Two shot dead after they open fire at Mohammed cartoon event in Texas

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not condoning the gunmen showing up to shoot up the place, but this is the height of cultural and religous insenstivity.

Not only is there a "contest" to draw the prophet with everyone knowing full well the angst it causes among Muslims, but you have this "event" in a part of Texas that has substantial population of Somali Muslims. What did people expect to happen?

This is the most archaic blame the victim mentality. "She wore a short skirt, what did she expect?" People expect to go about their business without a nutcase wanting to shoot, rape, mug them. Seriously, you are an idiot. The only people to blame here are the shooters, no one else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not condoning the gunmen showing up to shoot up the place, but this is the height of cultural and religous insenstivity.

Not only is there a "contest" to draw the prophet with everyone knowing full well the angst it causes among Muslims, but you have this "event" in a part of Texas that has substantial population of Somali Muslims. What did people expect to happen?

This is the most archaic blame the victim mentality. "She wore a short skirt, what did she expect?" People expect to go about their business without a nutcase wanting to shoot, rape, mug them. Seriously, you are an idiot. The only people to blame here are the shooters, no one else.

it most certainly is not. The event was deliberate provocation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is easy to be a proponent of “nice” speech.

It is when speech can be considered “offensive” that it is critical to defend the right to speak freely.

We give up that right, we have lost a good deal of freedom.

I absolutely abhor the burning or trampling of the American flag. But, it is a right which my son, among others, fights to defend.

Blah blah blah. I have been a member of the ACLU since you were in diapers, so can the lecture.

I'm not questioning whether it's legal or whether they should be entitled to protection under the law.

I am questioning whether this speech is anything other than a deliberate provocation of Muslims. I mean seriously, how many people just feel like drawing Mohammed? Like oh, great, it's really important to me as an artist to depict Mohammed, so I am going to enter this contest. In what way is it important to them OTHER than to piss off Muslims?

At least the Klan has a purpose for what they say, even though I detest it. At least that "God Hates Fags" guy is doing something because he really does believe that God hates homosexuals. The people at this event undertook this speech solely to offend. There is no other purpose.

I have zero respect for that.

Cartoons of Mohammad are not purely offensive. They are also a part of current discourse, in this country and worldwide. Refraining/ignoring the issue isn't respectful, it's putting your head in the sand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think we all know that what they did is protected by law. That doesn't make it admirable, or even advisable.

I think it would be blasphemous to *not* draw the cartoons. As Americans we are taught not to bow down to kings, or to warrior dudes that lived 1400 years ago.

There is nothing hateful or racist about the cartoons. Consider the winning entry with a picture of Muhammed saying "You can't draw me" with the caption "That is why I draw you." Except for the name of the person, this is the sort of mild satire that one finds daily in political cartoons in newspapers across America. I hope we will be able to see the full collection of entries.

So yes I do think what the cartoonists did in Texas was very admirable.

Yet there are a billion peaceful muslims whose religious beliefs you are offending. They aren't asking you to "bow down". In fact, quite the opposite, they oppose "graven images". It is a biblical command against idolatry.

If they don't condone idolatry, they don't have to look. They don't have to own any. They don't have to finance any. What they cannot, and we cannot allow, is to prohibit anyone else from looking, owning or financing.

You mean like building a Mosque in Lower Manhattan? Then why were conservatives fighting it?

. You only mentioned conservatives. You didn't question why democrats (or even independents) were fighting it. You chose one group with whom you disagree and framed your comment on that group only. Give it a rest. There is no denying what you wrote. Talk about hypocracy...

Uh because I am speaking to at conservative who just professed the opposite in the underlined sentence.

That said, most Democrats were ok with the mosque. A majority greater than the one that elected Ronald Reagan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is easy to be a proponent of “nice” speech.

It is when speech can be considered “offensive” that it is critical to defend the right to speak freely.

We give up that right, we have lost a good deal of freedom.

I absolutely abhor the burning or trampling of the American flag. But, it is a right which my son, among others, fights to defend.

Blah blah blah. I have been a member of the ACLU since you were in diapers, so can the lecture.

I'm not questioning whether it's legal or whether they should be entitled to protection under the law.

