Two gunmen carrying explosives attack anti Muslim art contest in Texas

[ClydeCoulter]

...

Context...context is important.

 

[UWDude]

...

Try it this way:

If rights are given by the creator to all men...

...then what is the need for the second amendment?





Folks, the second amendment is highly violent and pragmatic.

The government fears the first, especially, the right to assemble, because they know it can lead to the reason for the second.

I can't even think of a revolution that did not start with protesting and/or rioting.



No, rights are not given by a creator, rights are extensions of power... ...and power flows from the barrel of a gun.

Clearly, the framers of the constitution understood this, and I don't even mean that in a men-on-pedestal sort of way. I mean it in a "they killed for power" sort of way.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

No, rights are not given by a creator, rights are extensions of power... ...and power flows from the barrel of a gun.

...

 

[ClydeCoulter]

...

It's the difference in what we believe that should be, and what is.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

If someone is mentally incapacitated by a cartoon, how do you expect them to deal with the daily rigors of life?

This guy was an accomplished MO State Auditor and GOP governorship candidate untill Feb 26th 2015, he took his own life due to distress caused by an advertisement clip.

If an ad can cause such emotional trigger , so could words or caricatures communicating a message depending on a belief, mental/emotional state, past trauma etc.

Palestine trauma triggered violent events have been chasing world/US for decades. Yes Gaza images like Abu Ghraib images can traumatize people who relate closely to victims.

This Is The Face Of Terrorism


Quote:
Soofi followed events in the Middle East and sometimes shared images that were critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and America’s support for Israel. During Israel’s 2014 bombardment of the Gaza Strip, Soofi posted, “May Allah turn the tides of this war and punish the Israeli oppressors, ameen, ameen, ameen!”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...505-story.html

The Texas freedom event was organized by a group that has been placing provocative pro-Israeli ads all over the US.

 

[jonhowe]

Words do matter. Words turn people to savages. (just ask everybody who thinks the media is driving the riots, really, cartoons never hurt anybody? What about those cartoons called "news shows" on cable tv?)

Propaganda makes people charge cannons like idiots, and drive around Iraq watching friends getting their balls blown off, but still doing it again the next day, literally putting their balls on the line. Weak minded? Yeah, very. Human condition.

Propaganda is real. Propaganda cartoons and humor are real tools of manipulation. That is the real world. A master propagandist can kill millions without ever pulling a trigger.

Yes, people are weak minded. Yes, people want a reason to hate. Tribalism is human nature, as human nature is SOCIAL, and easily appealed to, ESPECIALLY if the "them" speaks a different language, and has their own propaganda.

So tell me which laws of Islam we must follow to make our television not propaganda.

Which laws at all? How about no laws and absolute freedom of expression and communication. Violence is never justified by speech.

 

[UWDude]

So tell me which laws of Islam we must follow to make our television not propaganda.

huh?

Which laws at all?

the fuck you talking about?

How about no laws and absolute freedom of expression and communication.

Absolute freedom? So anytime anyone says anything vile, we have to stand up and applaud it, because "absolute freedom of expression and communication?" To denounce it or otherwise, would be to not allow freedom of speech?

When I watch some drunk tard at a bar start talking shit get his teeth knocked out, am I supposed to now demand his attackers arrest, (which would again be violence) even though I quite clearly saw he was spoiling for a fight, and got one?

I remember when those two sailors called my friend a ni55er. They both were on the floor in blood. Both.

Violence is never justified by speech.

What world are you living in? Violence is justified by speech every day.

 

[jonhowe]

Absolute freedom? So anytime anyone says anything vile, we have to stand up and applaud it, because "absolute freedom of expression and communication?" To denounce it or otherwise, would be to not allow freedom of speech?

"The fuck you talking about?" Freedom means you don't have to applaud, you don't even have to listen. All you have to do is not kill me for speech. I have a right to my life and property, you have your rights to yours, as long as we don't violate each others' rights, we're cool.

When I watch some drunk tard at a bar start talking shit get his teeth knocked out, am I supposed to now demand his attackers arrest, (which would again be violence) even though I quite clearly saw he was spoiling for a fight, and got one?

Yes, you are. When I was a bartender, people talked a lot of shit. Talking shit is fine. The moment someone took a swing, though, they're out and/or someone's calling the cops. Your example is spot on accurate; the only person in the wrong is the one who took the 1st swing.

If my wife calls me a bad husband and it makes me mad, by your logic I have every right to beat the crap out of her because she should have known it would make me mad. What planet are you on?

I remember when those two sailors called my friend a ni55er. They both were on the floor in blood. Both.

Then your friend isn't a "ni55er", he's a violent asshole.

