Two gunmen carrying explosives attack anti Muslim art contest in Texas

[AuH20]

I smell a big rat on this. You have Pamella Geller, CIA controlled ISIS tweeting and idiots who after all these years still think ISIS is somehow pro muslim especially when all the country and people they kill are muslim. If its really happened and there were 2 people in Texas who listen to ISIS and follow their orders, then I have to say that those 2 people are the biggest idiots in the world. Why couldn't I have meet them 1st to sell them my beach front property in Montana.

I still cannot get my head around ISIS still having a twitter account. Thunderf00t was banned from twitter for "harassing" feminists but these people can send death threats and their account is still in good standing. What does a terrorist have to do to loose their account?

just like the Tsarnaevs and the Muslim fellow who tried to blow up the Federal Reserve with no technical knowledge of explosives (the FBI had him detonate a phony bomb). The lesson learned is that there are no 'kind' benefactors found in the world that want to aid you in your perverse quest. Put down the fiction.

 

[wizardwatson]

just like the Tsarnaevs and the Muslim fellow who tried to blow up the Federal Reserve with no technical knowledge of explosives (the FBI had him detonate a phony bomb).

I alluded to the most recent case of a Topeka-based jihadist trying to "blow up" Ft. Riley. He never talked to any real terrorists. It was FBI the whole way. They gave him a fake car bomb and arrested him when he tried to detonate. They consider this a legitimate way to charge terrorists. I'm on the fence, but certainly the sentencing should be flexible and not mandatory considering some of these kids are just gullible idiots.

 

[AuH20]

I alluded to the most recent case of a Topeka-based jihadist trying to "blow up" Ft. Riley. He never talked to any real terrorists. It was FBI the whole way. They gave him a fake car bomb and arrested him when he tried to detonate. They consider this a legitimate way to charge terrorists. I'm on the fence, but certainly the sentencing should be flexible and not mandatory considering some of these kids are just gullible idiots.

I think the main impetus behind these manufactured plots is to justify insane security budgets, whether that be future R&D, improved communications infrastructure and of course, raw personnel. Wining the WoT would be an overall detriment in their eyes since it has been proved to be so lucrative. With that said, the idiots with the intent aren't helping their cause very much.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Two gunmen 'carrying explosives'

No explosives found. Initial media reports wrong. Imagine that.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

 

[jonhowe]

For that matter, why didn't that "free speech" convention have drawings of Christian figures? Charlie Hedbo also had a magazine cover with the Holy Spirit sodomizing Jesus sodomizing the Father in a train. Didn't publicize that really, did they? Why? Well, it would've taken some of the focus off the Muslim hating.

Because no Christians showed up and shot them all.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

No explosives found. Initial media reports wrong. Imagine that.

Common theme, in initial media report unarmed mother Miriam Carey was a shooter and may have had explosives in her car. She was shot in the back of the head mutiple times by DC cops "out of abundance of caution" apparently.
Considering that the reported suspect in this case was of same skin color as Miriam Carey , one cannot be too careful.

 

[wizardwatson]

Because no Christians showed up and shot them all.

Yes, I get that. But as I've tried to make clear every time this very simple issue comes up is that both sides are in error.

Cartoonists are wrong for inciting violence.
Violent people are wrong for being violent.

I'm saying they aren't focusing on the cartoonists being wrong because it takes the focus off the narrative which is "Muslims are violent."

And I've also pointed out that you aren't defending free speech by being a douche. Your "right" to free speech is there so the government doesn't violate it. Not so you can go around saying whatever you want without repercussions.

 

[Valli6]

My point is it wasn't about "free speech", it's about flipping off the Muslims.

I would say it is about about asserting free speech. If someone is so mentally disturbed that they will kill over such trivialities, all the blame lies with themself!

Anyone who would react to a drawing by murdering others needs to be exposed to the rest of us.
As free speech is a mainstay in this country, those unable to accept it need to GTF out - not be allowed to threaten, intimidate or kill the rest of us till we bend till their warped will!