I am questioning whether this speech is anything other than a deliberate provocation of Muslims. I mean seriously, how many people just feel like drawing Mohammed? Like oh, great, it's really important to me as an artist to depict Mohammed, so I am going to enter this contest. In what way is it important to them OTHER than to piss off Muslims?

At least the Klan has a purpose for what they say, even though I detest it. At least that "God Hates Fags" guy is doing something because he really does believe that God hates homosexuals. The people at this event undertook this speech solely to offend. There is no other purpose.

I have zero respect for that.

Cartoons of Mohammad are not purely offensive. They are also a part of current discourse, in this country and worldwide. Refraining/ignoring the issue isn't respectful, it's putting your head in the sand.

It's not offensive TO YOU! Taking the picture of an Amish person is offensive to Amish. No one questions that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think we all know that what they did is protected by law. That doesn't make it admirable, or even advisable.

I think it would be blasphemous to *not* draw the cartoons. As Americans we are taught not to bow down to kings, or to warrior dudes that lived 1400 years ago.

There is nothing hateful or racist about the cartoons. Consider the winning entry with a picture of Muhammed saying "You can't draw me" with the caption "That is why I draw you." Except for the name of the person, this is the sort of mild satire that one finds daily in political cartoons in newspapers across America. I hope we will be able to see the full collection of entries.

So yes I do think what the cartoonists did in Texas was very admirable.

Yet there are a billion peaceful muslims whose religious beliefs you are offending. They aren't asking you to "bow down". In fact, quite the opposite, they oppose "graven images". It is a biblical command against idolatry.

If they don't condone idolatry, they don't have to look. They don't have to own any. They don't have to finance any. What they cannot, and we cannot allow, is to prohibit anyone else from looking, owning or financing.

You mean like building a Mosque in Lower Manhattan? Then why were conservatives fighting it?

. You only mentioned conservatives. You didn't question why democrats (or even independents) were fighting it. You chose one group with whom you disagree and framed your comment on that group only. Give it a rest. There is no denying what you wrote. Talk about hypocracy...

Uh because I am speaking to at conservative who just professed the opposite in the underlined sentence.

That said, most Democrats were ok with the mosque. A majority greater than the one that elected Ronald Reagan.

You are freaking nuts. You were hoisted by your own petard so and your hypocricy is glaring. It was you who labelled this as solely a conservative "offense." Yet clearly it us not. Hypocrisy in action and you are so entrenched in your narrow-minded rhetoric you acknowledge the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am questioning whether this speech is anything other than a deliberate provocation of Muslims. I mean seriously, how many people just feel like drawing Mohammed? Like oh, great, it's really important to me as an artist to depict Mohammed, so I am going to enter this contest. In what way is it important to them OTHER than to piss off Muslims?

There are satirical cartoons about every major public, historical and religious figure. If, say after 9-11, someone published a cartoon showing Muhammed crying at the violence committed in his name, do you really believe that the sole purpose of that cartoon would be to piss off Muslims? Do you believe that satirical cartoons about Obama, or Netanyahu or Jesus are done for the sole purpose of offending Americans, or Israelis, or Christians?

It is debatable whether the Qu'ran forbids images of Muhammed, but in any case since when should the rules of Qu'ran (or the Bible) apply to nonbelievers? And the rule forbidding images is based on laws against idolatry. Does anyone believe that these cartoon figures of Muhammed are going to inspire idolatry?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am questioning whether this speech is anything other than a deliberate provocation of Muslims. I mean seriously, how many people just feel like drawing Mohammed? Like oh, great, it's really important to me as an artist to depict Mohammed, so I am going to enter this contest. In what way is it important to them OTHER than to piss off Muslims?

There are satirical cartoons about every major public, historical and religious figure. If, say after 9-11, someone published a cartoon showing Muhammed crying at the violence committed in his name, do you really believe that the sole purpose of that cartoon would be to piss off Muslims? Do you believe that satirical cartoons about Obama, or Netanyahu or Jesus are done for the sole purpose of offending Americans, or Israelis, or Christians?