What world are you living in? Violence is justified by speech every day.

Violence is not justified by speech.

 

[wizardwatson]

"The fuck you talking about?" Freedom means you don't have to applaud, you don't even have to listen. All you have to do is not kill me for speech. I have a right to my life and property, you have your rights to yours, as long as we don't violate each others' rights, we're cool.


Yes, you are. When I was a bartender, people talked a lot of shit. Talking shit is fine. The moment someone took a swing, though, they're out and/or someone's calling the cops. Your example is spot on accurate; the only person in the wrong is the one who took the 1st swing.

If my wife calls me a bad husband and it makes me mad, by your logic I have every right to beat the crap out of her because she should have known it would make me mad. What planet are you on?


Then your friend isn't a "ni55er", he's a violent asshole.




Violence is not justified by speech.

Thank you Confucious, but you still haven't conceded that, perhaps, just maybe, Geller wanted violence to happen. And that is morally wrong, TOO ('too' means also, fyi, not 'only').

Here's a Bloomberg article that popped up today that pretty much makes the exact point I've been trying to make the whole time. YES, violence is wrong, but so is inciting it on purpose. Do we have "evidence" that Geller wanted this situation to occur? Circumstantial yes, but I think there's plenty there.

Anyway, john, try READING this. Maybe you might get a clue and realize "talking shit" is not "fine". It's morally wrong. ESPECIALLY if your intent is to incite violence.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-05/the-moral-problem-with-a-muhammad-cartoon-contest

The Moral Problem With a Muhammad Cartoon Contest

287 MAY 5, 2015 3:09 PM EDT
By Noah Feldman

It was morally wrong for two men to attack an anti-Islam installation last weekend in Garland, Texas, and no one should mourn the death of these terrorists. But what about deliberately provoking the assault by staging a competition for the most insulting caricature of the Prophet Muhammad? Was that morally wrong? Or was it just a reasonable exercise of the right to free speech?

It’s easy to be distracted by the condemnation of the crime, which should be absolute. No verbal provocation can justify killing.

But it’s also easy to be distracted by the First Amendment. The Constitution guarantees a right to speak. Under Supreme Court precedent, that right extends to most offensive speech, provided it doesn’t count as “fighting words” that would immediately cause a reasonable person to respond by throwing a punch. Many other countries, including those we consider free, outlaw racist speech or speech inciting racism. The U.S. doesn’t -- and can't under most interpretations of the First Amendment.

But the protected status of free speech says nothing about whether particular speech is morally right or wrong. (pay attention RPF) That status allows me to advocate for child abuse or witch-burning or killing members of a race I don’t like. These kinds of speech are morally repugnant, even though they are constitutionally protected.

To evaluate the conduct of someone who speaks with the intent to provoke a violent response, then, we need to consider the speech on its own terms. We need to ask: What did those who staged the provocation intend to happen? And what were the foreseeable consequences?

One goal of the provokers in Texas seems to have been sending a message to Muslims that their faith may be criticized with impunity. Pamela Geller, the organizer, said she chose the venue because Muslims had previously organized an event there. Geller also said that Muslims generally cannot be criticized in the U.S. because of political correctness, and that she wanted to counteract what she perceives as a new social norm.

The desire to condemn Islam by intentionally offending Muslims is morally unpleasant in itself. Insulting the Prophet to make a point is a bit like showing Nazi propaganda to prove that Jews can be subject to criticism: effective, but repulsive.

Yet as moral wrongdoing goes, giving offense isn’t at the top of the list. You shouldn’t do it, but when you do, you’re offensive -- nothing more. Compared with intimidation, for example, offense is less wrongful. If offense were all that Geller intended, she’d deserve a stern lecture about civility, not deep condemnation.

Geller also had a plausible moral rationale: to strike a blow for free speech itself, after January's attacks in Paris at the offices of Charlie Hebdo. Perhaps, it could be argued, some offense is justified in light of the need to stand up against terrorism that is intended to repress speech.

But there was almost certainly another goal at work in the provocation, too. Geller clearly wanted to get a reaction from Muslims offended by the event's intentionally offensive speech. The point of the offense was, in part, to generate a response. (Remember RPF, they hired SWAT, why hire such firepower if you aren't expecting bloodshed?)

Perhaps all Geller wanted was to provoke a counterdemonstration that would have drawn attention to her efforts. But assuming for a moment that she didn’t want to provoke a violent attack, Geller could still be held morally responsible for the foreseeable consequences of her provocation.

There’s a moral theory, called the doctrine of double effect, that says you shouldn’t be blamed for foreseeable consequences that you don’t want. We sometimes rely on it, as in justifying collateral damage as a result of an otherwise morally correct use of force.