 

[Zippyjuan]

I smell a big rat on this. You have Pamella Geller, CIA controlled ISIS tweeting and idiots who after all these years still think ISIS is somehow pro muslim especially when all the country and people they kill are muslim. If its really happened and there were 2 people in Texas who listen to ISIS and follow their orders, then I have to say that those 2 people are the biggest idiots in the world. Why couldn't I have meet them 1st to sell them my beach front property in Montana.

I still cannot get my head around ISIS still having a twitter account. Thunderf00t was banned from twitter for "harassing" feminists but these people can send death threats and their account is still in good standing. What does a terrorist have to do to loose their account?

There are different branches of Islam. Much of the fighting in the Middle East and Africa are wars between different sects- Shiite and Sunni being the main ones.

 

[juleswin]

If these people really want to challenge free speech, let them try drawing Holocaust denial pictures in France. Or want to be offensive? try drawing pedophilia contest in the US. I would wager good money that the full force of the state will come down upon them, charged with hate crime, denying holocaust etc

Now that is challenging free speech or being offensive. Muslims are easy targets, even the state has been targeting them with real violence for decades now.

 

[wizardwatson]

I would say it is about about asserting free speech. If someone is so mentally disturbed that they will kill over such trivialities, all the blame lies with themself!

Anyone who would react to a drawing by murdering others needs to be exposed to the rest of us.
As free speech is a mainstay in this country, those unable to accept it need to GTF out - not be allowed to threaten, intimidate or kill the rest of us till we bend till their warped will!

So why don't you and some of your free-speech revolutionaries go down to Compton and start carrying signs that are sporting the N-Word? We need to flush those violent people out too you know.

Or is it racist to use the N-Word, but it's not to draw Mohammed?

Land mines violate the Geneva convention. Why not go walk on some?

 

[jonhowe]

Yes, I get that. But as I've tried to make clear every time this very simple issue comes up is that both sides are in error.

Cartoonists are wrong for inciting violence.
Violent people are wrong for being violent.

I'm saying they aren't focusing on the cartoonists being wrong because it takes the focus off the narrative which is "Muslims are violent."

And I've also pointed out that you aren't defending free speech by being a douche. Your "right" to free speech is there so the government doesn't violate it. Not so you can go around saying whatever you want without repercussions.

Cartoonists are not inciting violence. The radical fringe of islam is inciting violence. No one is wronged by the drawing of a man labelled "Muhammad". No one, anywhere, at all. If you don't want to see a picture of Muhammad, don't look at it. I don't want to see pictures of big hairy spiders, so I don't look at them. I don't shoot people who draw or photograph them. If someone ever DID start a shooting spree against spider photographers, I hope they'd have a cojones to keep photographing them.

If we accept that one of the world's religions gets to decide what can and cannot be drawn or depicted, where does it end? If we accept no drawing muhammad, why not no drawing sex and nudity (it is against islam as well)? What if pastafarians say we can't eat pasta anymore?

 

[Zippyjuan]

The swat team was already there?

Why did this Jew come to Texas to do this cartoon?

I smell a rat.

http://news.yahoo.com/2-gunmen-killed-outside-muhammad-cartoon-contest-texas-062952775.html

Harn said the city had not received any credible threats before the shooting and a security plan for the event had been worked out over several months. He said additional security was hired for Sunday's event. The sponsoring group has said it paid $10,000 for off-duty police officers and other private security.

 

[jonhowe]

Or is it racist to use the N-Word, but it's not to draw Mohammed?

Correct. Islam is not a race.

 

[Valli6]

If these people really want to challenge free speech, let them try drawing Holocaust denial pictures in France. Or want to be offensive? try drawing pedophilia contest in the US. I would wager good money that the full force of the state will come down upon them, charged with hate crime, denying holocaust etc

If you would like to express those sentiments, and are willing to accept any backlash (as these people were) then knock yourself out.

