Officer: Shooting at Muhammad cartoon contest in Texas

[Publicus]

when blind people discuss the colours of a rainbow, wise men watch with amusement and remain silent...

Would that be a statement in support of free speech in the US, in Oz and in societies in general round the world? The jihadists with their blinders are unlikely to ever have seen a rainbow through all that sand over there.

[Chicog]

I've made clear that I too, as do the vast majority of Americans, endorse the Garland event, its design, purpose, rationale, goals, and its outcome to date.

Given that it's purpose was almost certainly to elicit a violent response and a backlash against Islam in general, I'm surprised to read that.

[Linky]

There is also the burning and vandalism of mosques in Australia. The the blind cant see this because of their bigotry.

Not much free speech in Australia - the subject cannot really be talked about - the governments have been a push over for Muslim immigration and anyone else who has landed on the shore... When there cannot be a full and open debate - even name calling - secret burnings is a way to vent the anger... I am not justifying it ... it is illegal ... but people with no outlet and a government that is working to help the other side -- this is what happens...

Post removed to enable reply.

Sorry, free speech is accepted as a social and political norm in Oz, bigoted and insulting language is not uncommon. What is not legally permissible in Oz is defamation (doesn't include religion), language that is racist, supports terrorism or other acts of violence.

As a bit more detail denying the Holocaust is not technically illegal in Australia, but it can fall foul of Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

free speech is accepted as a social and political norm in Oz

I'd always had that impression but very recently I have come to reconsider based on a number of posts from Australians who say there isn't any free speech there and that there should not be any in the United States either, or that the US holds itself back by having free speech in the ways that it does have it, historically and up to the present going forward.

I'd need now to hear from Australians who hold an opposite or varying point of view because, while a number of the Aussies are among the best posters around here in respect of their arguments, the Aussies who are arguing against free speech are rather unknown to me. It's certainly the case most of the Aussies I've met in Thailand are more like Ms Geller than are other native English speakers, which caused me to believe the Aussies in general must indeed support and defend speech that is solely conceived to intentionally offend.

Both the government of Oz and the Australian people are no less concerned abut ISIS or terrorism than are the Americans or the Europeans. Yet Most of us from the US see the Garland events and developments as suppressing terrorism while critics of the art exhibit and contest about religion and politics see it and the necessary killings of the two jihadists as the new jihadist recruiting tool number one. Critics such as the Aussies here also (wrongly) and cynically see the event as a cynical one in itself and one that occurred outside of freedom of speech, and, worse, that freedom of speech is the cause and pursuit of fools or dreamers.

So Aussies might consider trying to clarify which it may be, ie, either Aussies believe in and have free speech and support it elsewhere, or they don't, because the event and developments in Texas were all about freedom of speech and were a defense of the US Constitution and of the shores of the US. Freedom of speech and provocative speech do after all go hand in glove.

The Oz constitution has no free speech section. Another poster correctly quoted a high court decision saying free speech is implied.

However, implied does not mean it is implicit. Therefore the govt can, and does, pass legislation to limit fre speech. The Racial Villification Act is one such piece of legislation.

This Act was passed because the public were thought not responsible enough for free speech. Too many shock jocks, for example, would be on the radio bashing Aboriginals, Lebanese, etc. this caused a lot of diviseveness and was a factor in the Cronulla riots.

Using the free speech to incite hatred was considered unnecessarilly divisive and had a severely detrimental effect on a multicultural community.

That divisiveness is something I can live without and if that means freedom of speech needs to be restricted so that ill informed morons and shock jocks trying to boost ratings is stopped then I am more than happy.

Too many people are too easily led into violence to have real free speech.

I for one, do not feel the need to burn a flag or a cross or antagonize someone just because I can.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Linky

[MaxYakov]

when blind people discuss the colours of a rainbow, wise men watch with amusement and remain silent...

Would that be a statement in support of free speech in the US, in Oz and in societies in general round the world? The jihadists with their blinders are unlikely to ever have seen a rainbow through all that sand over there.

