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

[General Tso]

We needn't celebrate what Geller is doing, or encourage her (as General Tso has done) or call her a hero (as rockaction has done). We can and should celebrate her right to do it all day long and condemn anyone who attempts to violently interfere with that right. But none of this changes the fact that she's a very bad person and not to be celebrated.

I'll continue to encourage anyone who challenges radical Islam and Sharia Law, Tim. You obviously don't seem to have a problem with it, which boggles my mind. It's evil that dwarfs any of the other crap you get so indignant about, like bigoted words coming from people like Geller.

OK. I just disagree with you. I don't think she's "challenging" radical Islam.I also don't regard Sharia Law as a threat the way radical Islamic violence is a threat.

I do agree with you that Geller has a checkered past with Islam, and has made some statements and taken some positions that are bigoted at best, hateful at worst.

Still can't fathom your position on Sharia Law though. It seems to embody all the bigotry, intolerance and hatred that you call out so much in here (and rightfully so). It seems so against everything you stand for.

 

[tommyboy]

either we have free speech, or we don't. Personally, i prefer to protect your right to burn a flag, fly a bumper sticker that says Buck Fush, or create "Piss Christ" as art, even if I think that makes you a scumbag.

and that same principle holds true when Pamela Geller holds a "draw Muhammad" contest. It might offend someone.

so what?

 

[timschochet]

I despise Sharia Law. But I also don't think much of Hasidic law or the way the Amish live. In all 3 cases there is much to admire, but even more to despise.

But I don't think Sharia is s threat. Like the other two examples it represents a series of customs that religious Muslims choose to carry out between each other. Within the western world it will never be anything more than that.

 

[General Tso]

I despise Sharia Law. But I also don't think much of Hasidic law or the way the Amish live. In all 3 cases there is much to admire, but even more to despise.

But I don't think Sharia is s threat. Like the other two examples it represents a series of customs that religious Muslims choose to carry out between each other. Within the western world it will never be anything more than that.

You don't see radical Islam trying to spread Sharia Law? You don't view that as a threat?

 

[timschochet]

I despise Sharia Law. But I also don't think much of Hasidic law or the way the Amish live. In all 3 cases there is much to admire, but even more to despise.

But I don't think Sharia is s threat. Like the other two examples it represents a series of customs that religious Muslims choose to carry out between each other. Within the western world it will never be anything more than that.

You don't see radical Islam trying to spread Sharia Law? You don't view that as a threat?

Not here. In the Middle East, yes. And that could be a threat to our oil supply, depending. Over here the threat we face is from radical Islamists committing terrorism as a form or either overreaction to something we've done, or as part of a general hostility to western values. IMO actions such as Geller's are not effective means to fight this; if anything they make it worse.

 

[shadrap]

either we have free speech, or we don't. Personally, i prefer to protect your right to burn a flag, fly a bumper sticker that says Buck Fush, or create "Piss Christ" as art, even if I think that makes you a scumbag.

and that same principle holds true when Pamela Geller holds a "draw Muhammad" contest. It might offend someone.

so what?

Nice post.

 

[shadrap]

either we have free speech, or we don't. Personally, i prefer to protect your right to burn a flag, fly a bumper sticker that says Buck Fush, or create "Piss Christ" as art, even if I think that makes you a scumbag.

and that same principle holds true when Pamela Geller holds a "draw Muhammad" contest. It might offend someone.

so what?

Couldn't resist, Nice post again.

 

[timschochet]

either we have free speech, or we don't. Personally, i prefer to protect your right to burn a flag, fly a bumper sticker that says Buck Fush, or create "Piss Christ" as art, even if I think that makes you a scumbag.

and that same principle holds true when Pamela Geller holds a "draw Muhammad" contest. It might offend someone.

so what?

Couldn't resist, Nice post again.

Actually it was bad the first time but gets worse each time I read it.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I despise Sharia Law. But I also don't think much of Hasidic law or the way the Amish live. In all 3 cases there is much to admire, but even more to despise.

But I don't think Sharia is s threat. Like the other two examples it represents a series of customs that religious Muslims choose to carry out between each other. Within the western world it will never be anything more than that.

You don't see radical Islam trying to spread Sharia Law? You don't view that as a threat?

Not here. In the Middle East, yes. And that could be a threat to our oil supply, depending.Over here the threat we face is from radical Islamists committing terrorism as a form or either overreaction to something we've done, or as part of a general hostility to western values. IMO actions such as Geller's are not effective means to fight this; if anything they make it worse.

