Pamela Geller is nuts

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Radical Muslims are murdering Christians, raping children, forcing women to be sex slaves and this is what has people's panties in a bunch.Really?

If your problem is with "radical" Muslims, why do you support insulting all -- or at least the great majority -- of Muslims? I am sure that you don't think other religions should be judged by their most radical members, so why treat Islam that way? Wouldn't you want to encourage a more targeted strategy that didn't actually alienate more Muslims?

“Piss Christ” insulted pretty much all Christians.
Other “art” endorsed by the NEA is offensive and insulting to Christians.
Do they go out and murder the artists? No.
As much as I hate it, this is free speech.
Just like the denigration of the American Flag, which insults most patriotic Americans.
The reason these acts are not condemned is because they do not “incite violence” because those who are offended or insulted are not prone to beheadings and mass killing.
It is so easy to condemn any “insult” to Islam due to fear.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Radical Muslims are murdering Christians, raping children, forcing women to be sex slaves and this is what has people's panties in a bunch.Really?

If your problem is with "radical" Muslims, why do you support insulting all -- or at least the great majority -- of Muslims? I am sure that you don't think other religions should be judged by their most radical members, so why treat Islam that way? Wouldn't you want to encourage a more targeted strategy that didn't actually alienate more Muslims?

I was very specific to indict radical Islam and not Islam as a whole. The potential for offense is a consequence of free speech--whether that offense is taken by Muslims, Christians, Jews, Republicans, Democrats, Women, Men, Blacks, Whites, Asians, Europeans, etc. Millions of people are "offended" by satire and by direct and indirect acts every day. Millions of people do not expect the world to bow to their narrow world view. I am not defending the actions of Gellar. I am defending her right to act, just as I defend the rights of other offensive groups and people to act. I simply pointed out the misplaced, in my opinion, angst over a cartoon contest in light of horrible atrocities--murders, rape, sexual slavery. Radical Muslims--or even Muslims--are not the only people who are subject to offense in this world. The difference, most of us don't murder in response.

Geller's right to act is not in dispute. You seem to believe that an act -- for instance, criticism of Geller instead of criticism of radical Muslims -- can be legal but "misplaced". Can you not conceive that the same might be true of Geller? While her actions are indisputably legal, they are insulting in a way that is not deserving of praise and support. If Geller had hosted an anti-Semitic display of some sort, she would be shunned by polite society. Polite society might well support her right to be anti-Semitic (as happened when the Nazis wanted to march through Skokie), but she would be shunned just the same. I assume that you, for instance, would not respond by criticizing critics of anti-Semetism and suggesting they should focus on the worst actions committed by other members of the group being offended. While criticism of Geller may well be misplaced, it is far less misplaced then her actions.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Radical Muslims are murdering Christians, raping children, forcing women to be sex slaves and this is what has people's panties in a bunch.Really?

If your problem is with "radical" Muslims, why do you support insulting all -- or at least the great majority -- of Muslims? I am sure that you don't think other religions should be judged by their most radical members, so why treat Islam that way? Wouldn't you want to encourage a more targeted strategy that didn't actually alienate more Muslims?

I was very specific to indict radical Islam and not Islam as a whole. The potential for offense is a consequence of free speech--whether that offense is taken by Muslims, Christians, Jews, Republicans, Democrats, Women, Men, Blacks, Whites, Asians, Europeans, etc. Millions of people are "offended" by satire and by direct and indirect acts every day. Millions of people do not expect the world to bow to their narrow world view. I am not defending the actions of Gellar. I am defending her right to act, just as I defend the rights of other offensive groups and people to act. I simply pointed out the misplaced, in my opinion, angst over a cartoon contest in light of horrible atrocities--murders, rape, sexual slavery. Radical Muslims--or even Muslims--are not the only people who are subject to offense in this world. The difference, most of us don't murder in response.

Geller's right to act is not in dispute. You seem to believe that an act -- for instance, criticism of Geller instead of criticism of radical Muslims -- can be legal but "misplaced". Can you not conceive that the same might be true of Geller? While her actions are indisputably legal, they are insulting in a way that is not deserving of praise and support. If Geller had hosted an anti-Semitic display of some sort, she would be shunned by polite society. Polite society might well support her right to be anti-Semitic (as happened when the Nazis wanted to march through Skokie), but she would be shunned just the same. I assume that you, for instance, would not respond by criticizing critics of anti-Semetism and suggesting they should focus on the worst actions committed by other members of the group being offended. While criticism of Geller may well be misplaced, it is far less misplaced then her actions.