Good try, but reviewing Naam's posts, I'd take him literally (hint: he would be the "wise man"). Someone should define "creton" for him and maybe he will go away.

[Publicus]

I've made clear that I too, as do the vast majority of Americans, endorse the Garland event, its design, purpose, rationale, goals, and its outcome to date.

Given that it's purpose was almost certainly to elicit a violent response and a backlash against Islam in general, I'm surprised to read that.

In the interest of trying to be pithy I'm going to recite that those who live by the sword die by the sword. It's the principle of stimulus-response here.

It is the case moreover that two terrorists are dead who had fully intended to mass murder civilians gathered without arms to hold an event of art, politics, culture, religion. Indeed, little beyond that could be more American or consistent with classical Western liberal culture and civilization than the exhibit and contest that was held that evening as it was indeed conducted.

The First Amendment serves right wingers too but it excludes jihadists intent on mass murder in the United States especially and in particular. In the natural course of the event in the United States the two particular jihadists in the United States got smoked out in the United States and then got completely smoked in the United States.

The large majority of us know and recognize that war against all of Islam is wrongheaded and self-destructive besides.

War against jihadists is however entirely a matter of self-defense and to make yet another recitation that is valid, the best defense is a good offense. Jihadists have been at war against the United States in the United States for almost a quarter century of years, ever escalating their campaign to the point that now ISIS has brought their madness to the soil and people of the United States in the United States for the first time since 9/11.

Do take significant note that it was the local police who killed the two jihadists, not a posse of armed local vigilantes in some kind of wild shootout at the O.K. Corral. Quite contrary to vigilante justice, the art exhibit and competition of politics and religion was a legitimate and respectable event and occasion and nothing to date has changed the fact.

[Linky]

I've made clear that I too, as do the vast majority of Americans, endorse the Garland event, its design, purpose, rationale, goals, and its outcome to date.

Given that it's purpose was almost certainly to elicit a violent response and a backlash against Islam in general, I'm surprised to read that.

In the interest of trying to be pithy I'm going to recite that those who live by the sword die by the sword. It's the principle of stimulus-response here.

It is the case moreover that two terrorists are dead who had fully intended to mass murder civilians gathered without arms to hold an event of art, politics, culture, religion. Indeed, little beyond that could be more American or consistent with classical Western liberal culture and civilization than the exhibit and contest that was held that evening as it was indeed conducted.

The First Amendment serves right wingers too but it excludes jihadists intent on mass murder in the United States especially and in particular. In the natural course of the event in the United States the two particular jihadists in the United States got smoked out in the United States and then got completely smoked in the United States.

The large majority of us know and recognize that war against all of Islam is wrongheaded and self-destructive besides.

War against jihadists is however entirely a matter of self-defense and to make yet another recitation that is valid, the best defense is a good offense. Jihadists have been at war against the United States in the United States for almost a quarter century of years, ever escalating their campaign to the point that now ISIS has brought their madness to the soil and people of the United States in the United States for the first time since 9/11.

Do take significant note that it was the local police who killed the two jihadists, not a posse of armed local vigilantes in some kind of wild shootout at the O.K. Corral. Quite contrary to vigilante justice, the art exhibit and competition of politics and religion was a legitimate and respectable event and occasion and nothing to date has changed the fact.

This wasn't just a group meeting on religion or a round table dicussion on the merits of cartoons. This is an Islamic hate group deliberately setting out to inflame tensions and obviously hoping for trouble.

Interesting Ms Geller has stated she will hold another meeting. She is deliberately putting peoples lives at risk and for what, what is she trying to acheive?

[MaxYakov]

I've made clear that I too, as do the vast majority of Americans, endorse the Garland event, its design, purpose, rationale, goals, and its outcome to date.

Given that it's purpose was almost certainly to elicit a violent response and a backlash against Islam in general, I'm surprised to read that.

