Shooting occurs outside of a "Draw Muhammad" cartoon contest in Dallas

[YukonTrooper]

I love America.

[mongrel]

Indeed, it seems to be a great way of weeding out mean-spirited fanatics and anti-social elements.

The one thing about Islamist extremism is its willingness to remove itself from the gene pool. Pam Gellar would never get her own hands dirty.

The point is that the cartoonists and like-minded people were provoked by Islamists in the first place, not the other way round.

Actually the conference was a response to an earlier anti-Islamophobia conference held at the same venue.I guess a sectarian rally was supposed to provide balance.

[Symphony]

It's obviously a seriously problem that some Muslims like these two are violently intolerant towards freedom of speech. It's a fact that Islam has this problem and other religions don't.

You and I have very different interpretations of the word "fact".

The law is there to protect people, and to protect people's rights, included in which is freedom of speech (within reason). But frankly, I really don't see what is gained by drawing Mohammed cartoons in such an obviously offensive manner. You know the risk you are taking when you do it, you know it's provocative, so by all means do it, but don't have a cow when you get attacked by ISIS, is that not exactly why you did it in the first place?

I didn't realize attempted murder had a "...but they were totally asking for it" clause. One would think protecting the speaker from being ing murdered is one of the primary purposes of protecting speech in the first place. If our collective response is "well, you knew what you were getting yourself into, stop crying "....why do we even bother?

[Copperknickers II]

The point is that the cartoonists and like-minded people were provoked by Islamists in the first place, not the other way round. The practice of threatening not just dissenters, but even outsiders who you think criticize or mock your belief is extremely aggressive and has no place on such a crowded planet, in this day and age. This goes all the way back to the fatwa on Salman Rushdie, and indeed further back still. Had the free world responded to that fatwa with putting a price tag on Khomeini's head, maybe we wouldn't be having such big problems today.

Right. That would have helped massively in cooling tensions and making them see reason.

That's precisely the mentality that constitutes the problem in the first place. All you're saying is "Don't poke the bear". Islamists (and any Muslims who indulge them) aren't bears, they're people. They must be held to the same standards as everyone else.

If they're humans, they should also be treated with the same respect we treat other humans with. It is not considered acceptable to bait Jews with campaigns of Holocaust denial, or to make jokes about slavery to black people, so why is it considered such a triumph of free speech to deliberately offend Muslims, the majority of whom are perfectly reasonable people who just don't like their beliefs being blatantly attacked? By provoking violent Islamists, you are also attacking the greatly more numerous moderate Muslims. I don't think it's wrong to draw Mohammed, but I also understand that, as you say, Muslims are people, and if they find depictions of their prophet offensive then I think, beyond sending a solid message that we don't tolerate violent censorship of free speech (which probably does mean allowing the likes of Charlie Hebdo to offend people on occasion), I think it's our duty to respect their beliefs.

Likewise, IS aren't stupid, they're evil. You're confusing an aggressive anti-enlightenment stance with genetic stupidity. That's a dangerous mistake to make.

I disagree with that. These people are profoundly stupid, there are plenty of bears with more capacity for logical thinking than the average ISIS convert. Nobody is deliberately evil, evil is stupidity by definition.

edit: also, Texas isn't exactly close to the spiritual centres of Islam, or the power bases of nominally Islamic countries.

No, but it is one of the spiritual centres of the USA, which has spent the past 20 years killing thousands upon thousands of Muslims. I understand anger against the West in Texas a lot more than in Denmark or Sweden.

[Symphony]

No, but it is one of the spiritual centres of the USA.

...uh, what? I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

[mongrel]

...uh, what? I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

It seems straightforward. Texas, the homeland of George W Bush. The man who gave Al Queda what it wanted by invading Iraq and without whom ISIS would not have existed.

[Symphony]

Texas, the homeland of George W Bush. The man who gave Al Queda what it wanted by invading Iraq and without whom ISIS would not have existed.

