I'm still going to say that some of any blood shed as a result is on the hands of the event organizers.

cant you make the same argument about people organizing protests of the cops? I mean, blood shed can happen during altercations with police.. Ban all protests!

 

[Apple Jack]

cant you make the same argument about people organizing protests of the cops? I mean, blood shed can happen during altercations with police.. Ban all protests!

wut

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim American Muslims aren't even united on the offensiveness of Mohammed cartoons, it may be a very low number. In fact globally portrayals of Mohammed are ok in Iran and a whole host of othe places, largely Shiite. Images of Mohammed go back centuries. Nobody even showed up to protest the event. Some Muslims may even agree with the point if the cartoons. It's these ideological freaks who are presuming to speak for a whole religion.

My understanding is that images of Muhammad are considered offensive by a strong majority of religious Muslims. The radical ones are those who choose to do something violent as a result.

Religious muslims, how religious and which denomination?

Pictures of Mohammed are perfectly ok in much of the Shiite world (as long as they're respectful of course) and in pre-modern islam paintings and pictures of Mohammed were frequent.

And of course nearly all of the muslims in America who have considered such pictures "offensive" have reacted just the way Catholics, Christians, Jews, Hindus have when they have seen or heard offensive things about their religion, perhaps upset, perhaps calling for them to stop, but in all ways peacefully.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

I said this earlier in the thread. Would the freedom of speech guys be ok with having a cartoon contest that makes fun of black people. Isn't being insensitive to others just because you can still wrong?

depends on what you mean by "ok". By no means do I think people should do such a thing, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to do so without fearing for their lives.

Look - there are two events that were both wrong, and these wrongs are not even close to being equal.

First, people should not publicly taunt psychopaths nor mock religions. Shame on them for doing that, but this still falls under the scope of constitutionally protected free speech.

Second, people should not try to kill those that express their free speech, no matter how distasteful it may be.

Event two is WAAAAAAAAY worse than scope one. They aren't even in the same stratosphere. It's mindboggling that people are drawing some sort of equivalence between the two, or justify the second with the first. It's ludicrous that the focus, at least in this thread, is on the first event.

Who did that? Also, when it's apparent that if you do the first the second is likely to follow, you are yourself a threat to the public at that point.

Are you actually going to start making an argument that you can't hold these events out of public safety concerns?

"Can't?" No. But while safe from a court of law, I'm still going to say that some of any blood shed as a result is on the hands of the event organizers.

cant you make the same argument about people organizing protests of the cops? I mean, blood shed can happen during altercations with police.. Ban all protests!

I'd be ok with that, most protests/protestors are ridiculous anyhow.

 

[Willie Neslon]

General, take the religion out of it. If there was an anonymous threat issued in your town, if someone wrote on the internet that on Friday if anyone steps outside wearing a red shirt, they will be shot. Would you go out wearing a red shirt?

no, because I have a son to raise. In 10 years? I just might do it. But one thing's for certain, I'd support the people doing it.

Why would you potentially risk your life in order to wear a certain color shirt? Why not just wear a a different color shirt and continue breathing? who are you trying to impress and why are you trying to impress them?

Certainly not anyone in here. I'd do it out of principle, because I believe we have a pretty good thing going on America. Freedom isn't guaranteed. It's a relatively new concept in human history and s lot more fragile than most people realize.

You could wear a red shirt on saturday. You're free to do everything else on that friday. Out of principle you'd risk your life to exercise your right to wear a certain color shirt on one random day? Sorry general i just don't get that. Easy to say you would in this make believe hypothetical but another thing to actually wear it.

Nelson is everything that is wrong with America. Where were you born Nelson? Obviously you are not from America.I'm assuming you are French since your moto seems to be roll over and take it.

who is this nelson you are referring to? The name here is neslon. N-E-S...Neslon. Second time in this tread. And I was born right here in the usa.

 

[moleculo]

I said this earlier in the thread. Would the freedom of speech guys be ok with having a cartoon contest that makes fun of black people. Isn't being insensitive to others just because you can still wrong?

depends on what you mean by "ok". By no means do I think people should do such a thing, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to do so without fearing for their lives.