If Jewish people in Israel were throwing gay men to their death, not allowing women to drive, killing women for being raped, selling young girls into temporary marriages to rich men and allowing them to be discarded and abused, I think I'd react the same way to a hypothetical Geller bash.

You are falsely comparing Judaism to Islam. Islam kills gay men daily. Islam subjugates women daily. Judaism and Christianity embrace morals and values on which modern society is based.

There are none so blind that will not see.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Radical Muslims are murdering Christians, raping children, forcing women to be sex slaves and this is what has people's panties in a bunch.Really?

If your problem is with "radical" Muslims, why do you support insulting all -- or at least the great majority -- of Muslims? I am sure that you don't think other religions should be judged by their most radical members, so why treat Islam that way? Wouldn't you want to encourage a more targeted strategy that didn't actually alienate more Muslims?

I was very specific to indict radical Islam and not Islam as a whole. The potential for offense is a consequence of free speech--whether that offense is taken by Muslims, Christians, Jews, Republicans, Democrats, Women, Men, Blacks, Whites, Asians, Europeans, etc. Millions of people are "offended" by satire and by direct and indirect acts every day. Millions of people do not expect the world to bow to their narrow world view. I am not defending the actions of Gellar. I am defending her right to act, just as I defend the rights of other offensive groups and people to act. I simply pointed out the misplaced, in my opinion, angst over a cartoon contest in light of horrible atrocities--murders, rape, sexual slavery. Radical Muslims--or even Muslims--are not the only people who are subject to offense in this world. The difference, most of us don't murder in response.

Geller's right to act is not in dispute. You seem to believe that an act -- for instance, criticism of Geller instead of criticism of radical Muslims -- can be legal but "misplaced". Can you not conceive that the same might be true of Geller? While her actions are indisputably legal, they are insulting in a way that is not deserving of praise and support. If Geller had hosted an anti-Semitic display of some sort, she would be shunned by polite society. Polite society might well support her right to be anti-Semitic (as happened when the Nazis wanted to march through Skokie), but she would be shunned just the same. I assume that you, for instance, would not respond by criticizing critics of anti-Semetism and suggesting they should focus on the worst actions committed by other members of the group being offended. While criticism of Geller may well be misplaced, it is far less misplaced then her actions.

You seem to be avoiding the crux of my response. People--and groups of people--are offended every day. Just as certain parts of society would "shun" Gellar for an anti-Semitic display, there would be those who support her, and also, those who support her right to be "offensive." The offensive acts of any group are always the acts that are highlighted. (For example, the Christian Right is often called out for their "extremists" views.) Muslims cannot and should not be treated any differently out of some misplaced sense of political correctness. We live in a society that values free speach. That means that at some time we will all be offended. How we respond to that offense determines our level of humanity.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
Geller's right to act is not in dispute. You seem to believe that an act -- for instance, criticism of Geller instead of criticism of radical Muslims -- can be legal but "misplaced". Can you not conceive that the same might be true of Geller? While her actions are indisputably legal, they are insulting in a way that is not deserving of praise and support. If Geller had hosted an anti-Semitic display of some sort, she would be shunned by polite society. Polite society might well support her right to be anti-Semitic (as happened when the Nazis wanted to march through Skokie), but she would be shunned just the same. I assume that you, for instance, would not respond by criticizing critics of anti-Semetism and suggesting they should focus on the worst actions committed by other members of the group being offended. While criticism of Geller may well be misplaced, it is far less misplaced then her actions.

If Geller had done something like burn the Koran, then I would agree with you. But what she did was more like having a pork dinner -- against the rules of Islam (and Judaism) but not hateful or demeaning toward Islam. If people were being killed for eating pork, would you think it was offensive to have pork banquet to demonstrate support?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Radical Muslims are murdering Christians, raping children, forcing women to be sex slaves and this is what has people's panties in a bunch.Really?