Ok. I'm still not sure 1) how that answers my question, 2) how that qualifies it as a spiritual center of the US, or 3) how and whether a political entity can have a (or many) "spiritual centers". For that matter, I'm not sure how such a large and diverse state can be a singular homogenous "center" for anything; Houston, Dallas, and El Paso are all very different cities with a different general character and flavor to them.

Barack Obama was born in Honolulu and most recently hails from Illinois. Are either of those places then considered a "spiritual center" of the US as well? I mean, yes, Bush is from Texas, and I'm sure there's a very droll political joke in there somewhere if you didn't like Bush and want to make fun of the idiot Americans (and let's face it... the stereotypical yee-haw Texas attitude most Europeans are familiar with via caricature tends to open itself up for a lot of cheap shots), but I'm still not sure what either of you are on about (other than the aforementioned attempt at humor).

...or did you maybe both just get a little bit in over your heads with your generalizations?

[Condottiere 40K]

7947
I think it was the Mayor of theplace who distinctively tried to distance any relation between the event and the local attitude to diversity.

[Derpy Hooves]

It seems straightforward. Texas, the homeland of George W Bush. The man who gave Al Queda what it wanted by invading Iraq and without whom ISIS would not have existed.

So every state a president was born in is a spiritual center?
Also, ISIS started in 1999, before George Bush

[Symphony]

So every state a president was born in is a spiritual center?
Also, ISIS started in 1999, before George Bush

Hoover came from a small town in eastern Iowa....spiritual center of early 1930s America right there, man.

[Gatsby]

I really don't see why beliefs have to be respected. People, yes they should generally be respected. Beliefs? A belief isn't worth having if you're not willing to be called up on it and defend it.

If you are offended if you're belief is challenged, it's probably more of a delusion.

[snuggans]

So every state a president was born in is a spiritual center?
Also, ISIS started in 1999, before George Bush

what mongrel and coppernickers are getting at is that the place that this event took place in was east Texas which is an integral part of the bible belt, the Dallas area in particular is strongly evangelical. Houston does have the most attended church in the nation, etc, and that these population centers were of course voting and re-electing republicans who initiated wars in Muslim countries. fast forward and half of Iraq is under daesh's control after a very ugly occupation.

the byproducts of these conflicts such as Guantanamo and Iraqi special prisons serves to further create new jihadists who attack places like these.

or you merely have to draw the prophet.

[mongrel]

Ok. I'm still not sure 1) how that answers my question, 2) how that qualifies it as a spiritual center of the US, or 3) how and whether a political entity can have a (or many) "spiritual centers". For that matter, I'm not sure how such a large and diverse state can be a singular homogenous "center" for anything; Houston, Dallas, and El Paso are all very different cities with a different general character and flavor to them.

Barack Obama was born in Honolulu and most recently hails from Illinois. Are either of those places then considered a "spiritual center" of the US as well? I mean, yes, Bush is from Texas, and I'm sure there's a very droll political joke in there somewhere if you didn't like Bush and want to make fun of the idiot Americans (and let's face it... the stereotypical yee-haw Texas attitude most Europeans are familiar with via caricature tends to open itself up for a lot of cheap shots), but I'm still not sure what either of you are on about (other than the aforementioned attempt at humor).

...or did you maybe both just get a little bit in over your heads with your generalizations?

No, you are being way too literal I think. The context is fairly obvious as noted above. I will put on my "am I bothered?" face.

The issue I have with Texas in respect of this incident is that living there makes way too easy to obtain guns, the necessary requirement for shootouts.

I really don't see why beliefs have to be respected. People, yes they should generally be respected. Beliefs? A belief isn't worth having if you're not willing to be called up on it and defend it.

If you are offended if you're belief is challenged, it's probably more of a delusion.

I would turn this around. Is "freedom of speech" in America so fragile that it requires sectarian/racist conferences to maintain it.

These people are not interested in challenging belief, they want the total elimination of only one religion, Islam . They denigrate peoples tied to that religion. They advocate the removal of civil rights for Muslims, including the fundamental right to worship. They are happy to construct false narratives in order to promote prejudice against Muslims, in order to generate a political climate that is hostile to them.
They encourage war against Muslim countries, in some deluded belief that this somehow helps their pet foreign power, Israel. Their message encourages criminal and terrorist acts and so forth.

