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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It makes perfect sense, and the fact that the organizer was "required" to hire security is irrelevant. Evidently you are too obtuse to understand or accept the fact that the right wing gun rights movement's position is that we don't need security guards or police - that we just need more gun-carrying Americans as the solution to ending violence.

You have no idea what you're talking about. If anything, there is a bit of a police-hero-worship complex among the right-wing guns rights movement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, it is very insensitive to organize such an event.

But guess what? That still doesn't make it okay to try to kill the people who do that.

Didn't say it was "ok" did I? In fact I said that I am not condoning it - said that right there in the first line.

My point was given what has happened in other places in the wake of these types of cartoons, what did people expect to happen?

"What did people expect?" Seriously?

I'll tell you what America expects:

We expect that we can publish a crass, tasteless cartoon like Cahlie Hebdo without the editorial staff being murdered in cold blood.

We expect that a woman on FaceBook can propose "Everybody Draw Mohamed Day" without being forced into hiding for over 4 years by constant death threats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day

We expect that idiot neo nazis can lawfully apply to march through a predominantly Jewish neighborhood and they won't be denied their right to free speach, but only because an ACLU lawyer, a Jewish one at that, defends their rights:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie

We expect that Westboro Baptist crazies will show up in an "insensitive" fashion, and we expect counter-demonstrations (I would hope so anyway).

THAT is what we expect, PP. Nothing less.

America is a diverse place. If you come to America, we demand you peacefully tolerate that diversity. If you don't like other people's views, then speak up. Get a permit and hold a peaceful demonstration. Write a letter to the editor. Start a blog.

But if your response to other people's viewpoint is to drive their with AK-47s, then I hope they shoot you dead before you hurt anybody.

NOW you KNOW what we expect, you intolerant, narrow-minded prick!

You guys are so wrapped up in your rhetoric, that you are toally missing the point. If violence happened in other Western countries becuase of stuff like this, why would you expect America to be immune to it? THAT is my point.

You seem comfortable with people bowing to terror by one religious group. Perhaps we should bow to terror by any group that feels offense.

Np here. Well, I am not comfortable with an anti-Islam organization intentionally having a contest that they know will be offensive and will provoke a reaction. Because I know that most Muslims are peaceful and it seems un-American to insult them. Sure, it is your right or the organization's right to have such an event. But if you have an event designed to provoke a reaction and an extreme variant of that reaction is what you get, you have not bowed to terror but you have helped create it by inflaming tensions on a whim. There is a reason this event was held in THAT neighborhood. Would you want an event like this at the school your kids attend? How about the neighborhood rec center?

When some hippie goes out a burns an American flag he "knows it will be offensive and provoke a reaction." Yet we consider it constitutionally protected speech. Why should be society then coddle Islamic reactionaries who probably hate our precious freedoms just because they take offense at something satirical?

Sorry - I did not realize that refraining fromintentionally insulting another religion to provoke a negative reaction = coddling. Thanks for clearing that up.

The issue is that only one religion is at play because their extremists kill people for slights. Other religions for not get a pass and are open to public scorn. See the difference. That is coddling.

Sorry but it's one thing to protect speech. It's another thing to pick a fight. I doubt the individuals involved in this "Draw Muhammad" event had any reason for participating other than to pick one.

So what about the piss Christ partially funded by the NEA? That was intended to offend and pick a fight with Christians and was partially funded by the NEA. We either have freedom or we don't. I am sure this "art" controversies was before most DCUMers tome and it was just Christians were offended, so oh well...now if it was M that would be another story...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dumbasses bait other dumbasses.

THIS! Of course it was wrong for the gunmen to show up and start shooting. Nobody is denying that.

But if I (as a white person) stepped into a bar where a lot of gun-toting AAs hung out and I went off on a racist rant, I would probably get hurt or killed. It would still be assault/murder on their part, but it also would have been incredibly stupid on my part. Same thing would happen to an AA in a redneck bar in the south. At some point, we have to stop thinking that Freedom of Speech allows us to be violence-inciting idiots and we need to take personal responsibility for our actions.

I disagree. Freedom of speech should allow us to say dumb accidentally or purposefully offensive things. That's what it's for.

Of course. Otherwise Fox News would be in jail. And I'll protect the Klan's right to say what they want, and even that God Hates Fags group. But I despise the Klan and I despise that group.

The point is that we can still dislike these people for what they did. They provoked a reaction. They had no other reason to hold the event except for that reason. It is quite douchebaggy. I could stand on the sidewalk next to some megachurch in East Texas holding posters depicting Jesus as a creepy child molester, and I guarantee you that one day someone is going to punch my lights out. Would he be wrong? Yes. Would I be legally protected? Yes. But am I acting like a douchebag? Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dumbasses bait other dumbasses.

THIS! Of course it was wrong for the gunmen to show up and start shooting. Nobody is denying that.