This moral doctrine of double effect has no place in evaluating a conscious provocation. Geller was trying to provoke a reaction. If the reaction was reasonably likely to be violent, she can’t hide behind the notion that she didn’t want anyone to get hurt.

Was a violent reaction foreseeable? I’d like the answer to be no. Plenty of insults against Muslims go unremarked, and certainly unavenged. Violent attacks like the one on Charlie Hebdo are extremely rare.

Fairness toward American Muslims would seem to require us to say that the violent reaction wasn’t reasonably likely to occur. We’d then have to absolve Geller on a ground she probably wouldn’t much like.

But that still leaves the question of Geller’s own subjective beliefs and intentions. It’s hard to escape the suspicion that part of her hoped to provoke a violent response.

After all, it’s part of Geller’s worldview to believe that Islam is a violent religion. The bus and subway ads she’s paid for depict Islam in terms of violent jihad. She paid for an armed security guard outside the event, suggesting she considered violence at least possible. What’s more, the value of the free speech she is trumpeting is relevant mostly because cartoons perceived as insulting the Prophet have been met with violence.

If -- and I say if -- Geller intended to provoke violence, she did something much worse than giving offense. By willfully trying to provoke violence, Geller was trying to create a situation in which innocent people could have been harmed or killed. As it was, a security guard at the event was injured. (By the way, the guard who shot and killed the attackers counts as a hero who saved lives, regardless of Geller’s motives.) If Geller wanted violence to happen, her actions were morally culpable -- even though she obviously didn’t commit it.

Good job, Noah.

The last sentence I bolded is the only real defense anyone can use against me, "David, you have no proof that she wanted violence to happen." True enough. But this whole movement is based on opinion. Tree by its fruits. Geller's tree, her fruits. We also have no proof that this budding jihadist Elton would have taken on a different mission if someone like Geller wasn't there to fan the flames. The FBI didn't seem to think so, that's why he wasn't top priority.

 

[AuH20]

Thank you Confucious, but you still haven't conceded that, perhaps, just maybe, Geller wanted violence to happen. And that is morally wrong, TOO ('too' means also, fyi, not 'only').

Here's a Bloomberg article that popped up today that pretty much makes the exact point I've been trying to make the whole time. YES, violence is wrong, but so is inciting it on purpose. Do we have "evidence" that Geller wanted this situation to occur? Circumstantial yes, but I think there's plenty there.

Anyway, john, try READING this. Maybe you might get a clue and realize "talking shit" is not "fine". It's morally wrong. ESPECIALLY if your intent is to incite violence.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-05/the-moral-problem-with-a-muhammad-cartoon-contest



Good job, Noah.

The last sentence I bolded is the only real defense anyone can use against me, "David, you have no proof that she wanted violence to happen." True enough. But this whole movement is based on opinion. Tree by its fruits. Geller's tree, her fruits. We also have no proof that this budding jihadist Elton would have taken on a different mission if someone like Geller wasn't there to fan the flames. The FBI didn't seem to think so, that's why he wasn't top priority.

Elton would have probably found another issue or target to be inflamed about. This isn't about Geller as much as it is as about self-control or lack thereof in this instance . Now it would be a completely different situation entirely if Geller and Co. went out of their way to personally torture Elton with this campaign.

 

[wizardwatson]

Elton would have probably found another issue or target to be inflamed about. This isn't about Geller as much as it is as about self-control or lack thereof in this instance . Now it would be a completely different situation entirely if Geller and Co. went out of their way to personally torture Elton with this campaign.

Your opinion, just like mine is mine.

You could use the same rationale for UWDude's story about his black friend beating up guys that called him the N-Word. That he was "naturally" violent and he would have assaulted someone anyway.

Jihadists aren't programmed the same. They are individuals. Elton could've logged onto RPF one day and had a change of heart. But by Geller and Co. staging their hate-circus they sped up the clock and now he's beyond redemption.

 

[AuH20]

I don't care for Geller but I find this declaration of war mildly amusing.

If you sell her a soft drink, you are deemed a legitimate target. Street vendors beware!

 

[jonhowe]

Thank you Confucious, but you still haven't conceded that, perhaps, just maybe, Geller wanted violence to happen. And that is morally wrong, TOO ('too' means also, fyi, not 'only').

Here's a Bloomberg article that popped up today that pretty much makes the exact point I've been trying to make the whole time. YES, violence is wrong, but so is inciting it on purpose. Do we have "evidence" that Geller wanted this situation to occur? Circumstantial yes, but I think there's plenty there.