In the interest of trying to be pithy I'm going to recite that those who live by the sword die by the sword. It's the principle of stimulus-response here.

It is the case moreover that two terrorists are dead who had fully intended to mass murder civilians gathered without arms to hold an event of art, politics, culture, religion. Indeed, little beyond that could be more American or consistent with classical Western liberal culture and civilization than the exhibit and contest that was held that evening as it was indeed conducted.

The First Amendment serves right wingers too but it excludes jihadists intent on mass murder in the United States especially and in particular. In the natural course of the event in the United States the two particular jihadists in the United States got smoked out in the United States and then got completely smoked in the United States.

The large majority of us know and recognize that war against all of Islam is wrongheaded and self-destructive besides.

War against jihadists is however entirely a matter of self-defense and to make yet another recitation that is valid, the best defense is a good offense. Jihadists have been at war against the United States in the United States for almost a quarter century of years, ever escalating their campaign to the point that now ISIS has brought their madness to the soil and people of the United States in the United States for the first time since 9/11.

Do take significant note that it was the local police who killed the two jihadists, not a posse of armed local vigilantes in some kind of wild shootout at the O.K. Corral. Quite contrary to vigilante justice, the art exhibit and competition of politics and religion was a legitimate and respectable event and occasion and nothing to date has changed the fact.

Although I agree with you in general, I wouldn't have been so hasty with the "gathered without arms":

It should go without saying that the officer who took down the two prevented something more resembling the O.K. Corral wild shootout with the nearest SWAT.

Edited May 7, 2015 by MaxYakov

[Chicog]

I've made clear that I too, as do the vast majority of Americans, endorse the Garland event, its design, purpose, rationale, goals, and its outcome to date.

Given that it's purpose was almost certainly to elicit a violent response and a backlash against Islam in general, I'm surprised to read that.

In the interest of trying to be pithy I'm going to recite that those who live by the sword die by the sword. It's the principle of stimulus-response here.

It is the case moreover that two terrorists are dead who had fully intended to mass murder civilians gathered without arms to hold an event of art, politics, culture, religion. Indeed, little beyond that could be more American or consistent with classical Western liberal culture and civilization than the exhibit and contest that was held that evening as it was indeed conducted.

The First Amendment serves right wingers too but it excludes jihadists intent on mass murder in the United States especially and in particular. In the natural course of the event in the United States the two particular jihadists in the United States got smoked out in the United States and then got completely smoked in the United States.

The large majority of us know and recognize that war against all of Islam is wrongheaded and self-destructive besides.

War against jihadists is however entirely a matter of self-defense and to make yet another recitation that is valid, the best defense is a good offense. Jihadists have been at war against the United States in the United States for almost a quarter century of years, ever escalating their campaign to the point that now ISIS has brought their madness to the soil and people of the United States in the United States for the first time since 9/11.

Do take significant note that it was the local police who killed the two jihadists, not a posse of armed local vigilantes in some kind of wild shootout at the O.K. Corral. Quite contrary to vigilante justice, the art exhibit and competition of politics and religion was a legitimate and respectable event and occasion and nothing to date has changed the fact.

This wasn't just a group meeting on religion or a round table dicussion on the merits of cartoons. This is an Islamic hate group deliberately setting out to inflame tensions and obviously hoping for trouble.

Interesting Ms Geller has stated she will hold another meeting. She is deliberately putting peoples lives at risk and for what, what is she trying to acheive?

She is trying to instigate acts of violence from extremists so that she can stir up anger against all Muslims.

[dragonfly94]

She is trying to instigate acts of violence from extremists so that she can stir up anger against all Muslims.

After attacks on Embassies, warships, 9/11, Boston, many failed attacks against the USA and USA citizens being beheaded, she does not NEED to stir up anger against ISLAM, Muslims do a good job on their own!

[Publicus]

Not much free speech in Australia - the subject cannot really be talked about - the governments have been a push over for Muslim immigration and anyone else who has landed on the shore... When there cannot be a full and open debate - even name calling - secret burnings is a way to vent the anger... I am not justifying it ... it is illegal ... but people with no outlet and a government that is working to help the other side -- this is what happens...