If your problem is with "radical" Muslims, why do you support insulting all -- or at least the great majority -- of Muslims? I am sure that you don't think other religions should be judged by their most radical members, so why treat Islam that way? Wouldn't you want to encourage a more targeted strategy that didn't actually alienate more Muslims?

I was very specific to indict radical Islam and not Islam as a whole. The potential for offense is a consequence of free speech--whether that offense is taken by Muslims, Christians, Jews, Republicans, Democrats, Women, Men, Blacks, Whites, Asians, Europeans, etc. Millions of people are "offended" by satire and by direct and indirect acts every day. Millions of people do not expect the world to bow to their narrow world view. I am not defending the actions of Gellar. I am defending her right to act, just as I defend the rights of other offensive groups and people to act. I simply pointed out the misplaced, in my opinion, angst over a cartoon contest in light of horrible atrocities--murders, rape, sexual slavery. Radical Muslims--or even Muslims--are not the only people who are subject to offense in this world. The difference, most of us don't murder in response.

Geller's right to act is not in dispute. You seem to believe that an act -- for instance, criticism of Geller instead of criticism of radical Muslims -- can be legal but "misplaced". Can you not conceive that the same might be true of Geller? While her actions are indisputably legal, they are insulting in a way that is not deserving of praise and support. If Geller had hosted an anti-Semitic display of some sort, she would be shunned by polite society. Polite society might well support her right to be anti-Semitic (as happened when the Nazis wanted to march through Skokie), but she would be shunned just the same. I assume that you, for instance, would not respond by criticizing critics of anti-Semetism and suggesting they should focus on the worst actions committed by other members of the group being offended. While criticism of Geller may well be misplaced, it is far less misplaced then her actions.

You seem to be avoiding the crux of my response. People--and groups of people--are offended every day. Just as certain parts of society would "shun" Gellar for an anti-Semitic display, there would be those who support her, and also, those who support her right to be "offensive." The offensive acts of any group are always the acts that are highlighted. (For example, the Christian Right is often called out for their "extremists" views.) Muslims cannot and should not be treated any differently out of some misplaced sense of political correctness. We live in a society that values free speach. That means that at some time we will all be offended. How we respond to that offense determines our level of humanity.

Exactly. I believe that humanity would be better served if Geller were criticized rather than praised for her actions. Legal and within her rights as they may be, they are offensive and should be treated as such. You, on the other hand, prefer to highlight actions by extreme elements of the religion -- actions which themselves are widely condemned by other members of the religion.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Radical Muslims are murdering Christians, raping children, forcing women to be sex slaves and this is what has people's panties in a bunch.Really?

If your problem is with "radical" Muslims, why do you support insulting all -- or at least the great majority -- of Muslims? I am sure that you don't think other religions should be judged by their most radical members, so why treat Islam that way? Wouldn't you want to encourage a more targeted strategy that didn't actually alienate more Muslims?

I was very specific to indict radical Islam and not Islam as a whole. The potential for offense is a consequence of free speech--whether that offense is taken by Muslims, Christians, Jews, Republicans, Democrats, Women, Men, Blacks, Whites, Asians, Europeans, etc. Millions of people are "offended" by satire and by direct and indirect acts every day. Millions of people do not expect the world to bow to their narrow world view. I am not defending the actions of Gellar. I am defending her right to act, just as I defend the rights of other offensive groups and people to act. I simply pointed out the misplaced, in my opinion, angst over a cartoon contest in light of horrible atrocities--murders, rape, sexual slavery. Radical Muslims--or even Muslims--are not the only people who are subject to offense in this world. The difference, most of us don't murder in response.

Geller's right to act is not in dispute. You seem to believe that an act -- for instance, criticism of Geller instead of criticism of radical Muslims -- can be legal but "misplaced". Can you not conceive that the same might be true of Geller? While her actions are indisputably legal, they are insulting in a way that is not deserving of praise and support. If Geller had hosted an anti-Semitic display of some sort, she would be shunned by polite society. Polite society might well support her right to be anti-Semitic (as happened when the Nazis wanted to march through Skokie), but she would be shunned just the same. I assume that you, for instance, would not respond by criticizing critics of anti-Semetism and suggesting they should focus on the worst actions committed by other members of the group being offended. While criticism of Geller may well be misplaced, it is far less misplaced then her actions.