But if I (as a white person) stepped into a bar where a lot of gun-toting AAs hung out and I went off on a racist rant, I would probably get hurt or killed. It would still be assault/murder on their part, but it also would have been incredibly stupid on my part. Same thing would happen to an AA in a redneck bar in the south. At some point, we have to stop thinking that Freedom of Speech allows us to be violence-inciting idiots and we need to take personal responsibility for our actions.

I disagree. Freedom of speech should allow us to say dumb accidentally or purposefully offensive things. That's what it's for.

Of course. Otherwise Fox News would be in jail. And I'll protect the Klan's right to say what they want, and even that God Hates Fags group. But I despise the Klan and I despise that group.

The point is that we can still dislike these people for what they did. They provoked a reaction. They had no other reason to hold the event except for that reason. It is quite douchebaggy. I could stand on the sidewalk next to some megachurch in East Texas holding posters depicting Jesus as a creepy child molester, and I guarantee you that one day someone is going to punch my lights out. Would he be wrong? Yes. Would I be legally protected? Yes. But am I acting like a douchebag? Yes.

Boy, liberals sure get their panties in a bunch over Fox News--they get dragged into totally unrelated discussions. It must be terribly frightening yo no longer have a monopoly on the news propaganda machine. Wake up. It is all propaganda driven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dumbasses bait other dumbasses.

THIS! Of course it was wrong for the gunmen to show up and start shooting. Nobody is denying that.

But if I (as a white person) stepped into a bar where a lot of gun-toting AAs hung out and I went off on a racist rant, I would probably get hurt or killed. It would still be assault/murder on their part, but it also would have been incredibly stupid on my part. Same thing would happen to an AA in a redneck bar in the south. At some point, we have to stop thinking that Freedom of Speech allows us to be violence-inciting idiots and we need to take personal responsibility for our actions.

Interesting hypothetical you invented. Not at all realistic; but interesting. I'll give you a more realistic one:

-what if a bunch of combat-trained young veterans got together in a group? What if they had all experienced combat in a war and maybe even had some level of PTSD? what if they were all trained to use weapons and likely even owned guns in the U.S.? What if they were in a group together, and were grief-stricken, like at the funeral after the death of a friend killed in combat?

Now imagine Westboro Baptist church idiots show up to protest the funeral. What would you expect to happen?

On one level, I'd expect the combat vets to murder every one of those "church" members with their bare hands.

But you know: this is the USA. And despite all the moronic protests by Westboro Baptists, not one of them has been murdered while protesting. Not one.

In America, THAT is what I expect.

So if you have different expectations just because someone follows a different religion, then you need to change your expectations.

Or, again, I invite you to go someplace less tolerant than the United States.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dumbasses bait other dumbasses.

THIS! Of course it was wrong for the gunmen to show up and start shooting. Nobody is denying that.

But if I (as a white person) stepped into a bar where a lot of gun-toting AAs hung out and I went off on a racist rant, I would probably get hurt or killed. It would still be assault/murder on their part, but it also would have been incredibly stupid on my part. Same thing would happen to an AA in a redneck bar in the south. At some point, we have to stop thinking that Freedom of Speech allows us to be violence-inciting idiots and we need to take personal responsibility for our actions.

I disagree. Freedom of speech should allow us to say dumb accidentally or purposefully offensive things. That's what it's for.

NO. IT'S. NOT.

You bet it is, pard'nur.

If all that was said or written (or drawn) was positive, right-thinking, erudite, insightful and inspiring (or at least bland, uncontroversial and never offensive) we would have no need the First Amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dumbasses bait other dumbasses.

THIS! Of course it was wrong for the gunmen to show up and start shooting. Nobody is denying that.

But if I (as a white person) stepped into a bar where a lot of gun-toting AAs hung out and I went off on a racist rant, I would probably get hurt or killed. It would still be assault/murder on their part, but it also would have been incredibly stupid on my part. Same thing would happen to an AA in a redneck bar in the south. At some point, we have to stop thinking that Freedom of Speech allows us to be violence-inciting idiots and we need to take personal responsibility for our actions.

Interesting hypothetical you invented. Not at all realistic; but interesting. I'll give you a more realistic one:

-what if a bunch of combat-trained young veterans got together in a group? What if they had all experienced combat in a war and maybe even had some level of PTSD? what if they were all trained to use weapons and likely even owned guns in the U.S.? What if they were in a group together, and were grief-stricken, like at the funeral after the death of a friend killed in combat?

Now imagine Westboro Baptist church idiots show up to protest the funeral. What would you expect to happen?

On one level, I'd expect the combat vets to murder every one of those "church" members with their bare hands.

But you know: this is the USA. And despite all the moronic protests by Westboro Baptists, not one of them has been murdered while protesting. Not one.