Post removed to enable reply.

Sorry, free speech is accepted as a social and political norm in Oz, bigoted and insulting language is not uncommon. What is not legally permissible in Oz is defamation (doesn't include religion), language that is racist, supports terrorism or other acts of violence.

As a bit more detail denying the Holocaust is not technically illegal in Australia, but it can fall foul of Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

free speech is accepted as a social and political norm in Oz

I'd always had that impression but very recently I have come to reconsider based on a number of posts from Australians who say there isn't any free speech there and that there should not be any in the United States either, or that the US holds itself back by having free speech in the ways that it does have it, historically and up to the present going forward.

I'd need now to hear from Australians who hold an opposite or varying point of view because, while a number of the Aussies are among the best posters around here in respect of their arguments, the Aussies who are arguing against free speech are rather unknown to me. It's certainly the case most of the Aussies I've met in Thailand are more like Ms Geller than are other native English speakers, which caused me to believe the Aussies in general must indeed support and defend speech that is solely conceived to intentionally offend.

Both the government of Oz and the Australian people are no less concerned abut ISIS or terrorism than are the Americans or the Europeans. Yet Most of us from the US see the Garland events and developments as suppressing terrorism while critics of the art exhibit and contest about religion and politics see it and the necessary killings of the two jihadists as the new jihadist recruiting tool number one. Critics such as the Aussies here also (wrongly) and cynically see the event as a cynical one in itself and one that occurred outside of freedom of speech, and, worse, that freedom of speech is the cause and pursuit of fools or dreamers.

So Aussies might consider trying to clarify which it may be, ie, either Aussies believe in and have free speech and support it elsewhere, or they don't, because the event and developments in Texas were all about freedom of speech and were a defense of the US Constitution and of the shores of the US. Freedom of speech and provocative speech do after all go hand in glove.

The Oz constitution has no free speech section. Another poster correctly quoted a high court decision saying free speech is implied.

However, implied does not mean it is implicit. Therefore the govt can, and does, pass legislation to limit fre speech. The Racial Villification Act is one such piece of legislation.

This Act was passed because the public were thought not responsible enough for free speech. Too many shock jocks, for example, would be on the radio bashing Aboriginals, Lebanese, etc. this caused a lot of diviseveness and was a factor in the Cronulla riots.

Using the free speech to incite hatred was considered unnecessarilly divisive and had a severely detrimental effect on a multicultural community.

That divisiveness is something I can live without and if that means freedom of speech needs to be restricted so that ill informed morons and shock jocks trying to boost ratings is stopped then I am more than happy.

Too many people are too easily led into violence to have real free speech.

I for one, do not feel the need to burn a flag or a cross or antagonize someone just because I can.

Unfortunately illiberal, authoritarian, paternalist, statist, condescending....anti-liberal.

If this is the predominant world view Down Under, then I would have truly learned some unfortunate somethings about Her Britannic Majesty's Commonwealth of Australia.

The major applicable point would probably be that the European Enlightenment got bounced completely away and off by all cultures and societies on this side of the world in addition to all but one in the ME.

The advisory is nonetheless greatly appreciated.

[Linky]

She is trying to instigate acts of violence from extremists so that she can stir up anger against all Muslims.

After attacks on Embassies, warships, 9/11, Boston, many failed attacks against the USA and USA citizens being beheaded, she does not NEED to stir up anger against ISLAM, Muslims do a good job on their own!

Muslims? Like generalising much?

You have already proved on other threads you have no idea about Muslims and Islam. When you where proved wrong by the many facts about female circumcision you accused the world of lying and went and cried in the corner.

The delightful Ms Geller may not need to stir things up but she still does it.

What I would like to know is WHY she wants to stir the pot.