If Jewish people in Israel were throwing gay men to their death, not allowing women to drive, killing women for being raped, selling young girls into temporary marriages to rich men and allowing them to be discarded and abused, I think I'd react the same way to a hypothetical Geller bash.

You are falsely comparing Judaism to Islam. Islam kills gay men daily. Islam subjugates women daily. Judaism and Christianity embrace morals and values on which modern society is based.

There are none so blind that will not see.

Are any of you who are defending Geller willing to challenge this poster? Or, do you think you should reserve your criticism for Muslims and those who speak up for them?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Radical Muslims are murdering Christians, raping children, forcing women to be sex slaves and this is what has people's panties in a bunch.Really?

If your problem is with "radical" Muslims, why do you support insulting all -- or at least the great majority -- of Muslims? I am sure that you don't think other religions should be judged by their most radical members, so why treat Islam that way? Wouldn't you want to encourage a more targeted strategy that didn't actually alienate more Muslims?

I was very specific to indict radical Islam and not Islam as a whole. The potential for offense is a consequence of free speech--whether that offense is taken by Muslims, Christians, Jews, Republicans, Democrats, Women, Men, Blacks, Whites, Asians, Europeans, etc. Millions of people are "offended" by satire and by direct and indirect acts every day. Millions of people do not expect the world to bow to their narrow world view. I am not defending the actions of Gellar. I am defending her right to act, just as I defend the rights of other offensive groups and people to act. I simply pointed out the misplaced, in my opinion, angst over a cartoon contest in light of horrible atrocities--murders, rape, sexual slavery. Radical Muslims--or even Muslims--are not the only people who are subject to offense in this world. The difference, most of us don't murder in response.

Geller's right to act is not in dispute. You seem to believe that an act -- for instance, criticism of Geller instead of criticism of radical Muslims -- can be legal but "misplaced". Can you not conceive that the same might be true of Geller? While her actions are indisputably legal, they are insulting in a way that is not deserving of praise and support. If Geller had hosted an anti-Semitic display of some sort, she would be shunned by polite society. Polite society might well support her right to be anti-Semitic (as happened when the Nazis wanted to march through Skokie), but she would be shunned just the same. I assume that you, for instance, would not respond by criticizing critics of anti-Semetism and suggesting they should focus on the worst actions committed by other members of the group being offended. While criticism of Geller may well be misplaced, it is far less misplaced then her actions.

You seem to be avoiding the crux of my response. People--and groups of people--are offended every day. Just as certain parts of society would "shun" Gellar for an anti-Semitic display, there would be those who support her, and also, those who support her right to be "offensive." The offensive acts of any group are always the acts that are highlighted. (For example, the Christian Right is often called out for their "extremists" views.) Muslims cannot and should not be treated any differently out of some misplaced sense of political correctness. We live in a society that values free speach. That means that at some time we will all be offended. How we respond to that offense determines our level of humanity.

Exactly. I believe that humanity would be better served if Geller were criticized rather than praised for her actions. Legal and within her rights as they may be, they are offensive and should be treated as such. You, on the other hand, prefer to highlight actions by extreme elements of the religion -- actions which themselves are widely condemned by other members of the religion.

Yet, I have not praised Geller or her actions--only defended her right to be offensive., just as I defend the rights of those who personally offend me. Being offensive is a far cry from those who pervert a religion to murder, rape and kill--which are offensive and should be highlighted and condemned no matter what the religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Radical Muslims are murdering Christians, raping children, forcing women to be sex slaves and this is what has people's panties in a bunch.Really?

If your problem is with "radical" Muslims, why do you support insulting all -- or at least the great majority -- of Muslims? I am sure that you don't think other religions should be judged by their most radical members, so why treat Islam that way? Wouldn't you want to encourage a more targeted strategy that didn't actually alienate more Muslims?