Look - there are two events that were both wrong, and these wrongs are not even close to being equal.

First, people should not publicly taunt psychopaths nor mock religions. Shame on them for doing that, but this still falls under the scope of constitutionally protected free speech.

Second, people should not try to kill those that express their free speech, no matter how distasteful it may be.

Event two is WAAAAAAAAY worse than scope one. They aren't even in the same stratosphere. It's mindboggling that people are drawing some sort of equivalence between the two, or justify the second with the first. It's ludicrous that the focus, at least in this thread, is on the first event.

Who did that? Also, when it's apparent that if you do the first the second is likely to follow, you are yourself a threat to the public at that point.

good lord, no. If you do the first and the second is likely to follow, the threat to public safety is the people perpetrating the second. These are the guys to blame, period. end of story.

 

[moleculo]

I said this earlier in the thread. Would the freedom of speech guys be ok with having a cartoon contest that makes fun of black people. Isn't being insensitive to others just because you can still wrong?

depends on what you mean by "ok". By no means do I think people should do such a thing, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to do so without fearing for their lives.

Look - there are two events that were both wrong, and these wrongs are not even close to being equal.

First, people should not publicly taunt psychopaths nor mock religions. Shame on them for doing that, but this still falls under the scope of constitutionally protected free speech.

Second, people should not try to kill those that express their free speech, no matter how distasteful it may be.

Event two is WAAAAAAAAY worse than scope one. They aren't even in the same stratosphere. It's mindboggling that people are drawing some sort of equivalence between the two, or justify the second with the first. It's ludicrous that the focus, at least in this thread, is on the first event.

Who did that? Also, when it's apparent that if you do the first the second is likely to follow, you are yourself a threat to the public at that point.

Are you actually going to start making an argument that you can't hold these events out of public safety concerns?

"Can't?" No. But while safe from a court of law, I'm still going to say that some of any blood shed as a result is on the hands of the event organizers.

cant you make the same argument about people organizing protests of the cops? I mean, blood shed can happen during altercations with police.. Ban all protests!

I'd be ok with that, most protests/protestors are ridiculous anyhow.

wow.

 

[moleculo]

I said this earlier in the thread. Would the freedom of speech guys be ok with having a cartoon contest that makes fun of black people. Isn't being insensitive to others just because you can still wrong?

depends on what you mean by "ok". By no means do I think people should do such a thing, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to do so without fearing for their lives.

Look - there are two events that were both wrong, and these wrongs are not even close to being equal.

First, people should not publicly taunt psychopaths nor mock religions. Shame on them for doing that, but this still falls under the scope of constitutionally protected free speech.

Second, people should not try to kill those that express their free speech, no matter how distasteful it may be.

Event two is WAAAAAAAAY worse than scope one. They aren't even in the same stratosphere. It's mindboggling that people are drawing some sort of equivalence between the two, or justify the second with the first. It's ludicrous that the focus, at least in this thread, is on the first event.

Without the first the second does not happen.

without an admittedly-untasteful legal act, a heinous illegal act would not occur. Therefore, place blame on the parties engaging in the first legal act?

"If she wasn't dressed so provocatively, she wouldn't have been raped."

 

[moleculo]

the focus of this story should not be cartoonists deliberately being provocative, the real story here is this is the first occurrence (to my knowledge, at least) of a Muslim attack on free speech on American soil. Further, the attackers were in cahoots with ISIS, and at least one of them did not come from a Muslim household.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

the focus of this story should not be cartoonists deliberately being provocative, the real story here is this is the first occurrence (to my knowledge, at least) of a Muslim attack on free speech on American soil. Further, the attackers were in cahoots with ISIS, and at least one of them did not come from a Muslim household.

Yep, I agree.

 

[Weeber]

General, take the religion out of it. If there was an anonymous threat issued in your town, if someone wrote on the internet that on Friday if anyone steps outside wearing a red shirt, they will be shot. Would you go out wearing a red shirt?

no, because I have a son to raise. In 10 years? I just might do it. But one thing's for certain, I'd support the people doing it.

Why would you potentially risk your life in order to wear a certain color shirt? Why not just wear a a different color shirt and continue breathing? who are you trying to impress and why are you trying to impress them?