[MaxYakov]

JDGRUEN, on 06 May 2015 - 17:36, said:

Not much free speech in Australia - the subject cannot really be talked about - the governments have been a push over for Muslim immigration and anyone else who has landed on the shore... When there cannot be a full and open debate - even name calling - secret burnings is a way to vent the anger... I am not justifying it ... it is illegal ... but people with no outlet and a government that is working to help the other side -- this is what happens...

Post removed to enable reply.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, free speech is accepted as a social and political norm in Oz, bigoted and insulting language is not uncommon. What is not legally permissible in Oz is defamation (doesn't include religion), language that is racist, supports terrorism or other acts of violence.

As a bit more detail denying the Holocaust is not technically illegal in Australia, but it can fall foul of Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

free speech is accepted as a social and political norm in Oz

I'd always had that impression but very recently I have come to reconsider based on a number of posts from Australians who say there isn't any free speech there and that there should not be any in the United States either, or that the US holds itself back by having free speech in the ways that it does have it, historically and up to the present going forward.

I'd need now to hear from Australians who hold an opposite or varying point of view because, while a number of the Aussies are among the best posters around here in respect of their arguments, the Aussies who are arguing against free speech are rather unknown to me. It's certainly the case most of the Aussies I've met in Thailand are more like Ms Geller than are other native English speakers, which caused me to believe the Aussies in general must indeed support and defend speech that is solely conceived to intentionally offend.

Both the government of Oz and the Australian people are no less concerned abut ISIS or terrorism than are the Americans or the Europeans. Yet Most of us from the US see the Garland events and developments as suppressing terrorism while critics of the art exhibit and contest about religion and politics see it and the necessary killings of the two jihadists as the new jihadist recruiting tool number one. Critics such as the Aussies here also (wrongly) and cynically see the event as a cynical one in itself and one that occurred outside of freedom of speech, and, worse, that freedom of speech is the cause and pursuit of fools or dreamers.

So Aussies might consider trying to clarify which it may be, ie, either Aussies believe in and have free speech and support it elsewhere, or they don't, because the event and developments in Texas were all about freedom of speech and were a defense of the US Constitution and of the shores of the US. Freedom of speech and provocative speech do after all go hand in glove.

The Oz constitution has no free speech section. Another poster correctly quoted a high court decision saying free speech is implied.

However, implied does not mean it is implicit. Therefore the govt can, and does, pass legislation to limit fre speech. The Racial Villification Act is one such piece of legislation.

This Act was passed because the public were thought not responsible enough for free speech. Too many shock jocks, for example, would be on the radio bashing Aboriginals, Lebanese, etc. this caused a lot of diviseveness and was a factor in the Cronulla riots.

Using the free speech to incite hatred was considered unnecessarilly divisive and had a severely detrimental effect on a multicultural community.

That divisiveness is something I can live without and if that means freedom of speech needs to be restricted so that ill informed morons and shock jocks trying to boost ratings is stopped then I am more than happy.

Too many people are too easily led into violence to have real free speech.

I for one, do not feel the need to burn a flag or a cross or antagonize someone just because I can.

Unfortunately illiberal, authoritarian, paternalist, statist, condescending....anti-liberal.

If this is the predominant world view Down Under, then I would have truly learned some unfortunate somethings about Her Britannic Majesty's Commonwealth of Australia.

The major applicable point would probably be that the European Enlightenment got bounced completely away and off by all cultures and societies on this side of the world in addition to all but one in the ME.

The advisory is nonetheless greatly appreciated.

Errr. I think you may just have violated Australia's Racial Vilification Act of 1996 with your cheeky "Her Britannic Majesty's Commonwealth of Australia".

From the above Wiki link:

"A person must not, by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of their race by threatening or inciting other to threaten physical harm to the person, or members of the group, or to property of the person or members of the group.

For the purpose of the law, "race" means the nationality, country of origin, colour or ethnic origin of the person."

(Note: emphasis mine, as usual and I don't see gender, age, sexuality, etc. included - how far down the slipper-slope are they?)