Do you think Sharia is a threat to the women that are living in the Middle East? Do you care about them, or is it no big deal as long as it's not directly impacting us here in the States?

 

[joetrow]

If people can't realize through debate that these homicidal maniacs chill free speech with the assassin's veto, then maybe humor will do it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/10/snl-draw-muhammad_n_7252262.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

All the more reason to draw this consistently.

I saw that last night. Good skit, and very suprised to se it done.Just wondering, is it also illegal under Sharia Law to talk about blaspheming Muhammad?

Yes.

The only source in Islamic law that all Muslims accept indisputably is the Quran. And, conspicuously, the Quran decrees no earthly punishment for blasphemy or for apostasy (abandonment or renunciation of the faith), a related concept. Nor, for that matter, does the Quran command stoning, female circumcision or a ban on fine arts. All these doctrinal innovations, as it were, were brought into the literature of Islam as medieval scholars interpreted it, according to the norms of their time and milieu.

Which is why I've stated repeatedly that the problem with Islam is not the Quran but the Hadiths.

Yes you have, and you've been absolutely correct.The Hadiths can be more easily modified, no? I mean, it's a scholar's interpretation of the text itself. This would seem to lend credence to the idea of putting more pressure on Muslims to change their ways. The silence and inaction from the Muslim world is becoming more and more alarming to me. And it argues for MORE pressure from Geller and others to address these terrible interpretations.

Does anybody in here support Muslim hypersensitivity regarding Muhammad and blasphemy interpretations? Does anyone think that a religion, any religion, is beyond reproach or social criticism? And does anyone not believe in satire and political cartoons as an appropriate method for social criticism? We all agree that what Geller did here was legal and should be legal. But what we haven't discussed is, why was it a bad idea? Because it was hurtful?

This kind of faux outrage just bugs me. I don't agree with your premise, but even if true, why is it the responsibility of Muslims uninvolved with terrorism to take action and speak out? Do you find it your responsibility to do so for actions of individuals who may share characteristics or beliefs with you? And what hypocrisy, coming from an individual who votes and pays taxes to the government which is largely responsible for how the middle east has shaped from the mid-20th century to today.

 

[timschochet]

I would like to see women and homosexuals liberated the world over.

But when you ask if this is a threat to them, well it's a threat they've lived with for over 1,000 years. I wish the United States could rescue them, and the Sudanese people from slavery, and the Chinese from dictatorship, and Africa from its terrible poverty. We do what we can.

 

[General Tso]

either we have free speech, or we don't. Personally, i prefer to protect your right to burn a flag, fly a bumper sticker that says Buck Fush, or create "Piss Christ" as art, even if I think that makes you a scumbag.

and that same principle holds true when Pamela Geller holds a "draw Muhammad" contest. It might offend someone.

so what?

So what? So, let's dance! http://youtu.be/Sy_VzDlSies

 

[cstu]

It's free speech for me to advertise a "Burn A ###### Mannequin On A Cross Day" on my farm but when a black person shows up to kill me no one is going to feel sorry for me. Something is a bad idea if it serves no useful purpose other than to offend people.

That is unless you're talking about it's pissing on a Crucifix or likening the Christian God to a "Flying Spaghetti Monster". Then it's really edgy and funny.

The first one is offensive for no reason but the second one is satire.

 

[timschochet]

If people can't realize through debate that these homicidal maniacs chill free speech with the assassin's veto, then maybe humor will do it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/10/snl-draw-muhammad_n_7252262.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

All the more reason to draw this consistently.

I saw that last night. Good skit, and very suprised to se it done.Just wondering, is it also illegal under Sharia Law to talk about blaspheming Muhammad?

Yes.

The only source in Islamic law that all Muslims accept indisputably is the Quran. And, conspicuously, the Quran decrees no earthly punishment for blasphemy or for apostasy (abandonment or renunciation of the faith), a related concept. Nor, for that matter, does the Quran command stoning, female circumcision or a ban on fine arts. All these doctrinal innovations, as it were, were brought into the literature of Islam as medieval scholars interpreted it, according to the norms of their time and milieu.

Which is why I've stated repeatedly that the problem with Islam is not the Quran but the Hadiths.

Yes you have, and you've been absolutely correct.The Hadiths can be more easily modified, no? I mean, it's a scholar's interpretation of the text itself. This would seem to lend credence to the idea of putting more pressure on Muslims to change their ways. The silence and inaction from the Muslim world is becoming more and more alarming to me. And it argues for MORE pressure from Geller and others to address these terrible interpretations.