Also, ISIS started in 1999, before George Bush

That is wrong. Not sure why you would assert this unless you have confused them with some other group.

It was formed as a small insurgent group in Iraq in 2006. Its existence is entirely due to the fall of Saddam.


It shifted its focus from Iraq, where it was largely unsuccessful in developing a foothold, and focused on the civil war in Syria, where it still struggled.

Then in 2013 our Arab started funding anti-Assad insurgents, allowing it to expand, but were still nothing until they seized a massive quantity of US weapons and vehicles in June 2014.

America's responsibility? Absolutely, I blame both Bush and Obama for this.

[Blaze86420]

****ing lol "national anthem breaks out..". love it. has anyone else got more pics of these guys? i need to see more pictures of them. Esp if they are fat and sweaty.

There's your guy in the green collared shirt, clutching his heart. Probably had a heart attack from all the excitement.

[Gatsby]

Mongrel I get what you're saying about their intentions, and as I've said the group is a bunch of fools. The issue is how far it can be decided which speech is unacceptable based on the person saying it. Because I do agree that context is sometimes important: saying something outrageous like "Muslims don't belong in this country" might not be illegal in print, but if you say it to an angry crowd in front of a Muslim family's home then it isn't protected by free speech.

Is it less offensive for an atheist who wants to undermine all religions to draw Muhammad than it is for devout Christians, specifically targeting Islam?

[Papay]

So if i come and insult your dead mother will you say a)its ok free speech or b) punch me in the face?

Obviously violent behavior should be condemned but when someone insults other people its like asking for trouble

[Condottiere 40K]

10322
Free speech shouldn't turn into harassment, though going by the Westboro Baptist Church, it does.

[Derpy Hooves]

So if i come and insult your dead mother will you say a)its ok free speech or b) punch me in the face?

Obviously violent behavior should be condemned but when someone insults other people its like asking for trouble

​Punching someone in the face is not the same as trying to kill people

[Simon Cashmere]

Free speech shouldn't turn into harassment, though going by the Westboro Baptist Church, it does.

Who were they harrassing, they had a private event inside a gymnasium just NW of Dallas. Other than being able to see some pictures of the event on a few websites, you'd hardly know it was happening, until some perfectly reasonable everyday people with assault rifles attack the gymnasium.

And you know from time to time, Christians, Mormons and Jews feel offended about things. But none of them express their offense through intimidation, violence and terror attack. Only one religion makes editors fear publishing something they don't like, and in a supposedly free society that should not be tolerated, that one group has the abilityt to intimidate publishers into silence like the mafia. And then people who are intimidated, rationalise their subjugation by saying 'free speech has limits' and so on. A bit like the beaten housewife, never blame the abuser, always try hard to appease the abuser - and keep getting abused.

So if i come and insult your dead mother will you say a)its ok free speech or b) punch me in the face?

As a general rule I don't punch anyone in the face no matter what they are saying or doing. I recommend this to you as a good way of interacting with others. No face punches. Things go better that way.

[Vanoi]

That is wrong. Not sure why you would assert this unless you have confused them with some other group.

It was formed as a small insurgent group in Iraq in 2006. Its existence is entirely due to the fall of Saddam.

No it formed in 1999 as Char claimed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_state

The group has had various names.^[42]

1. The group was founded in 1999 by Jordanian radical Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād, "The Organisation of Monotheism and Jihad" (JTJ).^[25]
2. In October 2004, al-Zarqawi swore loyalty to Osama bin Laden and changed the group's name to Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn, "The Organisation of Jihad's Base in Mesopotamia", commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq. (AQI).^[42][43] Although the group has never called itself al-Qaeda in Iraq, this has been its informal name over the years.^[44]

The group took advantage of the war to become who they are.


I heard the IS claimed responsibility for this attack, but i highly doubt they were involved.