How France handles it is France's problem. They are inconsistent about free speech as their citizens have failed to stand up for this right in all cases. Let's not let that happen here.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

If these people really want to challenge free speech, let them try drawing Holocaust denial pictures in France. ...

France doesn't have Free Speech, some kid who had posted a cartoon online was arrested.


Comics A.M. | French teen arrested for posting ‘Charlie Hebdo’ parody

by Brigid Alverson | January 23, 2015 @ 8:00 AM | 10 Comments |

From the apparent cartoon in question

A 16-year-old in Nantes, France, was arrested last week for posting a cartoon on Facebook that mocks the Charlie Hebdo killings..
The cartoon shows someone holding a copy of Charlie Hebdo and being struck by bullets. Electronic Intifada posts what is most likely the offending cartoon (it had been shared widely on social media), a takeoff on one of the more notorious Charlie Hebdo covers, accompanied by the text, “Charlie Hebdo is shit. It doesn’t stop bullets.”

Link:Je Suis Hypocrite: From Free Speech rally to tribute to dictator who flogs bloggers, beheads





Glenn Greenwald, Iranian Government in Agreement Regarding Charlie Hebdo Cartoons

Glenn Greenwald (credit: Gage Skidmore)
BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
February 2, 2015 2:02 pm



Perhaps inspired by Greenwald, Iran’s House of Cartoon and Sarcheshmeh Cultural Complex announced that it would be accepting entries for its second International Holocaust Cartoons Contest in response to the Charlie Hebdo Muhammad cartoons. The first was held in 2006 following the publications of cartoons depicting Muhammad in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Here is the winning cartoon from 2006:

http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...n-agreement-regarding-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/

 

[presence]

The sponsoring group has said it paid $10,000 for off-duty police officers and other private security.

That sounds pretty sketchy. Seems like intent to incite.

At the very core of self-defense (as well as defense of property) is the notion of necessity. The ability to lawfully use deadly force to take another person’s life is an awesome power, and the law allows it only when it is necessary to do so in defense of a greater good.


It is also required, however, that the necessity not be the result of the purported defenders own deliberate conduct.


You cannot be the aggressor in a fight and then claim the justification of self-defense for your use of force. By being the aggressor you yourself created the necessity for the use of force.


You cannot even be a mutual combatant–“Let’s go outside and settle this like men!”–and claim self-defense as justification for your use of force. In cases of mutual combat, everybody who agreed to fight is deemed the aggressor, because they all created the necessity for the use of force.


Similarly, you cannot lay out bait to attract intruders into your home, and then use self-defense as justification for your use of force against them. Again, because you have created the necessity for the use of force.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/12/trial-underway-of-homeowner-accused-of-baiting-intruder/


Markus Kaarma got 70 years for baiting people into his garage to steal stuff and then shooting them.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Or perhaps because previous events featuring art or drawings of Muhammad also led to violence. They wanted to stir up controversy- hopefully not to die for it. They were the ones baiting.

 

[juleswin]

If you would like to express those sentiments, and are willing to accept any backlash (as these people were) then knock yourself out.

How France handles it is France's problem. They are inconsistent about free speech as their citizens have failed to stand up for this right in all cases. Let's not let that happen here.

Can I get away with a draw pedophilia porn contest in the US? I think that is free speech too. Nobody is harmed but no, I will get thrown in prison if I tried to pull that stunt. The point I am trying to make is that these people don't care about free speech, they just want to offend Muslims and Muslims alone. The same people would speak out against pro Palestinian bus signs in NY.

Its all about Muslim hate which doesn't impress me at all. I still find don't understand why any Muslim would support ISIS, these people work with Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and all many pro western groups to attack Muslims. These people couldn't be anymore anti Muslim if they tried and yet some Muslims support them. Wake the fuck up people.