Does anybody in here support Muslim hypersensitivity regarding Muhammad and blasphemy interpretations? Does anyone think that a religion, any religion, is beyond reproach or social criticism? And does anyone not believe in satire and political cartoons as an appropriate method for social criticism? We all agree that what Geller did here was legal and should be legal. But what we haven't discussed is, why was it a bad idea? Because it was hurtful?

This kind of faux outrage just bugs me. I don't agree with your premise, but even if true, why is it the responsibility of Muslims uninvolved with terrorism to take action and speak out? Do you find it your responsibility to do so for actions of individuals who may share characteristics or beliefs with you? And what hypocrisy, coming from an individual who votes and pays taxes to the government which is largely responsible for how the middle east has shaped from the mid-20th century to today.

The United States is somewhat responsible for the shape of the Middle East, not largely responsible. The biggest responsibility goes to the regimes themselves.

 

[General Tso]

It's free speech for me to advertise a "Burn A ###### Mannequin On A Cross Day" on my farm but when a black person shows up to kill me no one is going to feel sorry for me. Something is a bad idea if it serves no useful purpose other than to offend people.

That is unless you're talking about it's pissing on a Crucifix or likening the Christian God to a "Flying Spaghetti Monster". Then it's really edgy and funny.

The first one is offensive for no reason but the second one is satire.

But it was still art. Actually, it was award winning art - a $5,000 prize from a Governmental Agency the National Endowment for the Arts. Yup - taxpayer money funded the award winning Piss Christ.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

This kind of faux outrage just bugs me. I don't agree with your premise, but even if true, why is it the responsibility of Muslims uninvolved with terrorism to take action and speak out? Do you find it your responsibility to do so for actions of individuals who may share characteristics or beliefs with you? And what hypocrisy, coming from an individual who votes and pays taxes to the government which is largely responsible for how the middle east has shaped from the mid-20th century to today.

I would say its the responsibility of every human being, not just Muslims, to take action and speak out against any atrocity against our fellow man, Islamic terrorism being just one of many.

I would like to see women and homosexuals liberated the world over.

But when you ask if this is a threat to them, well it's a threat they've lived with for over 1,000 years. I wish the United States could rescue them, and the Sudanese people from slavery, and the Chinese from dictatorship, and Africa from its terrible poverty. We do what we can.

And what we can do is shine the high beams on barbaric ideologies in an attempt to drive them out of existence. Drawing a cartoon that causes sickos to come out of the woodwork with machine guns and explosives is a fantastic example of taking action and speaking out against a dangerous ideology that threatens civilized society.

 

[timschochet]

This kind of faux outrage just bugs me. I don't agree with your premise, but even if true, why is it the responsibility of Muslims uninvolved with terrorism to take action and speak out? Do you find it your responsibility to do so for actions of individuals who may share characteristics or beliefs with you? And what hypocrisy, coming from an individual who votes and pays taxes to the government which is largely responsible for how the middle east has shaped from the mid-20th century to today.

I would say its the responsibility of every human being, not just Muslims, to take action and speak out against any atrocity against our fellow man, Islamic terrorism being just one of many.

I would like to see women and homosexuals liberated the world over.

But when you ask if this is a threat to them, well it's a threat they've lived with for over 1,000 years. I wish the United States could rescue them, and the Sudanese people from slavery, and the Chinese from dictatorship, and Africa from its terrible poverty. We do what we can.

And what we can do is shine the high beams on barbaric ideologies in an attempt to drive them out of existence. Drawing a cartoon that causes sickos to come out of the woodwork with machine guns and explosives is a fantastic example of taking action and speaking out against a dangerous ideology that threatens civilized society.

I know you believe this, and your goal is admirable (though I remain convinced that this is NOT the goal of the people who organized this contest.) But your method is deeply flawed: drawing the cartoon, does not shrink down the number of radical Islamists; it increases their number.

Now, Geller and co don't care about this, because they hold the bigoted opinion that ANYONE who practices Islam is no different from a radical Islamist. Therefore they're content to insult the entire religion, and if more people act radically as a result, it only "proves" what they believed to be so in the first place. But hopefully most reasonable people don't believe this. They (reasonable people) realize that in the struggle against radical Islam, we need the non-radical Muslims to be on our side. And insulting them does nothing to keep them on our side.

 

[rockaction]

It's more of an embarrassment that progressives are calling her an instigator and calling for regulations of "hate speech," which I'm sure progressives will attempt to define.

God Bless Pamela Geller right now. An anti-establishment national treasure at this moment in time.