Anyway, john, try READING this. Maybe you might get a clue and realize "talking shit" is not "fine". It's morally wrong. ESPECIALLY if your intent is to incite violence.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-05/the-moral-problem-with-a-muhammad-cartoon-contest



Good job, Noah.

The last sentence I bolded is the only real defense anyone can use against me, "David, you have no proof that she wanted violence to happen." True enough. But this whole movement is based on opinion. Tree by its fruits. Geller's tree, her fruits. We also have no proof that this budding jihadist Elton would have taken on a different mission if someone like Geller wasn't there to fan the flames. The FBI didn't seem to think so, that's why he wasn't top priority.

Again, no one is harmed by speech. If you're goaded into violence by someone else's words, that's on YOU.

We should all have been equally horrified if these gunmen attacked a KKK rally or a Westboro Baptist Church protest.

 

[wizardwatson]

I don't care for Geller but I find this declaration of war mildly amusing.

If you sell her a soft drink, you are deemed a legitimate target. Street vendors beware!

Well, it is kind of funny. My favorite part is:

"We knew the target was protected. Our intent was to show how easy we give our lives for the Sake of Allah."

Really? And this is exactly what I meant way up in this thread when someone said Texas-2 ISIS-0, and I corrected, "No, if you think that you don't understand ISIS, it's 2-2". To these fanatics a victory or a defeat is always a victory.

ISIS loves them some sour grapes.

 

[Ender]

Again, no one is harmed by speech. If you're goaded into violence by someone else's words, that's on YOU.

We should all have been equally horrified if these gunmen attacked a KKK rally or a Westboro Baptist Church protest.

Not true- I have seen lives destroyed by "speech". I had a friend who committed suicide because of someone's "speech". I have seen people's income destroyed by "speech".

NOT advocating violence- just sayin'.

 

[wizardwatson]

Again, no one is harmed by speech. If you're goaded into violence by someone else's words, that's on YOU.

Yes, genius, I agree. Again, Again, Again.

If you are violent THAT IS ON YOU.

But if you are out to start a fight, THAT IS ON YOU.

A greater wrong doesn't excuse a lesser wrong.

Let me break it down for you:

A-Hole #1: If you say "pineapple" I will throw acid on my child's face.

A-Hole #2: "PINEAPPLE!" No one tells me what I can and can't say!!!

A-Hole #1's Child: Ahhhhhh! It burns.

Both A-Holes are A-Holes. When two A-Holes get together it doesn't turn one of them into a hero, it ends up hurting innocent people.

 

[Ender]

Here's Ron Paul on the incident; click on to see the video:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/isis-in-texas/

ISIS in Texas?
Daniel McAdams

The media has panicked many Americans by claiming that ISIS has claimed responsibility for Sunday’s strange incident in Garland, TX. But, as usual, there is much more to the story. The source for this “claim” is none other than the very controversial Rita Katz and her SITE Intelligence Group. Might this be a propaganda exercise in the interest of the neocons? Dr. Paul and I have a look in today’s Liberty Report:

 

[jonhowe]

Yes, genius, I agree. Again, Again, Again.

If you are violent THAT IS ON YOU.

But if you are out to start a fight, THAT IS ON YOU.

A greater wrong doesn't excuse a lesser wrong.

Let me break it down for you:

A-Hole #1: If you say "pineapple" I will throw acid on my child's face.

A-Hole #2: "PINEAPPLE!" No one tells me what I can and can't say!!!

A-Hole #1's Child: Ahhhhhh! It burns.

Both A-Holes are A-Holes. When two A-Holes get together it doesn't turn one of them into a hero, it ends up hurting innocent people.

Only the 1st person is the A-Hole for using the threat of violence to control the speech of others.

Again, please list which islamic laws we must follow to be safe. May I eat my BLT now, or not?

 

[AuH20]

Only the 1st person is the A-Hole for using the threat of violence to control the speech of others.

Again, please list which islamic laws we must follow to be safe. May I eat my BLT now, or not?

No, you are not permitted to consume the flesh of such a filthy creature.

 

[wizardwatson]

Only the 1st person is the A-Hole for using the threat of violence to control the speech of others.

Again, please list which islamic laws we must follow to be safe. May I eat my BLT now, or not?

I don't know, John. I won't say you are "hopeless" but certainly I can't be expected to keep hammering away when your entire argument is like a 5-year-old saying, "He started it!" Really though, your outlook is just a primitive form of "ends justify the means" which is shared by a huge portion of the population they just voice it with a little more finesse.

You need to go back and study your Taoism that you put in your signature. You clearly do not understand the strategy and point of non-contention.

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

Soren Kierkegaard