I was very specific to indict radical Islam and not Islam as a whole. The potential for offense is a consequence of free speech--whether that offense is taken by Muslims, Christians, Jews, Republicans, Democrats, Women, Men, Blacks, Whites, Asians, Europeans, etc. Millions of people are "offended" by satire and by direct and indirect acts every day. Millions of people do not expect the world to bow to their narrow world view. I am not defending the actions of Gellar. I am defending her right to act, just as I defend the rights of other offensive groups and people to act. I simply pointed out the misplaced, in my opinion, angst over a cartoon contest in light of horrible atrocities--murders, rape, sexual slavery. Radical Muslims--or even Muslims--are not the only people who are subject to offense in this world. The difference, most of us don't murder in response.

Geller's right to act is not in dispute. You seem to believe that an act -- for instance, criticism of Geller instead of criticism of radical Muslims -- can be legal but "misplaced". Can you not conceive that the same might be true of Geller? While her actions are indisputably legal, they are insulting in a way that is not deserving of praise and support. If Geller had hosted an anti-Semitic display of some sort, she would be shunned by polite society. Polite society might well support her right to be anti-Semitic (as happened when the Nazis wanted to march through Skokie), but she would be shunned just the same. I assume that you, for instance, would not respond by criticizing critics of anti-Semetism and suggesting they should focus on the worst actions committed by other members of the group being offended. While criticism of Geller may well be misplaced, it is far less misplaced then her actions.

You seem to be avoiding the crux of my response. People--and groups of people--are offended every day. Just as certain parts of society would "shun" Gellar for an anti-Semitic display, there would be those who support her, and also, those who support her right to be "offensive." The offensive acts of any group are always the acts that are highlighted. (For example, the Christian Right is often called out for their "extremists" views.) Muslims cannot and should not be treated any differently out of some misplaced sense of political correctness. We live in a society that values free speach. That means that at some time we will all be offended. How we respond to that offense determines our level of humanity.

Exactly. I believe that humanity would be better served if Geller were criticized rather than praised for her actions. Legal and within her rights as they may be, they are offensive and should be treated as such. You, on the other hand, prefer to highlight actions by extreme elements of the religion -- actions which themselves are widely condemned by other members of the religion.

Yet, I have not praised Geller or her actions--only defended her right to be offensive., just as I defend the rights of those who personally offend me. Being offensive is a far cry from those who pervert a religion to murder, rape and kill--which are offensive and should be highlighted and condemned no matter what the religion.

+1,000,000

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Radical Muslims are murdering Christians, raping children, forcing women to be sex slaves and this is what has people's panties in a bunch.Really?

If your problem is with "radical" Muslims, why do you support insulting all -- or at least the great majority -- of Muslims? I am sure that you don't think other religions should be judged by their most radical members, so why treat Islam that way? Wouldn't you want to encourage a more targeted strategy that didn't actually alienate more Muslims?

I was very specific to indict radical Islam and not Islam as a whole. The potential for offense is a consequence of free speech--whether that offense is taken by Muslims, Christians, Jews, Republicans, Democrats, Women, Men, Blacks, Whites, Asians, Europeans, etc. Millions of people are "offended" by satire and by direct and indirect acts every day. Millions of people do not expect the world to bow to their narrow world view. I am not defending the actions of Gellar. I am defending her right to act, just as I defend the rights of other offensive groups and people to act. I simply pointed out the misplaced, in my opinion, angst over a cartoon contest in light of horrible atrocities--murders, rape, sexual slavery. Radical Muslims--or even Muslims--are not the only people who are subject to offense in this world. The difference, most of us don't murder in response.

Geller's right to act is not in dispute. You seem to believe that an act -- for instance, criticism of Geller instead of criticism of radical Muslims -- can be legal but "misplaced". Can you not conceive that the same might be true of Geller? While her actions are indisputably legal, they are insulting in a way that is not deserving of praise and support. If Geller had hosted an anti-Semitic display of some sort, she would be shunned by polite society. Polite society might well support her right to be anti-Semitic (as happened when the Nazis wanted to march through Skokie), but she would be shunned just the same. I assume that you, for instance, would not respond by criticizing critics of anti-Semetism and suggesting they should focus on the worst actions committed by other members of the group being offended. While criticism of Geller may well be misplaced, it is far less misplaced then her actions.

