Officer: Shooting at Muhammad cartoon contest in Texas

[NeverSure]

So Mr. Wilders, advocating silencing Muslims, was st this event as a keynote speaker, held because freedom of speech Is so important?

Was Mr Wilders wanting to make a speech at an event that he set up and controlled or was it someone else's event - someone who has rights too?

A right to freedom of speech is not also a right to trespass or to create a public nuisance by blocking people's way or making excessive noise. If you want freedom of speech get out of the way of others and have your own event.

Every right comes with responsibilities to other people rights. In America Mr. Wilders could buy TV time or ads or stand on a street corner but he can't impose his person on other people while he's doing it. They have rights too.

[impulse]

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.

Totally off topic. This was a workplace racial slur offense. Freedom of speech attaches to an individual in his individual capacity. The Bill Of Rights in the US Constitution contains the guarantee of freedom of speech and it is pointed right at individuals. It doesn't extend to the workplace where the employer has a right to set limits as a condition of employment. Freedom of speech also doesn't extend to private property where the owner may forbid it or tell you to leave.

As I said, totally disconnected. Except for the fact (that you have reiterated) that "free speech" doesn't mean you can say whatever you want, wherever you want, for whatever purpose. There are limits- as there should be.

In no way does that justify what these 2 nutjobs from Arizona tried to do, but I'd sure feel better about defending free speech that doesn't have as its primary objective to deliberately inflame tensions in the community.

[Credo]

The fact of the matter is that a lot of things are done that could be considered as deliberately inflaming tensions in the community. In the past, things, like:

---demonstrations and marches for the right for women to vote.

---demonstrations against slavery.

---demonstrations for gay rights.

etc., etc., etc.,

[simple1]

The fact of the matter is that a lot of things are done that could be considered as deliberately inflaming tensions in the community. In the past, things, like:

---demonstrations and marches for the right for women to vote.

---demonstrations against slavery.

---demonstrations for gay rights.

etc., etc., etc.,

Some of whom faced violence and death.

[Dannyboy666]

The two suspects are dead. Police 2, Terrorists 0. This is Texas, not France.

. A play on words , but you don't bring knives to a gunfight...

[JDGRUEN]

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.)

The Muslims have a right to become upset - but any rights they have in America - ends at the point they make any attempt to stop someone from saying what they please or taking violent actions towards those who are exercising their free speech rights. To say otherwise is to take a position against the freedoms and rights contained within the 1st Amendment.

If it were the case that people could be silenced in their speech by others who disagree - silenced by intimidation and force or threats of death - then there would be no free speech in America.

Example: If a Gay organization decided to conduct a Gay Rights Parade in Little Rock Arkansas and a few fellows (members of some Fundamentalist Christian Sect back in the hills) decided to come into town and rough up the Guys in the Parade or even shoot them...

Not only would these 'fellows' be guilty of assault, perhaps of 'terroristic actions' and murder if they killed someone -- they would also be guilty of Deprivation of the individuals Rights of Freedom of Expression and of the Rights of Free Speech and Rights of Assembly ... Exactly the same thing the two Jihadists would have been guilty of in Garland Texas had they lived to go to court. Even the overt attempt could be prosecuted.

Would you then say the same thing -- the parade was done only to inflame Christians? Would you really say that?

Edited May 5, 2015 by JDGRUEN

[canman]

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.

The unintended value is that two scumbags have been dispatched.

That in and of itself is good enough for me.

[arjunadawn]

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

Brilliant. This underlying, false presumption has been addressed elsewhere before and then like now, there is nothing but pie in the sky fantasy for it. Then, that when 12 jihadis in a given place murder x amount of people, yet there were also tens of thousands of muslims that day, in the same country that did nothing, that they therefore represent this "moderate majority" of muslims. It is poppycock, plain and simple.

It is invariably true that there are decent muslims out there but that itself is relevant and subject to interpretation, which so many westerners fail to grasp. The reason so many converts murder and mayhem is because they are simply converted to the core doctrine and have not yet any tempering aspect of tribe, familiarity, boredom, or municiple, or local pressures which accommodate islam, but also mitigate against blowing yourself up- some call these moderates. I call them muslims restrained. But the fact remains, the core doctrine itself calls explicitly for the behavior we see in converts especially. This is the mechanics, societal restraints that act with and upon the ideology of islam tamping it down in various locales, but others call this fiction "moderate."

At what point in dumb do we as a civilization stop providing cover for status for that which acts under the color of god but slays with the flag of barbarity?

[Steely Dan]

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.