Certainly not anyone in here. I'd do it out of principle, because I believe we have a pretty good thing going on America. Freedom isn't guaranteed. It's a relatively new concept in human history and s lot more fragile than most people realize.

You could wear a red shirt on saturday. You're free to do everything else on that friday. Out of principle you'd risk your life to exercise your right to wear a certain color shirt on one random day? Sorry general i just don't get that. Easy to say you would in this make believe hypothetical but another thing to actually wear it.

Nelson is everything that is wrong with America. Where were you born Nelson? Obviously you are not from America.I'm assuming you are French since your moto seems to be roll over and take it.

who is this nelson you are referring to? The name here is neslon. N-E-S...Neslon. Second time in this tread. And I was born right here in the usa.

I'm sure you were Nelson.

 

[moleculo]

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it so you better just remain silent.

fixed.

 

[Apple Jack]

I said this earlier in the thread. Would the freedom of speech guys be ok with having a cartoon contest that makes fun of black people. Isn't being insensitive to others just because you can still wrong?

depends on what you mean by "ok". By no means do I think people should do such a thing, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to do so without fearing for their lives.

Look - there are two events that were both wrong, and these wrongs are not even close to being equal.

First, people should not publicly taunt psychopaths nor mock religions. Shame on them for doing that, but this still falls under the scope of constitutionally protected free speech.

Second, people should not try to kill those that express their free speech, no matter how distasteful it may be.

Event two is WAAAAAAAAY worse than scope one. They aren't even in the same stratosphere. It's mindboggling that people are drawing some sort of equivalence between the two, or justify the second with the first. It's ludicrous that the focus, at least in this thread, is on the first event.

Who did that? Also, when it's apparent that if you do the first the second is likely to follow, you are yourself a threat to the public at that point.

good lord, no. If you do the first and the second is likely to follow, the threat to public safety is the people perpetrating the second. These are the guys to blame, period. end of story.

not too acquainted with common sense I see.

 

[Apple Jack]

i think it goes without saying that people here are opposed to senseless violence, regardless of guise.

 

[jon_mx]

So who won the contest?

 

[moleculo]

i think it goes without saying that people here are opposed to senseless violence, regardless of guise.

sure, everyone is opposed to senseless violence. some here choose to blame the victim - that's not a position I'm comfortable with.

 

[Apple Jack]

i think it goes without saying that people here are opposed to senseless violence, regardless of guise.

sure, everyone is opposed to senseless violence. some here choose to blame the victim - that's not a position I'm comfortable with.

The universe does not give a #### about our first amendment rights. Act accordingly.

 

[moleculo]

i think it goes without saying that people here are opposed to senseless violence, regardless of guise.

sure, everyone is opposed to senseless violence. some here choose to blame the victim - that's not a position I'm comfortable with.

The universe does not give a #### about our first amendment rights. Act accordingly.

not with that attitude, it won't.

 

[rockaction]

i think it goes without saying that people here are opposed to senseless violence, regardless of guise.

sure, everyone is opposed to senseless violence. some here choose to blame the victim - that's not a position I'm comfortable with.

The universe does not give a #### about our first amendment rights. Act accordingly.

I don't even know what the point being made here is. It's some sort of weird mix of traditionally atheistic or agnostic thought concerning the individual ego set to a socio-political context of some sort.

 

[Apple Jack]

i think it goes without saying that people here are opposed to senseless violence, regardless of guise.

sure, everyone is opposed to senseless violence. some here choose to blame the victim - that's not a position I'm comfortable with.

The universe does not give a #### about our first amendment rights. Act accordingly.

not with that attitude, it won't.

well, good luck out there trying to change the minds of homicidally deranged people by antagonizing them. just please dont do it in proximity to reasonable people who dont have a chance to decide for themselves whether or not that want any part of it. and that goes for cops who will be called in to protect you.

 

[pats3in4]

Tangent on whether or not it is foolishness to poke the hornets nest that is radical Islam...

The often unreported radical Islam-on-moderate Islam violence around the world

Taking a stand in the USA against radical Islam doesn't hold a candle to what these folks do in their home countries.