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

[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.

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.

Have they done it? In plain. Sight? In secret? So you agree, as well, that drunk girls are putting themselves in danger as well, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

No doubt the officers were skillful - but anything could have happened. It was luck that they came across the officers before getting in the building. Do you know there is also a playgound near that facility. Suppose the gunmen had approached from a different direction. What if there had been 6 instead of 2? That's waht I mean by luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No doubt the officers were skillful - but anything could have happened. It was luck that they came across the officers before getting in the building. Do you know there is also a playgound near that facility. Suppose the gunmen had approached from a different direction. What if there had been 6 instead of 2? That's waht I mean by luck.

It's called good training and coverage, because they knew the element they were dealing with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. Our freedom of speech is actually quite limited. Just like how the 2nd Amendment does not give everyone the right to all guns forever, the First Amendment does not give you the right to say whatever/whenever/wherever you want. The fact that some of you don't know this is scary. Those of you who constantly profess your love for the constitution are the same people who seem to have never even glanced at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Naturally that is your takeaway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Have they done it? In plain. Sight? In secret? So you agree, as well, that drunk girls are putting themselves in danger as well, right?

Sure, drunk girls put themselves in danger. Again, this does not give anyone the right to hurt them. But it is not responsible for a girl to get drunk and leave a bar with a stranger. And drunk guys put themselves in danger too. Like when they provoke other drunks at sporting events. This doesn't give the other drunks a free pass to beat the crap out of them, but it's still not responsible to get drunk and then spew hate to other drunks.

How many ways do you want to skin this cat?

[Anonymous]

Im not a big CNN fan, but this sums it up perfectly.

The day that we say there is one idea that we cannot mock, that is the day we lose much more than a life, and much more
than a debate. That is when we lose freedom itself.




http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/04/opinions/randazza-garland-shootings/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please name some of the primary news sources that you think liberals rely on. You guys keep talking about our news sources as if you know so much about them, but I'm not so sure you do. So please name some and be specific.

Here's a hint - don't embarrass yourself by saying MSNBC. I don't know a single liberal who considers that a news source.

[Anonymous]

Many Christians overlook the fact that for Muslims, depictions of Mohammed are considered blasphemous and in Muslim countries it is considered illegal. It's morally reprehensible to Muslims.

What these Muslims terrorists did is akin to Christian terrorists who bomb abortion clinics and threaten abortion doctors with their lives.
Or Christian criminals who will assault and batter gays walking down the street.

Violence is never the right answer, but some people feel that what they consider an moral imperative justifies violence for their religion. Christians are no better than Muslims, they are just the majority here. We need to condemn all violent retaliations.

[Anonymous]

I for one can't wait to find out how these guys on terror watch list were able to obtain AK-47s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many Christians overlook the fact that for Muslims, depictions of Mohammed are considered blasphemous and in Muslim countries it is considered illegal. It's morally reprehensible to Muslims.

What these Muslims terrorists did is akin to Christian terrorists who bomb abortion clinics and threaten abortion doctors with their lives.
Or Christian criminals who will assault and batter gays walking down the street.

Violence is never the right answer, but some people feel that what they consider an moral imperative justifies violence for their religion. Christians are no better than Muslims, they are just the majority here. We need to condemn all violent retaliations.

If someone is truly a Christian, they wouldn't be doing any of the things that you describe. Christians aren't going to the Middle East and killing Muslims who disagree with our beliefs or who do things that are offensive to us.

Do you not see a difference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please name some of the primary news sources that you think liberals rely on. You guys keep talking about our news sources as if you know so much about them, but I'm not so sure you do. So please name some and be specific.

Here's a hint - don't embarrass yourself by saying MSNBC. I don't know a single liberal who considers that a news source.

The most comical thing about where "progressives" (ie Neo-liberals) get their news is the popularity of Jon Stewart's comedy show (here's a hint: its comedic entertainment. That fact is lost on most of the audience - who tend overwhelmingly to be progressives).

Steven Colbert similarly shovels propaganda in a mix of comedy and his opinion of the news. His sister ran for office as a progressive. His highly biased views are hardly secret. And liberals eagerly consume it all as fact.

But in addition, the news sources preferred by progressives seem to include (in no particular order):

-NPR/PBS (which seems to have taken a hard left turn since the last election)
-WaPo
-Politico
-Bloomberg
-BBC
-CNN (lies)
-HuffPo
-Al Jazeera
-RT
-Baltimore Sun
-Mother Jones
-Slate.com
-Salon.com
-Media Matters
-Dave Barry
etc.

I've seen all of these cited here from time to time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that the extreme Muslims need to chill. Look at the satire made of Jesus or the pope. If the Islamists have a problem with free speech and the first amendment, then there are plenty of hellhole countries where they might be happier, where "blasphemy" is punished as a crime.

But, going there would defeat their purpose. The goal of the radical Islamists is to make the WORLD one big religion - and it’s not Christianity.
Anyone not believing what they believe are infidels and need to be done away with.
So, they are determined to go to all nations in the World to “convert.”

Totally agree with this.

I'm not so sure. Bombs, guns and swords are used to kill people, not convert people. The radicals aren't exactly knocking on doors like the LDS and happily sharing Islam, they are just killing.

[Anonymous]

^^^ left wing loonies all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many Christians overlook the fact that for Muslims, depictions of Mohammed are considered blasphemous and in Muslim countries it is considered illegal. It's morally reprehensible to Muslims.

What these Muslims terrorists did is akin to Christian terrorists who bomb abortion clinics and threaten abortion doctors with their lives.
Or Christian criminals who will assault and batter gays walking down the street.

Violence is never the right answer, but some people feel that what they consider an moral imperative justifies violence for their religion. Christians are no better than Muslims, they are just the majority here. We need to condemn all violent retaliations.

If someone is truly a Christian, they wouldn't be doing any of the things that you describe. Christians aren't going to the Middle East and killing Muslims who disagree with our beliefs or who do things that are offensive to us.

Do you not see a difference?

You are willing to state that those who bomb abortion clinics or assault gays in the name of Christianity are not really Christians, but no one believes the American Muslim community when they say that Islamic terrorists are not truly Muslims, but are extremist terrorists.

It sounds like you are allowing Christians to exclude their extremists but not Muslims.

And stop trying to make them out as foreignor terrorists who came to the US. These were Muslim Americans who committed this terrorist act on American soil. They are American criminals, the same as the abortion clinic bombers and gay bashers mentioned above.

http://heavy.com/news/2015/05/elton-simpson-garland-texas-muhammad-cartoon-shooter-gunman-name-phoenix-arizona-terrorist-twitter-tweets-photos-fbi-dead-death-video-atawaakul/
http://www.ibtimes.com/who-nadir-soofi-new-garland-shooting-suspect-identified-elton-simpsons-roommate-1907597