In America, THAT is what I expect.

So if you have different expectations just because someone follows a different religion, then you need to change your expectations.

Or, again, I invite you to go someplace less tolerant than the United States.

Ok, but I have heard lots of vets say that they would murder every one of those bastards if they thought they could get away with it. That's why Westboro does their thing in plain sight - so that they won't be harmed. They aren't gong to meet a group of vets in a dark alley. Westboro is not comparable to the gunmen. Those guys knew they were not likely getting out of there alive. Westboro is not ready to die for their cause.

My point is that we should have some personal responsibility and refrain form inciting violence. Those moron cartoonists occupied the cops time and put the cops in harms way just so that they could provoke muslims.

[Anonymous]

Homosexual marriage is offensive to Muslims . Better get security.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dumbasses bait other dumbasses.

THIS! Of course it was wrong for the gunmen to show up and start shooting. Nobody is denying that.

But if I (as a white person) stepped into a bar where a lot of gun-toting AAs hung out and I went off on a racist rant, I would probably get hurt or killed. It would still be assault/murder on their part, but it also would have been incredibly stupid on my part. Same thing would happen to an AA in a redneck bar in the south. At some point, we have to stop thinking that Freedom of Speech allows us to be violence-inciting idiots and we need to take personal responsibility for our actions.

I disagree. Freedom of speech should allow us to say dumb accidentally or purposefully offensive things. That's what it's for.

NO. IT'S. NOT.

The First Amendment protects us from having the government punish us for saying stupid or offensive things. That does not mean we should say stupid or offensive things; only that it is even more dangerous for the government to have the power to decide what is stupid or offensive than it is for us to say those things.

[Anonymous]

So do political cartoonists need security for anything deemed offensive by anybody or be silenced?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, it is very insensitive to organize such an event.

But guess what? That still doesn't make it okay to try to kill the people who do that.

Didn't say it was "ok" did I? In fact I said that I am not condoning it - said that right there in the first line.

My point was given what has happened in other places in the wake of these types of cartoons, what did people expect to happen?

NP here, but I personally expect not to be shot at when I say or do something that's against someone's religion.

Well then you have not been paying attention to what happened in France, Germany and other parts of the world. Because given waht has happened in other parts of the world, if I attedended this event in an area with a subrantial Muslim population, I would expect some trouble.

. okay, I get it. We are all to bow to the extremists. Control by terror.

Nope. Did not say that anything about bowing down to terror. My point is that in France and other Western countries, certain Muslims have reacted violently in response to cartoons about their prophet. I am not saying it is right and most Muslims would not say it is right. But the fact that violence occurred is an indisputable fact. So...if it happened in another Western country, why is it a surprise that it could happen here? If you want to go to this organization's next event in a heavy Muslim community - be my guest. I will pass.

Your last line speaks volumes. We should expect it here, what with porous borders and recruitments of our citizens. What we should not do is cowtow to it, or call it 'workplace violence' or 'lone nutters' when we know damn well this is a group, an army, out to kill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At least Texas knows how to deal with Islamofascist terrorists.

And THAT is what is pissing liberals off

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is coddling? Aren't the suspects dead? Or going to jail?

If someone takes offense at satire, they are allowed to take offense. What they are NOT allowed to do is shoot people. Muslim, Christian, or other.

You are. Your anger is misplaced on the event organizers, not those who thought it permissible to kill because you were offended. No other group in America would get such a pass.

Another PP here. I think there is enough anger to go around. Given what happened in France and other places, I would be livid if such and event were to happen in my neighborhood. Not because I am against a person exercising free speech or because I want to coddel Muslims, but because the organizer's intent was to provoke Muslims and thereby create a potentially dangerous situation. That a more dangerous situation was avoided in Texas was pure luck. Holding this event in an area with a lot of Muslims is like the Klan deciding that they want to have a rally in Baltimore - only bad things can result.

Nope. It was pure skill on the part of the officers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least Texas knows how to deal with Islamofascist terrorists.

And THAT is what is pissing liberals off

Huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is coddling? Aren't the suspects dead? Or going to jail?

If someone takes offense at satire, they are allowed to take offense. What they are NOT allowed to do is shoot people. Muslim, Christian, or other.

You are. Your anger is misplaced on the event organizers, not those who thought it permissible to kill because you were offended. No other group in America would get such a pass.

Another PP here. I think there is enough anger to go around. Given what happened in France and other places, I would be livid if such and event were to happen in my neighborhood. Not because I am against a person exercising free speech or because I want to coddel Muslims, but because the organizer's intent was to provoke Muslims and thereby create a potentially dangerous situation. That a more dangerous situation was avoided in Texas was pure luck. Holding this event in an area with a lot of Muslims is like the Klan deciding that they want to have a rally in Baltimore - only bad things can result.

Good Lord. The perps drove from Arizona