But a question about your first sentence: Are you referring/alluding to Australia's liberal/anti-liberal ideology or some other country?

Edited May 7, 2015 by MaxYakov

[Publicus]

I've made clear that I too, as do the vast majority of Americans, endorse the Garland event, its design, purpose, rationale, goals, and its outcome to date.

Given that it's purpose was almost certainly to elicit a violent response and a backlash against Islam in general, I'm surprised to read that.

In the interest of trying to be pithy I'm going to recite that those who live by the sword die by the sword. It's the principle of stimulus-response here.

It is the case moreover that two terrorists are dead who had fully intended to mass murder civilians gathered without arms to hold an event of art, politics, culture, religion. Indeed, little beyond that could be more American or consistent with classical Western liberal culture and civilization than the exhibit and contest that was held that evening as it was indeed conducted.

The First Amendment serves right wingers too but it excludes jihadists intent on mass murder in the United States especially and in particular. In the natural course of the event in the United States the two particular jihadists in the United States got smoked out in the United States and then got completely smoked in the United States.

The large majority of us know and recognize that war against all of Islam is wrongheaded and self-destructive besides.

War against jihadists is however entirely a matter of self-defense and to make yet another recitation that is valid, the best defense is a good offense. Jihadists have been at war against the United States in the United States for almost a quarter century of years, ever escalating their campaign to the point that now ISIS has brought their madness to the soil and people of the United States in the United States for the first time since 9/11.

Do take significant note that it was the local police who killed the two jihadists, not a posse of armed local vigilantes in some kind of wild shootout at the O.K. Corral. Quite contrary to vigilante justice, the art exhibit and competition of politics and religion was a legitimate and respectable event and occasion and nothing to date has changed the fact.

This wasn't just a group meeting on religion or a round table dicussion on the merits of cartoons. This is an Islamic hate group deliberately setting out to inflame tensions and obviously hoping for trouble.

Interesting Ms Geller has stated she will hold another meeting. She is deliberately putting peoples lives at risk and for what, what is she trying to acheive?

and for what, what is she trying to acheive?

You'd have to ask her or her spokesperson about that or anything related to the inquiry and its nature. If Ms Geller is 100% against all of Islam she is 100% wrong and wrongheaded about it.

The vast majority of Americans have a deservedly low regard of Islam in the ME but the American people are not engaged in a war against all of Islam per se, much less engaged in a war against Islam everywhere.

The war underway was initiated by jihadists who have been at war with one country or another on one continent or another for decades. The White House and the great majority of Americans are at war against jihadists in response to the warmongering jihadist fanatics.

The distinct minority of Americans are indeed at war against Islam itself which only reflects the diversity of the 330 million Americans and not of America itself. There is nonetheless a war going on against the United States initiated and conducted by jihadists. Those who try to deny the fact would be wrong.

[Chicog]

She is trying to instigate acts of violence from extremists so that she can stir up anger against all Muslims.

After attacks on Embassies, warships, 9/11, Boston, many failed attacks against the USA and USA citizens being beheaded, she does not NEED to stir up anger against ISLAM, Muslims do a good job on their own!

There are almost 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet. So you are angry with all of them because of the actions of what is probably less than a tenth of a percent?

Which is probably why Miss Geller is spurred on to continue her pointless provocation.

[MaxYakov]

I've made clear that I too, as do the vast majority of Americans, endorse the Garland event, its design, purpose, rationale, goals, and its outcome to date.

Given that it's purpose was almost certainly to elicit a violent response and a backlash against Islam in general, I'm surprised to read that.

In the interest of trying to be pithy I'm going to recite that those who live by the sword die by the sword. It's the principle of stimulus-response here.

It is the case moreover that two terrorists are dead who had fully intended to mass murder civilians gathered without arms to hold an event of art, politics, culture, religion. Indeed, little beyond that could be more American or consistent with classical Western liberal culture and civilization than the exhibit and contest that was held that evening as it was indeed conducted.

