News Article: So ISIS Wants to Find out how we Roll...Attacks Anti-Islam Event in Texas

selmaborntidefan said:

What's funny is that even Bill Maher and the late Christopher Hitchens - who despise Christianity - would point out which religion is not only more likely but FAR MORE LIKELY to KILL - I repeat, KILL people for it.

And coloring an entire group? You mean like how I watch TV and the suggestion is that every single cop in the USA is a power hungry scumbag, every black person is a thug waiting to riot, refusing to bake a cake for a wedding one views as a holy sacrament is the moral equivalent of killing Matthew Sheppard, and let's not even get started on what people of think lawyers.......

I try to be fair with it but here's the thing: even when there IS an actual denunciation of "terror," it is not screamed nearly as loudly as "oh, they're going to be so mean to us Muslims."

And seebell actually living here - your other point is not so strong. They're so outnumbered here by gun toters that....well you saw what happened and how quick it was. With open carry and the Wild West here, it would be one of the worst places to even try this. And a protest would probably raise the temp with some otherwise peaceful folks.

I won't say every Muslim is violent because that's obviously not true. But when wants to make the equivalent comparison with (for example) historic Catholicism or Salem.......you have to go back HOW MANY centuries to a different time? And it's not like Islam was peaceful even then.

And if the media themselves does not think they're violent, why will they display the cross in urine federally funded art exhibit but NOT display something that might inflame someone else? Why the sensitivity to one religion and not the other? I guess because nobody put fatwas on Salman Rushdie for his views on Jesus, right?


Oh - and a great post (as almost always) by Chanson.

Click to expand...

Related to one of your points, seems like I've seen more protests by Muslim groups and others against the showing of American Sniper on college campuses than protests by Muslims against Islamic extremism and violence.

I agree with those who like Chanson's post :smile:

I'm still not sure why so much is being made about this being a free speech issue. I dont think that was Geller's primary intent, at least not based on her history. IMO, I think it had a lot more to do with stirring the pot, poking a stick in the eye of Muslim beliefs. One other thing, knowing how controversial this was and knowing the propensity for radical Muslims to respond like this, why was the security guard that got shot (and maybe others) unarmed?

Bamaro said:

I'm still not sure why so much is being made about this being a free speech issue. I dont think that was Geller's primary intent, at least not based on her history. IMO, I think it had a lot more to do with stirring the pot, poking a stick in the eye of Muslim beliefs. One other thing, knowing how controversial this was and knowing the propensity for radical Muslims to respond like this, why was the security guard that got shot (and maybe others) unarmed?

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone would honestly believe that her first goal was exercising her free speech and somehow attempting to strengthen the free speech laws here in the US. I know I don't. 10,000$ for cartoons of mohammed knowing full well how muslims feel about such things, most definitely is stirring the pot.

Her past antics have painted a clear picture of her propensity for demagoguery, and this one only solidifies her place as a right wing clown in my book. Given all of that, the basic question is whether she should be able to say whatever she wants no matter the consequences. That falls naturally under the purview of a free speech argument.

Here is the scenario that I would be interested in hearing your take upon.

Given the following statements at which point should society step in and self censor, and at which point should the government step in to censor?

1. I don't think gay people should get married.
2. I hate puppies and think they should all die.
3. Christianity is a big bag of hooey.
4. Islam is a big bag of hooey.
5. Threatening death or bodily injury upon someone.
6. Defecation upon the bible.
7. Cartoon of mohammed.

Maybe there isn't something on that list that you feel should have any calls for self censorship or government censorship. But I imagine without too much thought you could probably come up with one (ignoring the ones the courts have already judged on, pronography, threats, libel and the like.)

If at any point you think there is some point that other people shouldn't be allowed to freely speak their mind wherever they are, it obviously becomes a free speech issue. Because if you are thinking it, then others are thinking it, and eventually some stupid politician is going to get up and start trying to pass a law that will curtail even more freedoms. The government is doing a good enough job trying to take them away, why should we as a society help them?

If It is illegal to beat the crap out of someone who disrespects, walks-on, and burns the flag that hundreds of thousands of people gave their life for, then I don't care what gets these Muslims underwear in a bunch. Deal with it.

TIDE-HSV said:

It matters not a whit what her intention was. It is a matter of free speech. Burning the flag is free speech - and offensive to most. Free speech is more important to protect, the more offensive it is. In these kinds of reactions, the radicals reveal much more about themselves than they do about free speech. Would I do it? No, of course not. However, I would defend to the death her right to do it...

Click to expand...

i don't hear anyone seriously saying we should ban this type of speech (or at least anyone with the actual power to do so). i do hear a lot of folks saying "don't say inflammatory stuff"

BamaPokerplayer said:

If It is illegal to beat the crap out of someone who disrespects, walks-on, and burns the flag that hundreds of thousands of people gave their life for, then I don't care what gets these Muslims underwear in a bunch. Deal with it.

Click to expand...

that is illegal because it is assault.

92tide said:

that is illegal because it is assault.

Click to expand...