 

[General Tso]

If people can't realize through debate that these homicidal maniacs chill free speech with the assassin's veto, then maybe humor will do it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/10/snl-draw-muhammad_n_7252262.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

All the more reason to draw this consistently.

I saw that last night. Good skit, and very suprised to se it done.Just wondering, is it also illegal under Sharia Law to talk about blaspheming Muhammad?

Yes.

The only source in Islamic law that all Muslims accept indisputably is the Quran. And, conspicuously, the Quran decrees no earthly punishment for blasphemy or for apostasy (abandonment or renunciation of the faith), a related concept. Nor, for that matter, does the Quran command stoning, female circumcision or a ban on fine arts. All these doctrinal innovations, as it were, were brought into the literature of Islam as medieval scholars interpreted it, according to the norms of their time and milieu.

Which is why I've stated repeatedly that the problem with Islam is not the Quran but the Hadiths.

Yes you have, and you've been absolutely correct.The Hadiths can be more easily modified, no? I mean, it's a scholar's interpretation of the text itself. This would seem to lend credence to the idea of putting more pressure on Muslims to change their ways. The silence and inaction from the Muslim world is becoming more and more alarming to me. And it argues for MORE pressure from Geller and others to address these terrible interpretations.

Does anybody in here support Muslim hypersensitivity regarding Muhammad and blasphemy interpretations? Does anyone think that a religion, any religion, is beyond reproach or social criticism? And does anyone not believe in satire and political cartoons as an appropriate method for social criticism? We all agree that what Geller did here was legal and should be legal. But what we haven't discussed is, why was it a bad idea? Because it was hurtful?

This kind of faux outrage just bugs me. I don't agree with your premise, but even if true, why is it the responsibility of Muslims uninvolved with terrorism to take action and speak out? Do you find it your responsibility to do so for actions of individuals who may share characteristics or beliefs with you? And what hypocrisy, coming from an individual who votes and pays taxes to the government which is largely responsible for how the middle east has shaped from the mid-20th century to today.

In answer to the bolded question - an emphatic Yes. If my government, or my religion, was committing atrocities the likes of radical Islam - absolutely yes I would feel morally compelled to speak out against it.

"History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

This kind of faux outrage just bugs me. I don't agree with your premise, but even if true, why is it the responsibility of Muslims uninvolved with terrorism to take action and speak out? Do you find it your responsibility to do so for actions of individuals who may share characteristics or beliefs with you? And what hypocrisy, coming from an individual who votes and pays taxes to the government which is largely responsible for how the middle east has shaped from the mid-20th century to today.

I would say its the responsibility of every human being, not just Muslims, to take action and speak out against any atrocity against our fellow man, Islamic terrorism being just one of many.

I would like to see women and homosexuals liberated the world over.

But when you ask if this is a threat to them, well it's a threat they've lived with for over 1,000 years. I wish the United States could rescue them, and the Sudanese people from slavery, and the Chinese from dictatorship, and Africa from its terrible poverty. We do what we can.

And what we can do is shine the high beams on barbaric ideologies in an attempt to drive them out of existence. Drawing a cartoon that causes sickos to come out of the woodwork with machine guns and explosives is a fantastic example of taking action and speaking out against a dangerous ideology that threatens civilized society.

I know you believe this, and your goal is admirable (though I remain convinced that this is NOT the goal of the people who organized this contest.) But your method is deeply flawed: drawing the cartoon, does not shrink down the number of radical Islamists; it increases their number.Now, Geller and co don't care about this, because they hold the bigoted opinion that ANYONE who practices Islam is no different from a radical Islamist. Therefore they're content to insult the entire religion, and if more people act radically as a result, it only "proves" what they believed to be so in the first place. But hopefully most reasonable people don't believe this. They (reasonable people) realize that in the struggle against radical Islam, we need the non-radical Muslims to be on our side. And insulting them does nothing to keep them on our side.

If the only thing keeping a moderate Muslim from becoming radicalized is a cartoon, then I would argue that they weren't all that moderate to begin with.

That being said, hurling insults for no other purpose than to insult is not likely to get us anywhere. I guess that's where we might just disagree. You seem convinced that Geller was up to no good, and nothing anyone says is going to convince you otherwise. And you may be right. Not knowing much about her before this contest, I am probably looking at this whole thing a bit more objectively, and I have no problem with what appears on the surface to be an attempt to simply point out a ridiculous hang up that some Muslims have with drawing pictures of their prophet. The fact that 2 armed gunmen showed up with murder on their mind only served to prove her point, which is why I think some are praising Geller in this instance. Looking at it objectively, I see no difference between the cartoon contest, South Park satire, the recent SNL skit, etc. - all attempts to expose and criticize stupid behavior that has no place in modern society.

