Publicus Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Geert Wilder (Guest Speaker) and his "Protection" before the event... I could be wrong - but from other sources I have read and photos seen... I believe these private body guards of Geert Wilder are the ones who shot the terrorists ... CEIR5GhVEAEKsBe.jpg The Garland police chief just said it was a traffic cop who used his duty pistol to take down the two terrorists. Looks like the terrorists ran into Clint Eastwood. Wonder what happens to people who run a red light down there Maybe send the guy to fight ISIS as the new Sgt York. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TooPoopedToPop Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Geert Wilder (Guest Speaker) and his "Protection" before the event... I could be wrong - but from other sources I have read and photos seen... I believe these private body guards of Geert Wilder are the ones who shot the terrorists ... CEIR5GhVEAEKsBe.jpg Either that Dutchboy is tall, or his guards are undersized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
55Jay Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Of course the idea of the contest was provocative. I'm fairly certain that the people that organised this event were aware that this was more offensive than provocative. It doesn't prove that the US has free speech. All it proves it that the US has some knuckleheads who abuse it. If I were to wander into a Texas bar and shout that all Texan men are feeble minded limp dicks, I'd expect to get a good kicking. So, apart from the obvious consequences, what on earth would be the point of me doing it? To "prove" that I can? People really can't see the other side of this? (Again in case anyone is just joining: I have no problem with the police taking out the two men who opened fire over it). You seem to like the results yet call these Texans knuckleheads. Pretty obvious they did this to prove a point, same as those satirical "knuckleheads" at Charlie Hebdo. The only side worth paying attention to at this juncture is the fact islamic nutters in the 21st Century are telling the world it's prohibited from drawing islam's 6th century religious prophet. Or Else. Not empty threats, but the default response shouldn't be to cower in the corner and pee down your leg when confronted with some BS rationale like this. What's next? This bit of unhinged religious zealotry deserves to be drawn out and updated. Not to worry, there are still plenty of islamic issues for which we can demonstrate multicultural awareness and understanding; just need to dial down the death sentence for cartoons rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arjunadawn Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Depicting images with the sole intent to upset followers of a religion rather than make a stand for freedom of speech..... Wrong; and to assert any reference to "freedom of speech" in a commentary condemning it is unwholesome, at best. Freedom of speech is that very speech that by its nature makes us cringe and either hang more preciously to our pre conceived framework for viewing the world, or consider antagonistic contrarian speech and change. Freedom of speech is not the freedom to state what is subjectively approved by anyone of a billion others or the vox populi of the their collected voice. Free speech is that speech which by its nature has people scratching their head as they pass or being told if they died right now they would go to hell. Free speech irritates. Free speech is often absurd, lonely, and rarely poses any value because of its certain voice in the wilderness. However, when any speech elicits such violent and consistent responses by definition there is merit there. The merit is not that the depictions should not be this or that. These are rules incumbent on believers. Shar'ia only applies to believers and the conquered/ There is no stretch in these assertions here. Anticipating a rebuke and thus preemptively embracing dhimmitude-self policing, rationalizing speech, applying limits to speech that are contrary to common law, US constitutional law, and natural law is simply purchasing self assigned dhimmitude; self assigning a sharia status for an entire society. Otherwise the ability to depict or discuss this or that does not apply to not believers. You are bound to sharia or you are conquered or in the act of being conquered; this is not a protest regarding kindness and fair play- certainly not in context with the largest persecution of Christians since Nero. No, these charges are acts of war, not solicitations for equality in ecumenical lovemaking. Because muslims subjectively object to something, anything, then by definition that broad avenue of verbal traffic that is human discourse should be closely monitored and exhaustive signals put in place to limit access to the center of the city- in this case the periphery of the ideology, the man, ,behind the faith itself! It does not matter if the sole intent was to irritate another or the sole intent was to display the ability to do so irrespective of threat to life, liberty, or limb. The absurdity is you suggest a stand for freedom of speech could still be salvaged once its core organs were voluntarily eviscerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeycountry Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 422,000 Muslims in Texas (2010 Estimate) 421,998 went on about their lives just like the rest of us, making a living and tending their lawns, and raising a family. Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure a few dozen Christians (and maybe a few Muslims- who knows) robbed liquor stores and burglarized homes somewhere in Texas on the very same day. You have no evidence or statistics to back that claim up. You can just as easily say that 421,998 Muslims in Texas were in total support of the 2 terrorists today and were hoping they would kill every infidel in sight. Your way just perpetuates the "moderate Muslim" myth however.Thanks for enlightening me, I never thought people were actually thinking the way you are. More than you know, and with good reason apparently: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=APQVkJcZMKI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 It does not matter if the sole intent was to irritate another or the sole intent was to display the ability to do so irrespective of threat to life, liberty, or limb. The absurdity is you suggest a stand for freedom of speech could still be salvaged once its core organs were voluntarily eviscerated. It does matter that the sole intent was probably to provoke this kind of reaction so that the harridan could throw up her hands in fake horror. I expect the witch is disappointed they didn't manage to kill anyone before they got theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 You seem to like the results yet call these Texans knuckleheads. I didn't say I liked the results, I'm more relieved that they didn't manage to kill anyone. What I said was the response was reasonable under the circumstances. People that indoctrinated are willing to die for the cause and they don't care how many they take with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyTheMook Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Texas - 2 Al Queada - 0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidermike007 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Those incredibly silly Muslims who are extreme minded take themselves far too seriously. Maybe some culture and recreation would help. Get a life. If you cannot have a good laugh, what good is your life? Only ignorant fools who know nothing of divinity would kill others over cartoons. Such cretons the extremists are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 (edited) Well, I'm against Jihadists and all that ... but I don't see the point in these kinds of "shows" clearly done only to inflame Muslims in general. This is not the same as the Hedbo situation. That had socially redeeming value even though they knew it would inflame as well. This seems to be done ONLY to inflame. This show in Texas is just a step away from burning Korans. Should it be illegal to burn Korans or host such flame shows in the U.S.? I think not, but the people who do these things deserve to be condemned as well. (But not shot.) Edited May 4, 2015 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookee68 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 There are many images of Jesus, but nobody gives a shit, i can understand the Muslims don,t like or allow a picture of their prophet, is that because he is a pedo, and people dont draw pictures of pedo,s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookee68 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Well, I'm against Jihadists and all that ... but I don't see the point in these kinds of "shows" clearly done only to inflame Muslims in general. This is not the same as the Hedbo situation. That had socially redeeming value even though they knew it would inflame as well. This seems to be done ONLY to inflame. This show in Texas is just a step away from burning Korans. Should it be illegal to burn Korans or host such flame shows in the U.S.? I think not, but the people who do these things deserve to be condemned as well. (But not shot.) Why not they burn flags and destroy artifacts from other religions, They should educate them selves and learn that Allah only exists in their minds, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookee68 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Those incredibly silly Muslims who are extreme minded take themselves far too seriously. Maybe some culture and recreation would help. Get a life. If you cannot have a good laugh, what good is your life? Only ignorant fools who know nothing of divinity would kill others over cartoons. Such cretons the extremists are. And much more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surangw Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 someone should do a Muhammad version of Andres Serrano's piss christ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naam Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Those incredibly silly Muslims who are extreme minded take themselves far too seriously. Maybe some culture and recreation would help. Get a life. If you cannot have a good laugh, what good is your life? Only ignorant fools who know nothing of divinity would kill others over cartoons. Such cretons the extremists are. who or what are cretons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpokaneAl Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 The artists who depict religious symbols with contempt and disdain don't believe that art is morally neutral. They are making a point with their work under the guise of free speech. Pamela Geller should understand the outrage. How would Jews feel if the Star of David was submerged in urine [Andres Serrano], or the Western Wall covered in pig dung [Chris Ofili], or the Torah splattered with blood? Again, it happens and no one is killed over the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 (edited) There are many images of Jesus, but nobody gives a shit, i can understand the Muslims don,t like or allow a picture of their prophet, is that because he is a pedo, and people dont draw pictures of pedo,s. I understand your motivation is to be inflammatory. However, the underling reason for not having images of Mohamed was to counter idolatry practiced by pagans. It seems to me that some Muslims, especially extremists, are now acting in contradiction to the original intent i.e. idolising Mohamed. Edited May 4, 2015 by simple1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxYakov Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Well, I'm against Jihadists and all that ... but I don't see the point in these kinds of "shows" clearly done only to inflame Muslims in general. This is not the same as the Hedbo situation. That had socially redeeming value even though they knew it would inflame as well. This seems to be done ONLY to inflame. This show in Texas is just a step away from burning Korans. Should it be illegal to burn Korans or host such flame shows in the U.S.? I think not, but the people who do these things deserve to be condemned as well. (But not shot.) This position has already been addressed here by Publicus, including the conspicuous 'but'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Again, no