You seem to be avoiding the crux of my response. People--and groups of people--are offended every day. Just as certain parts of society would "shun" Gellar for an anti-Semitic display, there would be those who support her, and also, those who support her right to be "offensive." The offensive acts of any group are always the acts that are highlighted. (For example, the Christian Right is often called out for their "extremists" views.) Muslims cannot and should not be treated any differently out of some misplaced sense of political correctness. We live in a society that values free speach. That means that at some time we will all be offended. How we respond to that offense determines our level of humanity.

Exactly. I believe that humanity would be better served if Geller were criticized rather than praised for her actions. Legal and within her rights as they may be, they are offensive and should be treated as such. You, on the other hand, prefer to highlight actions by extreme elements of the religion -- actions which themselves are widely condemned by other members of the religion.

Yet, I have not praised Geller or her actions--only defended her right to be offensive., just as I defend the rights of those who personally offend me. Being offensive is a far cry from those who pervert a religion to murder, rape and kill--which are offensive and should be highlighted and condemned no matter what the religion.

No disagreement from me. But, this thread is about Geller. You chose to address an unrelated topic involving those who pervert a religion and criticized some of us addressing the topic of this thread. It is hard not to see that as going beyond a simple defense of her rights. One can defend Geller's rights while criticizing the message that results from her exercise of those rights. Doing so is not misplaced. The fact that there are Muslims who commit atrocities does not inoculate Geller from criticism.

[Anonymous]

Apparently this has never occurred to many posters here, but it is possible to be critical of Geller's goals as well as the terrorists who attacked the event.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apparently this has never occurred to many posters here, but it is possible to be critical of Geller's goals as well as the terrorists who attacked the event.

That's true.

Does it bother anyone that Geller's hypothesis was proven correct and an attack claimed by ISIS actually occurred?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently this has never occurred to many posters here, but it is possible to be critical of Geller's goals as well as the terrorists who attacked the event.

That's true.

Does it bother anyone that Geller's hypothesis was proven correct and an attack claimed by ISIS actually occurred?

It doesn't bother me in the sense that I am surprised. If I did something offensive to Christians in front of people going to a church in the south, I would expect to eventually get assaulted. Maybe not every time and at every church. But once in a while, somebody is going to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently this has never occurred to many posters here, but it is possible to be critical of Geller's goals as well as the terrorists who attacked the event.

That's true.

Does it bother anyone that Geller's hypothesis was proven correct and an attack claimed by ISIS actually occurred?

It doesn't bother me in the sense that I am surprised. If I did something offensive to Christians in front of people going to a church in the south, I would expect to eventually get assaulted. Maybe not every time and at every church. But once in a while, somebody is going to do it.

These men were going in to kill them. With guns. They tweeted that they were going to martyr themselves. That is not assault.

Westboro Baptist church goes to funerals of Soldiers and other innocent people and wave to most vile signs and say the most vile things.

I have never heard of a plot to kill the Westboros.

If you stood outside a gay bar with sign that insulted gay people, you probably would get assaulted eventually, too. Not every time at every bar. But once in a while, somebody is going to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently this has never occurred to many posters here, but it is possible to be critical of Geller's goals as well as the terrorists who attacked the event.

That's true.

Does it bother anyone that Geller's hypothesis was proven correct and an attack claimed by ISIS actually occurred?

It doesn't bother me in the sense that I am surprised. If I did something offensive to Christians in front of people going to a church in the south, I would expect to eventually get assaulted. Maybe not every time and at every church. But once in a while, somebody is going to do it.

GARLAND, Texas — Two Phoenix roommates armed with assault rifles and poised to storm an event featuring cartoons of the prophet Mohammed were fatally shot by a traffic cop who probably saved many lives, police said Monday.

One of the attackers had been convicted of terrorism-related charges in 2011 after telling an FBI informant he wanted to kill non-Muslims. Police spokesman Joe Harn said the officer who killed both attackers was a traffic officer who "did what he was trained to do."

The Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest at the Curtis Culwell Center, outside Dallas, was coming to a close Sunday night when the suspects drove up to a parking lot entrance blocked by a patrol car. Wearing body armor, the suspects got out of their car and started shooting with assault rifles, Harn said.

So standing outside a church in the South and doing something offensive is comparable to being armed with an assault rifle, being clad in body armor, etc?