The First Amendment serves right wingers too but it excludes jihadists intent on mass murder in the United States especially and in particular. In the natural course of the event in the United States the two particular jihadists in the United States got smoked out in the United States and then got completely smoked in the United States.

The large majority of us know and recognize that war against all of Islam is wrongheaded and self-destructive besides.

War against jihadists is however entirely a matter of self-defense and to make yet another recitation that is valid, the best defense is a good offense. Jihadists have been at war against the United States in the United States for almost a quarter century of years, ever escalating their campaign to the point that now ISIS has brought their madness to the soil and people of the United States in the United States for the first time since 9/11.

Do take significant note that it was the local police who killed the two jihadists, not a posse of armed local vigilantes in some kind of wild shootout at the O.K. Corral. Quite contrary to vigilante justice, the art exhibit and competition of politics and religion was a legitimate and respectable event and occasion and nothing to date has changed the fact.

This wasn't just a group meeting on religion or a round table dicussion on the merits of cartoons. This is an Islamic hate group deliberately setting out to inflame tensions and obviously hoping for trouble.

Interesting Ms Geller has stated she will hold another meeting. She is deliberately putting peoples lives at risk and for what, what is she trying to acheive?

All the people who met in Garland were volunteers and apparently happy to be there and not hostages being used as human shields. They had a SWAT team on site for protection.

If you want to hear what she's trying to achieve, why don't you listen to her?:

Edited May 7, 2015 by MaxYakov

[Steely Dan]

It seems one of the two dead Islamo-fascists went to a $20,000 dollar a year private school, which again shows its poverty, lack of education or prospects that cause radicalization......hang on, liberal myth busted alert, yet again.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/texas-shooting-nadir-soofi-was-a-heartthrob-in-pakistan-say-schoolmates/articleshow/47175778.cms

[Scott]

Let's please stay on topic. A post has been removed.

[Publicus]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

She is trying to instigate acts of violence from extremists so that she can stir up anger against all Muslims.

If that is what Ms Geller might be trying to do she is failing and she will continue to fail, as have the handful minority of other advocates in the US of global war against Islam itself and against all Muslims.

The distinct minority in the United States and elsewhere who advocate a war against all of Islam and all Muslims are rejected by the vast majority of Americans and they will continue to be rejected by us.

I and most Americans support what Ms Geller did in Garland TX because it was an appropriate political and cultural response to an event in the same building some months earlier that featured some radical Muslims who are on the periphery of jihad.

The vast majority of Americans however reject just about everything else Ms Geller does, represents, advocates. The only aspect of it all we accept about Ms Geller is her right to be ridiculed and effectively countered, which is what has been occurring and will continue to occur.

After attacks on Embassies, warships, 9/11, Boston, many failed attacks against the USA and USA citizens being beheaded, she does not NEED to stir up anger against ISLAM, Muslims do a good job on their own!

There are almost 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet. So you are angry with all of them because of the actions of what is probably less than a tenth of a percent?

Which is probably why Miss Geller is spurred on to continue her pointless provocation.

The reality of that raw number is the reckoning of someone else I don't remember that Muslims constitute 26% of the population of the planet. I figure 22% but either way declaring or conducting a war against all of Islam and all Muslims would make the Crusades look like a backyard across the fence spat with a targeted neighbor. ;b++){var>

The great majority of Americans are not anyway conducting a war against all of Islam or against all Muslims. We know this would be a completely OTT reaction, response.

Of the 330 million Americans only a small hard core minority want to fight all Muslims and all of Islam. If this is Ms. Geller's purpose she would have that First Amendment right but she would be 100% wrong and the vast majority of Americans know she would be (and very probably is) completely wrong and wrongheaded in this respect.

The war Americans and our government are engaged in is against radical jihad and radical jihad only. The war Bush and his Dick Cheney turned out to have initiated against all of the Muslim Middle East was not the war Americans had initially supported nor would such a war ever be supported by the vast majority of Americans.