 

[shadrap]

If people can't realize through debate that these homicidal maniacs chill free speech with the assassin's veto, then maybe humor will do it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/10/snl-draw-muhammad_n_7252262.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

All the more reason to draw this consistently.

I saw that last night. Good skit, and very suprised to se it done.Just wondering, is it also illegal under Sharia Law to talk about blaspheming Muhammad?

Yes.

The only source in Islamic law that all Muslims accept indisputably is the Quran. And, conspicuously, the Quran decrees no earthly punishment for blasphemy or for apostasy (abandonment or renunciation of the faith), a related concept. Nor, for that matter, does the Quran command stoning, female circumcision or a ban on fine arts. All these doctrinal innovations, as it were, were brought into the literature of Islam as medieval scholars interpreted it, according to the norms of their time and milieu.

Which is why I've stated repeatedly that the problem with Islam is not the Quran but the Hadiths.

Yes you have, and you've been absolutely correct.The Hadiths can be more easily modified, no? I mean, it's a scholar's interpretation of the text itself. This would seem to lend credence to the idea of putting more pressure on Muslims to change their ways. The silence and inaction from the Muslim world is becoming more and more alarming to me. And it argues for MORE pressure from Geller and others to address these terrible interpretations.

Does anybody in here support Muslim hypersensitivity regarding Muhammad and blasphemy interpretations? Does anyone think that a religion, any religion, is beyond reproach or social criticism? And does anyone not believe in satire and political cartoons as an appropriate method for social criticism? We all agree that what Geller did here was legal and should be legal. But what we haven't discussed is, why was it a bad idea? Because it was hurtful?

This kind of faux outrage just bugs me. I don't agree with your premise, but even if true, why is it the responsibility of Muslims uninvolved with terrorism to take action and speak out? Do you find it your responsibility to do so for actions of individuals who may share characteristics or beliefs with you? And what hypocrisy, coming from an individual who votes and pays taxes to the government which is largely responsible for how the middle east has shaped from the mid-20th century to today.

The United States is somewhat responsible for the shape of the Middle East, not largely responsible. The biggest responsibility goes to the regimes themselves.

Not bad Tim, since they(Middle East) have had about 2000 years to do form this stuff. USA, somewhat responsible? I get your point, but completely reject. They are in their own hell that they created.

Only problem is we interjected to fix something only they can fix.

IMO

 

[timschochet]

As I wrote, I believe we are somewhat responsible. We supported the Shah in Iran and didn't encourage him to reform enough. Our CIA helped to oust Mossedegh. We allowed the oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and a few other countries to make millions of dollars off of our production and consumption of a fuel they had nothing to do with, and we never pressured them to educate their populations. We played a neat little Cold War game with Egypt and Jordan and Syria and Lebanon in which we overlooked terrible dictatorships because they were nominally "anti-communist". And of course, we invaded Iraq and removed the Sunni government there without the least idea of what the consequences might be.

All of these items have helped turn the Middle East into the quagmire it is today. All of these items have helped bring about the rise of radical Islam. But none of them are the main reason. Again, that lies within the people themselves.

 

[shadrap]

Again, that lies within the people themselves.

perfect-we agree-its not my fault.

 

[shadrap]

" Again, that lies within the people themselves".

perfect-we agree-its not my fault.

Probably should have quoted your statement . It's now quoted.

the end.

 

[joetrow]

As I wrote, I believe we are somewhat responsible. We supported the Shah in Iran and didn't encourage him to reform enough. Our CIA helped to oust Mossedegh. We allowed the oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and a few other countries to make millions of dollars off of our production and consumption of a fuel they had nothing to do with, and we never pressured them to educate their populations. We played a neat little Cold War game with Egypt and Jordan and Syria and Lebanon in which we overlooked terrible dictatorships because they were nominally "anti-communist". And of course, we invaded Iraq and removed the Sunni government there without the least idea of what the consequences might be.

All of these items have helped turn the Middle East into the quagmire it is today. All of these items have helped bring about the rise of radical Islam. But none of them are the main reason. Again, that lies within the people themselves.

You highlight some things that have had significant effect on the shaping of the middle east, but you know you can't relay our meddling since '48 in a single paragraph. What about the 'terrorist' organizations we have supported, both through logistics, training, and funding, and others blowback. And what about the dictators we have propped up and funded, both overtly and covertly, in return for their support of Israel? Our military and political intervention has had a direct impact on the ability for bad to thrive. All these things in turn have had a direct impact on peoples lives, we can't just say 'its on them', our past and present action have an effect on who they are. And I think that is the sickest thing one society can do to another, we write their future.