It is debatable whether the Qu'ran forbids images of Muhammed, but in any case since when should the rules of Qu'ran (or the Bible) apply to nonbelievers? And the rule forbidding images is based on laws against idolatry. Does anyone believe that these cartoon figures of Muhammed are going to inspire idolatry?

I get satire. But no one publishes a magazine entitled "Depictions of Mohammed". The purpose is to comment on Mohammed or Islam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think we all know that what they did is protected by law. That doesn't make it admirable, or even advisable.

I think it would be blasphemous to *not* draw the cartoons. As Americans we are taught not to bow down to kings, or to warrior dudes that lived 1400 years ago.

There is nothing hateful or racist about the cartoons. Consider the winning entry with a picture of Muhammed saying "You can't draw me" with the caption "That is why I draw you." Except for the name of the person, this is the sort of mild satire that one finds daily in political cartoons in newspapers across America. I hope we will be able to see the full collection of entries.

So yes I do think what the cartoonists did in Texas was very admirable.

Yet there are a billion peaceful muslims whose religious beliefs you are offending. They aren't asking you to "bow down". In fact, quite the opposite, they oppose "graven images". It is a biblical command against idolatry.

If they don't condone idolatry, they don't have to look. They don't have to own any. They don't have to finance any. What they cannot, and we cannot allow, is to prohibit anyone else from looking, owning or financing.

You mean like building a Mosque in Lower Manhattan? Then why were conservatives fighting it?

. You only mentioned conservatives. You didn't question why democrats (or even independents) were fighting it. You chose one group with whom you disagree and framed your comment on that group only. Give it a rest. There is no denying what you wrote. Talk about hypocracy...

Uh because I am speaking to at conservative who just professed the opposite in the underlined sentence.

That said, most Democrats were ok with the mosque. A majority greater than the one that elected Ronald Reagan.

You are freaking nuts. You were hoisted by your own petard so and your hypocricy is glaring. It was you who labelled this as solely a conservative "offense." Yet clearly it us not. Hypocrisy in action and you are so entrenched in your narrow-minded rhetoric you acknowledge the truth.

No. When you can find the words "solely a conservative", let me know.

[Anonymous]

Speaking of "hoisted on your petard", I notice you switched horses to this from the " there is that conservative lockstep claim ignoring that conservatives hold a wide range of views", after I pointed out that only 12% of conservatives felt differently.

[Anonymous]

I, for one, am happy that these terrorists-in-training were shot down before they caused death and destruction.
Kudos to the police officer who took them out.
Wonder if they are enjoying their 72 virgins? Somehow, I doubt it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dumbasses bait other dumbasses.

Yup, and both sides based on fear and hate.

[Anonymous]

Christianity has abandoned brutal practices. Thomas Moore burned heretics in England in the 1500's. 500 years. Salem witch trials were in 1692. Doctrine, practices, and a church as state have changed.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/5/clare-lopez-connecting-the-dots-to-the-texas-gunme/

Assuming the NY mosque or community center would be open door then imagine such individuals gloating in the shadow of our pain.

[Anonymous]

is it really all that bad?

https://www.facebook.com/TheGoodLordAbove

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is easy to be a proponent of “nice” speech.

It is when speech can be considered “offensive” that it is critical to defend the right to speak freely.

We give up that right, we have lost a good deal of freedom.

I absolutely abhor the burning or trampling of the American flag. But, it is a right which my son, among others, fights to defend.

Blah blah blah. I have been a member of the ACLU since you were in diapers, so can the lecture.

I'm not questioning whether it's legal or whether they should be entitled to protection under the law.

I am questioning whether this speech is anything other than a deliberate provocation of Muslims. I mean seriously, how many people just feel like drawing Mohammed? Like oh, great, it's really important to me as an artist to depict Mohammed, so I am going to enter this contest. In what way is it important to them OTHER than to piss off Muslims?

At least the Klan has a purpose for what they say, even though I detest it. At least that "God Hates Fags" guy is doing something because he really does believe that God hates homosexuals. The people at this event undertook this speech solely to offend. There is no other purpose.

I have zero respect for that.

The arrogance....I just can't

Look at it this way....the event drew two homegrown, Isis-recruited terrorists all the way from AZ to a planned event in TX, where they could be gunned down before they did any damage to the general population. Great lure!!