Americans are fighting a war against radical jihadist aggression and we know the fact.

[Scott]

Another off-topic post has been removed. This is not about Australia.

[BKKBobby]

This event was legal. The laws of the country says so and its not controversial. Every US citizen and non-US citizen have to accept it. Its a right people have in that specific country. Also, violence are never to be condoned on any grounds. The holocaust denial conference in Tehran pretended it was about freedom of speech, same as with the cartoon drawing contest now. Both events are only about hate, offending and insulting a group of people because they belong to a specific religion. In some countries its illegal, in other countries its legal.

Edited May 7, 2015 by BKKBobby

[Scott]

An off-topic post removed.

[55Jay]

Thank you Max Yakov for posting the Pam G video on Page 9.

Best quote of the day from that:

"If you want to learn who rules over you, find out who you can not criticize."

[55Jay]

Thank you again, Publicus.

This isn't anti-Islam.

This is anti-bat-shit-crazy-I'm-going-to-kill-you-for-drawing-that------Islam.

There's a difference.

[NeverSure]

I've made clear that I too, as do the vast majority of Americans, endorse the Garland event, its design, purpose, rationale, goals, and its outcome to date.

Given that it's purpose was almost certainly to elicit a violent response and a backlash against Islam in general, I'm surprised to read that.

In the interest of trying to be pithy I'm going to recite that those who live by the sword die by the sword. It's the principle of stimulus-response here.

It is the case moreover that two terrorists are dead who had fully intended to mass murder civilians gathered without arms to hold an event of art, politics, culture, religion. Indeed, little beyond that could be more American or consistent with classical Western liberal culture and civilization than the exhibit and contest that was held that evening as it was indeed conducted.

The First Amendment serves right wingers too but it excludes jihadists intent on mass murder in the United States especially and in particular. In the natural course of the event in the United States the two particular jihadists in the United States got smoked out in the United States and then got completely smoked in the United States.

The large majority of us know and recognize that war against all of Islam is wrongheaded and self-destructive besides.

War against jihadists is however entirely a matter of self-defense and to make yet another recitation that is valid, the best defense is a good offense. Jihadists have been at war against the United States in the United States for almost a quarter century of years, ever escalating their campaign to the point that now ISIS has brought their madness to the soil and people of the United States in the United States for the first time since 9/11.

Do take significant note that it was the local police who killed the two jihadists, not a posse of armed local vigilantes in some kind of wild shootout at the O.K. Corral. Quite contrary to vigilante justice, the art exhibit and competition of politics and religion was a legitimate and respectable event and occasion and nothing to date has changed the fact.

I would like this to be posted again, thank you.

[Thorgal]

Freedom of speech.....sure.....but.... why to expect protection from the ones that will disagree?.

Because if the ones who disagree become violent they also become criminals and it is the government's responsibility and in the US the individual's right protect the population from criminals. No one makes those Muslims get violent. It's all on them.

These Muslims need to get over themselves if they settle in America or those good ole boy rednecks with the cowboy hats and baseball caps are going to help them get under over it.

End of.

Your quote : "No one 'makes' those Muslims get violent. It's all on them."

Perhaps you should consider the psychological mechanisms of externalisations that Miss Geller brought into the American public opinion/media long before the cartoon contest.

She provided a perfect trigger of a repeated religious sensitive subject that will always result in a dualistic characterisation of the Muslim community as 'an opponent'.

There's a difference in 'freedom of expression' and 'freedom of thought'...

[Steely Dan]

Thank you again, Publicus.

This isn't anti-Islam.

This is anti-bat-shit-crazy-I'm-going-to-kill-you-for-drawing-that------Islam.

There's a difference.

If however the bat-shit crazies aided and abetted by PC enablers throw about insults and accusations like confetti it becomes difficult if not Impossible to criticize the extremists and their ideology without being accused of criticizing all.

[Jai Dee]

A couple of off-topic posts have been removed from this thread.