 

[boots11234]

This thread is a great example Tim of why you need to stick to your self-imposed thread. You take everything over. You're a cancer on these boards. Go rent one of your daddy's 10x20 ffs. Just go.

 

[joetrow]

Not bad Tim, since they(Middle East) have had about 2000 years to do form this stuff. USA, somewhat responsible? I get your point, but completely reject. They are in their own hell that they created.

Only problem is we interjected to fix something only they can fix.

IMO

I think it would be great if you held this non-interventionist opinion, but I can tell by your support of using my money to fight Iran, by your support of restricting my ability to freely trade and invest in Iran, that you don't really feel this way. And being that sanctions have an effect on the balance of power, and being that war fought by a coercive government of 500 million has an effect on the balance of power, I'd say you support policies responsible for the shaping of the middle east.

 

[joetrow]

This thread is a great example Tim of why you need to stick to your self-imposed thread. You take everything over. You're a cancer on these boards. Go rent one of your daddy's 10x20 ffs. Just go.

lol. I think the only bad thing you could say about Tim is that he uses his vast historical knowledge subjectively, to paint eloquent pictures to his liking. If going beyond Limbaugh talking points is troubling to you, may I suggest not entering political threads, and not voting?

 

[timschochet]

As I wrote, I believe we are somewhat responsible. We supported the Shah in Iran and didn't encourage him to reform enough. Our CIA helped to oust Mossedegh. We allowed the oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and a few other countries to make millions of dollars off of our production and consumption of a fuel they had nothing to do with, and we never pressured them to educate their populations. We played a neat little Cold War game with Egypt and Jordan and Syria and Lebanon in which we overlooked terrible dictatorships because they were nominally "anti-communist". And of course, we invaded Iraq and removed the Sunni government there without the least idea of what the consequences might be.

All of these items have helped turn the Middle East into the quagmire it is today. All of these items have helped bring about the rise of radical Islam. But none of them are the main reason. Again, that lies within the people themselves.

You highlight some things that have had significant effect on the shaping of the middle east, but you know you can't relay our meddling since '48 in a single paragraph. What about the 'terrorist' organizations we have supported, both through logistics, training, and funding, and others blowback. And what about the dictators we have propped up and funded, both overtly and covertly, in return for their support of Israel? Our military and political intervention has had a direct impact on the ability for bad to thrive. All these things in turn have had a direct impact on peoples lives, we can't just say 'its on them', our past and present action have an effect on who they are. And I think that is the sickest thing one society can do to another, we write their future.

Joetrow, I am a pro-Israeli, Zionist Jew. At times I am highly critical of Israel (I don't like Netanyahu at all) but overall I regard Israel as a highly moral nation, just as I regard the United States as a highly moral nation. So I have to fundamentally disagree with your analysis in it's entirety.

 

[timschochet]

This thread is a great example Tim of why you need to stick to your self-imposed thread. You take everything over. You're a cancer on these boards. Go rent one of your daddy's 10x20 ffs. Just go.

lol. I think the only bad thing you could say about Tim is that he uses his vast historical knowledge subjectively, to paint eloquent pictures to his liking. If going beyond Limbaugh talking points is troubling to you, may I suggest not entering political threads, and not voting?

My historical knowledge isn't vast, but if you regard me as eloquent I consider that a compliment. Of course I'm subjective; who isn't? I don't think that's a bad thing.

 

[timschochet]

This thread is a great example Tim of why you need to stick to your self-imposed thread. You take everything over. You're a cancer on these boards. Go rent one of your daddy's 10x20 ffs. Just go.

You need to take a look in the mirror and consider (a) why you let other people in a discussion forum bother you to such an extent that you're willing to call them a "cancer" and (b) whether or not you contribute anything worthwhile to this forum with posts such as these.

 

[joetrow]

As I wrote, I believe we are somewhat responsible. We supported the Shah in Iran and didn't encourage him to reform enough. Our CIA helped to oust Mossedegh. We allowed the oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and a few other countries to make millions of dollars off of our production and consumption of a fuel they had nothing to do with, and we never pressured them to educate their populations. We played a neat little Cold War game with Egypt and Jordan and Syria and Lebanon in which we overlooked terrible dictatorships because they were nominally "anti-communist". And of course, we invaded Iraq and removed the Sunni government there without the least idea of what the consequences might be.