Totally off topic. This was a workplace racial slur offense. Freedom of speech attaches to an individual in his individual capacity. The Bill Of Rights in the US Constitution contains the guarantee of freedom of speech and it is pointed right at individuals. It doesn't extend to the workplace where the employer has a right to set limits as a condition of employment. Freedom of speech also doesn't extend to private property where the owner may forbid it or tell you to leave.

As I said, totally disconnected. Except for the fact (that you have reiterated) that "free speech" doesn't mean you can say whatever you want, wherever you want, for whatever purpose. There are limits- as there should be.

In no way does that justify what these 2 nutjobs from Arizona tried to do, but I'd sure feel better about defending free speech that doesn't have as its primary objective to deliberately inflame tensions in the community.

Would setting up Sharia controlled zones in cities, campaigning to have places selling pork or alcohol closed be considered provocative. Would refusing to take a guide dog for the blind in a taxi or bus be considered provocative. Islam appears to be the religion of permanent offense and this will only get worse until religiously inspired totalitarians are treated in the strictest quid pro quo.

By way of a personal anecdote I once visited Ayers Rock, which is viewed as sacred by Aboriginal people. The tour guide stated the Aborigines would prefer us not to climb the rock, but the option was there to climb if we wanted. I had no hesitation in agreeing not to climb the rock as the request was made in a reasonable manner not backed up by intimidation or threats of violence. The correct response to the Charlie Hebdo murders was in my oppinion for cartoons of Mohammad to be posted everywhere at every opportunity so Muslims would be faced with having to grow skins as thick as the rest of us.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Steely Dan

[Benmart]

Depicting images with the sole intent to upset followers of a religion rather than make a stand for freedom of speech.....

Please provide information to support the statement that their "sole intent [is] to upset followers".

I don't know any of the players, don't have inside information and didn't read that from any credible source.

The most upsetting thing that I can think of is having your head detached from your body because you don't subscribe to a particular belief.

Perspective.

[Jingthing]

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.

The unintended value is that two scumbags have been dispatched.

That in and of itself is good enough for me.

Understood but the show could have easily attracted competent terrorists and/or the security could have failed. Others dying for this particular show done purely to inflame would be a waste. On the other hand, I consider the Hedbo publishers heroes because they really had substantive principles even though some of what they published was offensive to me as well.

[dragonfly94]

so what cartoon won and who had the balls to publish it?

Edited May 5, 2015 by dragonfly94

[dragonfly94]

Wake up time for apologists

[MaxYakov]

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.

Nonsense. You want "pure provocation"? Can you spell I-S-I-S?

Edited May 5, 2015 by MaxYakov

[metisdead]

A post containing an offensive image has been removed as well as the replies referencing that post.

[NeverSure]

The fact of the matter is that a lot of things are done that could be considered as deliberately inflaming tensions in the community. In the past, things, like:

---demonstrations and marches for the right for women to vote.

---demonstrations against slavery.

---demonstrations for gay rights.

etc., etc., etc.,

Some of whom faced violence and death.

Yes but the killers were in the wrong and the protesters had something they really believed in. They all made a lot of positive progress too.

Do you think the world will ever make progress against Islamic terrorists who, via protests learn to accept that the protesters have a right to their own beliefs/religions/speech and yes even art?

Do you think that the world can make the same progress with Muslims that it has been making for women, gays and slaves?

Do you see a day when protests wake up Muslims and make them tolerant of others?

I don't. I think we (society) are going to keep killing them in the streets.

[Jingthing]

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.

Nonsense. You want "pure provocation"? Can you spell I-S-I-S?

True.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[webfact]

Islamic State group says it was behind attack on Dallas Prophet Muhammad cartoon event in which two gunmen died /BBC

[Jingthing]

Islamic State group says it was behind attack on Dallas Prophet Muhammad cartoon event in which two gunmen died /BBC

They failed. Good!

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[balo]

A quick reaction by the police probably saved innocent lifes that night. If we had the same type of police force in Norway , Breivik would have been dead long before he even sat foot on that island, killing 76 young people.

[Credo]

The fact of the matter is that a lot of things are done that could be considered as deliberately inflaming tensions in the community. In the past, things, like:

---demonstrations and marches for the right for women to vote.

---demonstrations against slavery.

---demonstrations for gay rights.

etc., etc., etc.,

Some of whom faced violence and death.

Yes but the killers were in the wrong and the protesters had something they really believed in. They all made a lot of positive progress too.

Do you think the world will ever make progress against Islamic terrorists who, via protests learn to accept that the protesters have a right to their own beliefs/religions/speech and yes even art?

Do you think that the world can make the same progress with Muslims that it has been making for women, gays and slaves?

Do you see a day when protests wake up Muslims and make them tolerant of others?

I don't. I think we (society) are going to keep killing them in the streets.