redeeming value at all in the show or burning Korans. Many Americans will remember the controversy over the "Piss Christ" art which did offend many Christians. But that was indeed an expression of art so not the same and to be defended as freedom of artistic expression. If you look into what this show was about, again, no value at all except pure provocation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godden Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 i liked the one with Mr M making love to the goat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadman Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I am pleased ISIS is claiming responsibility.... ISIS dead two, us none Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverSure Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Again, no redeeming value at all in the show or burning Korans. Many Americans will remember the controversy over the "Piss Christ" art which did offend many Christians. But that was indeed an expression of art so not the same and to be defended as freedom of artistic expression. If you look into what this show was about, again, no value at all except pure provocation. "Freedom of artistic expression" means freedom from censorship especially if it is offensive. The concept is so easy. Freedom of expression means freedom to be offensive. No matter what we do it offends someone. It is necessary to defend freedom of speech and expression for others or yours, which will offend someone, could be stifled. I have never seen a public protest which didn't offend someone. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, an English writer and author of "The Friends of Voltaire", C. 1906. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I didn't say ban such shows. But it is garbage, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpokaneAl Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I didn't say ban such shows. But it is garbage, sorry. It is garbage, but this discussion highlights the difference between us and them. We get offended and discuss and perhaps boycott or even protest, but do not even consider hurt in or killing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverSure Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 (edited) Deleted SpokaneAl beat me to it. Good job... Edited May 4, 2015 by NeverSure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeijoshinCool Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Well, I'm against Jihadists and all that ... but I don't see the point in these kinds of "shows" clearly done only to inflame Muslims in general. This is not the same as the Hedbo situation. That had socially redeeming value even though they knew it would inflame as well. This seems to be done ONLY to inflame. This show in Texas is just a step away from burning Korans. Should it be illegal to burn Korans or host such flame shows in the U.S.? I think not, but the people who do these things deserve to be condemned as well. (But not shot.) . Well, I'm against Jihadists and all that ... but I don't see the point in these kinds of "shows" clearly done only to inflame Muslims in general. If the folks in Texas had shows like this in multiple cities everyday of the year, the extremists would soon be exterminated. Maybe the governor could offer free tickets to any extremists wishing to attend. One-way, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Well, I'm against Jihadists and all that ... but I don't see the point in these kinds of "shows" clearly done only to inflame Muslims in general. This is not the same as the Hedbo situation. That had socially redeeming value even though they knew it would inflame as well. This seems to be done ONLY to inflame. This show in Texas is just a step away from burning Korans. Should it be illegal to burn Korans or host such flame shows in the U.S.? I think not, but the people who do these things deserve to be condemned as well. (But not shot.) I agree with you on more things than I disagree with you on, but on this I am not so sure. The people actually planning the event might have done so for less than honorable reasons, but the artists may have had a different take on the whole situation. Art and artists are creative. I've been to art exhibits where sacred items, from flags to religious symbols have been used. Whether I like them or not, some were very creative and artistic. What is sad is that there are people that believe that Allah cannot deal with these people himself. The God I was brought up with could take care of the whole universe and could condemn me to hell. He could forgive me and save me too and without any help from anyone else. It's sad that their God is so impotent that he needs thugs to enforce his rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 So Mr. Wilders, advocating silencing Muslims, was st this event as a keynote speaker, held because freedom of speech Is so important? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverSure Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Terrorists. By definition they want to use terror to control us. They are the bad and violent ones. A statement that "I Will Not Be Intimidated By Your Shit" is entirely appropriate in a Free Country. Even if the event itself was a protest against terrorists, it could only go wrong if the terrorists are killers. The organizers and cartoonists didn't cause violence. Protesting doesn't cause violence but sometimes violent people show up. The violent people got exactly what they deserve and there was no excuse for their behavior. When I am intimidated by these neanderthals it will be the day to hang it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impulse Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) Meanwhile, in another victory (???) for free speech in Texas: http://www.chron.com/news/local/article/Air-Force-general-lost-job-over-ethnic-slur-6241570.php Totally not connected to the incident in Garland, but fodder for discussion of free speech and the responsibilities attached to exercising free speech. BTW, kudos to the Texas cop who probably saved dozens of lives. Edited May 5, 2015 by impulse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now