All of these items have helped turn the Middle East into the quagmire it is today. All of these items have helped bring about the rise of radical Islam. But none of them are the main reason. Again, that lies within the people themselves.

You highlight some things that have had significant effect on the shaping of the middle east, but you know you can't relay our meddling since '48 in a single paragraph. What about the 'terrorist' organizations we have supported, both through logistics, training, and funding, and others blowback. And what about the dictators we have propped up and funded, both overtly and covertly, in return for their support of Israel? Our military and political intervention has had a direct impact on the ability for bad to thrive. All these things in turn have had a direct impact on peoples lives, we can't just say 'its on them', our past and present action have an effect on who they are. And I think that is the sickest thing one society can do to another, we write their future.

Joetrow, I am a pro-Israeli, Zionist Jew. At times I am highly critical of Israel (I don't like Netanyahu at all) but overall I regard Israel as a highly moral nation, just as I regard the United States as a highly moral nation. So I have to fundamentally disagree with your analysis in it's entirety.

Even being that you disagree with my overall analysis, I think you must agree with the part relevant to this subject. Maybe not? That our governments actions and influences, whether moral or not, have had an effect on peoples lives and who they are. If all we are looking for is 'who is to blame' or 'who deserves punishment' for the attacks in Hebdo and in Texas, then it is only the individuals who committed the attacks. But if we are looking for the 'why?', why embrace radicalism, why commit the attacks, why does your life suck so bad your willing to give it away so early, I think we would find the culmination of our governments actions over the past 60 years has a great deal of influence.

 

[timschochet]

Yes I agree.

 

[joetrow]

This thread is a great example Tim of why you need to stick to your self-imposed thread. You take everything over. You're a cancer on these boards. Go rent one of your daddy's 10x20 ffs. Just go.

lol. I think the only bad thing you could say about Tim is that he uses his vast historical knowledge subjectively, to paint eloquent pictures to his liking. If going beyond Limbaugh talking points is troubling to you, may I suggest not entering political threads, and not voting?

My historical knowledge isn't vast, but if you regard me as eloquent I consider that a compliment. Of course I'm subjective; who isn't? I don't think that's a bad thing.

Just because I favor Hezbollah and the Palestinians to a Netanyahu Israel does not mean I'd support taking your money to provide material support for them, or ban you from supporting Israel. We all have our subjective opinions but it is a matter of whether or not we use those subjective opinions when forming our answer to 'what is government for'. I guess whats bad about it is that your historical knowledge is being used to support tyranny instead of liberty, from my perspective of course.

 

[tommyboy]

You support Hezbollah? Jfc

 

[joetrow]

You support Hezbollah? Jfc

I support the Palestinians getting a good deal, and Hezbollah and Hamas are a means to that end. Being that most governments worldwide have blacklisted opposing Israel with the use of force, which in my estimation is what is needed to keep them from swallowing Palestine whole, is it any surprise that the means to do so is less than ideal?

Just to be clear, I do not provide support to them, because my government is a big mean scary monster.

 

[Super King]

You support Hezbollah? Jfc

 

[rockaction]

It would have been more correct for Muhammad to say, "You shouldn't draw me, because if you do it will offend millions of the Islamic religion, and a small but significant minority might cause violence."

And then the artist could have written, "That's why I draw you, because I want to insult those millions, and I'm hoping some of them act in a violent way because that will serve to justify my bigotry against the entire religion."

This would have been far more accurate, if a little less succinct.

Nope. It's pretty clearly directly targeted at those who would cause violence and advocate violent reprisals against those who would practice freedom of speech and expression.

An excellent editorial cartoon, and perfectly defiant.

Volokh agrees with me. It's clear the cartoon winner is singling out those that would restrict freedom of speech by the sword. Great cartoon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/11/stay-quiet-and-youll-be-okay/

 

[bigbottom]

Norway repeals blasphemy law in response to Charlie Hebdo.

I hope for a trend like this in the rest of Europe and Canada.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/08/norway-repeals-blasphemy-law-in-response-to-charlie-hebdo-murders/

Fascinating that other countries are repealing speech restrictions in response, while so many Americans are asking for more restrictions.

I think Europe has been hit with many more random acts of violence and sees their unassimilated immigrants (largely Muslim) as more of a threat to their way of life and laws than we do (we tend to assimilate our immigrants better than Europe, according to many observers.) I also think that their immigration population is larger and more powerful as a voting bloc. Europe also, at its heart, is historically a bit less tolerant of other cultures than we are.