I think the day will come when we will see a much more tolerance among Muslims that what we see now. The current situation is unsustainable and given enough time and exposure to other values and ways of life, it will change.

I just don't know that it's going to happen in the short term and I just don't know how we go about getting it to move in that direction.

I am not anti-Islam. I have lived and worked with Muslims and I have relatives that are Muslim, although they are very far removed from anything fundamentalist; they don't usually eat pork, but they do enjoy a drink. I also have a relative married to a Jew and they all seem to get along at family gatherings. It's possible.

[Jingthing]

Islamic extremism will likely wane in the future but it will get worse before it gets better. More secular Muslims please!

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[stevenl]

So Mr. Wilders, advocating silencing Muslims, was st this event as a keynote speaker, held because freedom of speech Is so important?

Was Mr Wilders wanting to make a speech at an event that he set up and controlled or was it someone else's event - someone who has rights too?

A right to freedom of speech is not also a right to trespass or to create a public nuisance by blocking people's way or making excessive noise. If you want freedom of speech get out of the way of others and have your own event.

Every right comes with responsibilities to other people rights. In America Mr. Wilders could buy TV time or ads or stand on a street corner but he can't impose his person on other people while he's doing it. They have rights too.

I was already afraid my post would go over your head.

[simple1]

The fact of the matter is that a lot of things are done that could be considered as deliberately inflaming tensions in the community. In the past, things, like:

---demonstrations and marches for the right for women to vote.

---demonstrations against slavery.

---demonstrations for gay rights.

etc., etc., etc.,

Some of whom faced violence and death.

Yes but the killers were in the wrong and the protesters had something they really believed in. They all made a lot of positive progress too.

Do you think the world will ever make progress against Islamic terrorists who, via protests learn to accept that the protesters have a right to their own beliefs/religions/speech and yes even art?

Do you think that the world can make the same progress with Muslims that it has been making for women, gays and slaves?

Do you see a day when protests wake up Muslims and make them tolerant of others?

I don't. I think we (society) are going to keep killing them in the streets.

I think the day will come when we will see a much more tolerance among Muslims that what we see now. The current situation is unsustainable and given enough time and exposure to other values and ways of life, it will change.

I just don't know that it's going to happen in the short term and I just don't know how we go about getting it to move in that direction.

I am not anti-Islam. I have lived and worked with Muslims and I have relatives that are Muslim, although they are very far removed from anything fundamentalist; they don't usually eat pork, but they do enjoy a drink. I also have a relative married to a Jew and they all seem to get along at family gatherings. It's possible.

Agree.

There are Islamic sects today that adhere to the message of tolerance, yet are not recognised by nearly all on this forum and other social media platforms. People continue with insisting that all Muslims will follow the same path to fundamentalism, no such entity as a moderate Muslim etc etc. Well what an excellent propaganda message for Islamic extremism.

I just wish people such as Geller would spend their energy to encourage the Muslim community to embrace positive values rather than a continuum of total negativity contributing to schism within society. Oh & BTW why would anyone support her with such an appalling track record...

She has “spoken favorably of South African racists, defended Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadzic, and denied the existence of Serbian concentration camps.”

http://qz.com/397726/stop-comparing-pamela-geller-to-the-murdered-staffers-of-charlie-hebdo/

[dragonfly94]

I just wish people such as Geller would spend their energy to encourage the Muslim community to embrace positive values rather than a continuum of total negativity contributing to schism within society. Oh & BTW why would anyone support her with such an appalling track record...

Not possible any more than it was to encourage the positive aspects of nazism or communism, and to try would be a waste of her time, the ideology of Islam does not pander to discussion, reason or logic

Edited May 5, 2015 by dragonfly94

[Ulysses G.]

She has spoken favorably of South African racists, defended Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadzic, and denied the existence of Serbian concentration camps.

I would like some actual proof of this and I don't mean an article that is full of lies and unsubstantiated exaggerations that are simply cover for the sins of radical Islam.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Chicog]

And what will you do when you get it?

[Ulysses G.]

Your record for providing evidence of your claims in rather slim. I will worry about it when it actually happens.

[55Jay]

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.)

The Muslims have a right to become upset - but any rights they have in America - ends at the point they make any attempt to stop someone from saying what they please or taking violent actions towards those who are exercising their free speech rights. To say otherwise is to take a position against the freedoms and rights contained within the 1st Amendment.

If it were the case that people could be silenced in their speech by others who disagree - silenced by intimidation and force or threats of death - then there would be no free speech in America.

Example: If a Gay organization decided to conduct a Gay Rights Parade in Little Rock Arkansas and a few fellows (members of some Fundamentalist Christian Sect back in the hills) decided to come into town and rough up the Guys in the Parade or even shoot them...

Not only would these 'fellows' be guilty of assault, perhaps of 'terroristic actions' and murder if they killed someone -- they would also be guilty of Deprivation of the individuals Rights of Freedom of Expression and of the Rights of Free Speech and Rights of Assembly ... Exactly the same thing the two Jihadists would have been guilty of in Garland Texas had they lived to go to court. Even the overt attempt could be prosecuted.

Would you then say the same thing -- the parade was done only to inflame Christians? Would you really say that?

I appreciated your example.

IMO, gay pride parades were shock tactics to get recognition and spur debate. Sometimes a few brave souls have to be the first to kick the world in the nuts to right a wrong. Many important social justice/ inequality issues were and still are addressed in this way.

There's just something annoying about having some religious knuckleheads, in this case muslims, tell the world we are prohibited from doing X, and if we dare, it's punishable by death. I don't recognize their authority, they have none, who the <deleted> do they think they are?

So I get it that some folks can't ignore the attempt to control speech and deed through intimidation, and do X just to create debate and confrontation.

Good to read that Americans Muslims and the family of the 2 slain gunmen, have condemned the attack at the convention center.

[Publicus]

The fact of the matter is that a lot of things are done that could be considered as deliberately inflaming tensions in the community. In the past, things, like:

---demonstrations and marches for the right for women to vote.

---demonstrations against slavery.

---demonstrations for gay rights.

etc., etc., etc.,

Some of whom faced violence and death.

Yes but the killers were in the wrong and the protesters had something they really believed in. They all made a lot of positive progress too.

Do you think the world will ever make progress against Islamic terrorists who, via protests learn to accept that the protesters have a right to their own beliefs/religions/speech and yes even art?

Do you think that the world can make the same progress with Muslims that it has been making for women, gays and slaves?

Do you see a day when protests wake up Muslims and make them tolerant of others?

I don't. I think we (society) are going to keep killing them in the streets.

I think the day will come when we will see a much more tolerance among Muslims that what we see now. The current situation is unsustainable and given enough time and exposure to other values and ways of life, it will change.

I just don't know that it's going to happen in the short term and I just don't know how we go about getting it to move in that direction.

I am not anti-Islam. I have lived and worked with Muslims and I have relatives that are Muslim, although they are very far removed from anything fundamentalist; they don't usually eat pork, but they do enjoy a drink. I also have a relative married to a Jew and they all seem to get along at family gatherings. It's possible.

The post contributes the need for a focus on the consistently overlooked reality there are Muslims and there are Muslims and that there are Muslims, not to mention there are yet other and still more Muslims.

Early on during the several years I'd spent in a Muslim majority province (90%) in the Thai deep South, my Muslim business associate and close friend had quipped to me that the Muslims there don't like camel droppings that pass as pieces of fruit, which I said to him are called dates in English. The message and point were as clear to me as my friend had intended to be, i.e., that Thai Muslims are not Middle East Muslims; moreover, they rather look down on the intolerant Muslims of the still ancient ME.

Thai Muslims down south are closely connected to Malay Muslims but Thai Muslims are indeed Thais. Malay Muslims I met and got to know in Malaysia don't care at all for camel fruit either. I also met Muslims from Indonesia who during dinners and evenings under the stars of Johnnie Black make clear they too are apart and distinct from ME Muslims. A good number of the Thai Muslims take a annual pass on Ramadan to include hard liquor. I was initially surprised by the number of young and single Muslim women who, while dressed similarly to old fashioned Catholic nuns, receive a man friend later on in the evenings.

While all Thai Muslims down there expressed to me their profound concern for the Palestinians and their cause, they simultaneously distanced themselves from ME Muslims. Even though many Thai Muslims support the people of Iran, they also don't like things nuclear, nor do they like the ayatollahs controlling democracy there.

Significantly, Thai Muslims I know haven't ever said a word about Israel, either way.

My Muslim friends invited me to mosque so I on several occasions endured observed first hand their religious services and their prayers and enjoyed their Muslim food after the services (males and females separated by a wall). My friend's only comment after my first Friday service was that those who open their arms widely during prayer are the poor ones because all the money from heaven falls through the larger space that worshipers with their hands close together preclude .

Thailand is indeed its own place with its own culture, customs, traditions, but it does have Muslims, most of which I'd say are of a very different mindset and pattern of behaviors than are the headline Muslims of the ME in particular. It's reasonable to say that other Muslims in other parts of the world can also be categorized as being more concerned about managing and succeeding in their everyday life at work, family and home life, and in recreational pursuits, than in any ideological crusade or any similar bents.