All of these are good arguments for either side to use, though. More afraid? Let's restrict speech. That's the tack some are taking here - holding a public exhibition of cartoons should be restricted because innocent people might get hurt.

Please link to the person in this thread who has called for this public exhibition to be restricted.

I don't believe I said this one. I said a public exhibition. Like on a college campus. Do you think that should be restricted?

Probably. I don't believe hate speech should be allowed in public colleges. Private ones are free to do what they want.

I realize that Free Speech rights are not absolute, but wouldn't they be more protected in the public school context than the private school context? And if you don't like hate speech on college campuses, why don't you think it should similarly be prohibited on private college campuses (where free speech rights wouldn't be implicated to the same degree, or even at all)? Seems like an odd distinction, and one that is counterintuitive from a constitutional free speech perspective.

 

[timschochet]

BB if I ran a private college I would certainly prohibit hate speech, and most of them do. But a private school, like any private entity, should under most circumstances be free to do as it wants regarding these issues.

 

[bigbottom]

BB if I ran a private college I would certainly prohibit hate speech, and most of them do. But a private school, like any private entity, should under most circumstances be free to do as it wants regarding these issues.

Okay, but you do realize that public university students have broader free speech rights than private university students, right?

 

[timschochet]

BB if I ran a private college I would certainly prohibit hate speech, and most of them do. But a private school, like any private entity, should under most circumstances be free to do as it wants regarding these issues.

Okay, but you do realize that public university students have broader free speech rights than private university students, right?

Yeah. And in general they should. But I still want hate speech prohibited.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

What is it about public universities that makes them so special in your mind, Tim?

 

[timschochet]

What is it about public universities that makes them so special in your mind, Tim?

You mean vs private or vs other venues for free speech? Vs private, public schools take taxpayer money so I and everyone else get some input in how they should be run. (private schools that get taxpayer money should also be subject to that input.)

Vs other venues for free speech is a little more difficult for me to explain why a college campus should be treated differently. I know that, IMO, it should, but I'll have to think of the right words to express exactly why. I don't want to write something rash here and then get caught in a logical trap of my own making. I do that too often.

 

[rockaction]

BB if I ran a private college I would certainly prohibit hate speech, and most of them do. But a private school, like any private entity, should under most circumstances be free to do as it wants regarding these issues.

Okay, but you do realize that public university students have broader free speech rights than private university students, right?

Yeah. And in general they should. But I still want hate speech prohibited.

And who would define "hate speech"? Our current professors and university administrators?

 

[timschochet]

BB if I ran a private college I would certainly prohibit hate speech, and most of them do. But a private school, like any private entity, should under most circumstances be free to do as it wants regarding these issues.

Okay, but you do realize that public university students have broader free speech rights than private university students, right?

Yeah. And in general they should. But I still want hate speech prohibited.

And who would define "hate speech"? Our current professors and university administrators?

Yes. They do now, and I dont think they do a bad job of it.

 

[rockaction]

Good. Let's start with this guy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002/sep/4/20020904-084657-6385r/

(we can do this all day if you want, tim)

 

[timschochet]

Good. Let's start with this guy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002/sep/4/20020904-084657-6385r/

(we can do this all day if you want, tim)

im having trouble linking that story beyond the headline. As a general rule, I am distrustful of the Washington Times as an accurate news source. They write stories like this one designed to piss conservatives off. But again, while I've tried to answer every question put to me about college campuses and free speech, aren't we straying too far away from the subject matter at this point?

 

[rockaction]

Good. Let's start with this guy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002/sep/4/20020904-084657-6385r/

(we can do this all day if you want, tim)

im having trouble linking that story beyond the headline. As a general rule, I am distrustful of the Washington Times as an accurate news source. They write stories like this one designed to piss conservatives off.But again, while I've tried to answer every question put to me about college campuses and free speech, aren't we straying too far away from the subject matter at this point?

We are indeed very far away. We can leave it with my question about who will enforce the standards of hate speech when, IMO, the professoriate and the academicians are completely far gone. That's the point I want to raise. The machinations of the enforcement of hate speech standards will be in the hands of complete and utterly out-of-touch loons.

 

[bigbottom]

Good. Let's start with this guy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002/sep/4/20020904-084657-6385r/

(we can do this all day if you want, tim)

im having trouble linking that story beyond the headline. As a general rule, I am distrustful of the Washington Times as an accurate news source. They write stories like this one designed to piss conservatives off.But again, while I've tried to answer every question put to me about college campuses and free speech, aren't we straying too far away from the subject matter at this point?

Link to the actual article: http://harvardmagazine.com/2002/09/abolish-the-white-race.html