Excatly, and if I should happen to elbow one of those folks and they shoot me, I won't make a fuss about it.

TIDE-HSV said:

And that amounts to self-censorship of free speech, caused by threats of violence to back it up. Anyone who doesn't see that as a slippery slope is blind. This is America, where one should be able to burn the flag, pee on the cross and, yes, gasp, cartoon Mohammed, all without fear of being shot in retaliation...

Click to expand...

i agree with you. there seems to be some mis-understanding here. i will try to make an analogy to make it more clear.

i think if someone wants to walk down metropolitan ave in south atlanta (a market where you get both kinds of crack) yelling "n-words go back to africa" they should be free to do so. the likely outcome (not saying it is correct) is that they are going to get the living crap beat out of them. those that beat them should be punished for their crime, but the fact that there was retaliation is not indicative of an erosion of free speech rights.

suggesting to someone that it would not be a good idea to do something like that because some body may react violently and harm you is not leading to self-censorship and is worlds different than policy/laws outlawing saying those things.

92tide said:

i don't hear anyone seriously saying we should ban this type of speech (or at least anyone with the actual power to do so). i do hear a lot of folks saying "don't say inflammatory stuff"

Click to expand...

That's the distinction people are missing.

If I want to walk into a Black Panther meeting loudly proclaiming that James Earl Ray did this nation a favor, I absolutely have the right to do so. And after emergency services scrapes up whatever is left of me from the pavement, someone just might get charged in my death, because they did not have the right to kill me just because I ....ed them off. But how many people, white and black alike, would say "Serves you right, dumbazz"?

jthomas666 said:

That's the distinction people are missing.

If I want to walk into a Black Panther meeting loudly proclaiming that James Earl Ray did this nation a favor, I absolutely have the right to do so. And after emergency services scrapes up whatever is left of me from the pavement, someone just might get charged in my death, because they did not have the right to kill me just because I ....ed them off. But how many people, white and black alike, would say "Serves you right, dumbazz"?

Click to expand...

You make a good point. Maybe it's because this is so new, and that it is already common knowledge not to say racially offensive things in areas where you might get hurt, that people are so up in arms. I do see your distinction, but to me there is a slightly different analogy. There are white supremacists in every city, and people flying the confederate flag proudly, which for many embodies a very distasteful period of time, which many want to forget. Often causing great pain and anger amongst some of the african american population. However many now just shrug it off and think "stupid redneck" and go on about their business.

So maybe a better analogy would be, how outraged would those on TV be if a couple members from the black panther party decided drive across several states to take shots at a KKK rally, or vice versa? Most would think it is stupid violence, but I doubt you would have as many voices on TV and the internet proclaiming that the victims should quit saying whatever got the other side riled up. I will acquiesce that it is entirely possible that as americans we have become numb to the racial tension between whites and blacks and that is the reason that this is such a hot bed. I will also go so far as to realize that the media realizes that people fear the unknown, fear the threat of terrorism, and that that sells air time for whatever widget of the day they happen to want to sell commercials for.

jthomas666 said:

That's the distinction people are missing.

If I want to walk into a Black Panther meeting loudly proclaiming that James Earl Ray did this nation a favor, I absolutely have the right to do so. And after emergency services scrapes up whatever is left of me from the pavement, someone just might get charged in my death, because they did not have the right to kill me just because I ....ed them off. But how many people, white and black alike, would say "Serves you right, dumbazz"?

Click to expand...

Interestingly (to me, anyway), it seems different sides stand on different sides of these debates - the right stands on one side in this issue, the left the other. But if we were talking about sexual assault at a college party, the sides would be switched. But, they are essentially the same arguments, are they not?

- You have the right to do as you wish and you shouldn't have to fear other people's misdeeds. After all, it's their responsibility to behave responsibly.
- The crime is not the victim's fault.
- The perpetrator should be held accountable. Severely even.
- The victim could have protected himself/herself by being aware of how others might interpret his/her actions and behavior.

I think everyone can agree, though, that the real problems in both circumstances are the perpetrators.

Now, I will jump out of the hornet's nest and watch the fight.

chanson78 said:

Here is the scenario that I would be interested in hearing your take upon.

Given the following statements at which point should society step in and self censor, and at which point should the government step in to censor?

1. I don't think gay people should get married.
2. I hate puppies and think they should all die.
3. Christianity is a big bag of hooey.
4. Islam is a big bag of hooey.
5. Threatening death or bodily injury upon someone.
6. Defecation upon the bible.
7. Cartoon of mohammed.

Maybe there isn't something on that list that you feel should have any calls for self censorship or government censorship. But I imagine without too much thought you could probably come up with one (ignoring the ones the courts have already judged on, pronography, threats, libel and the like.)

If at any point you think there is some point that other people shouldn't be allowed to freely speak their mind wherever they are, it obviously becomes a free speech issue. Because if you are thinking it, then others are thinking it, and eventually some stupid politician is going to get up and start trying to pass a law that will curtail even more freedoms. The government is doing a good enough job trying to take them away, why should we as a society help them?

Click to expand...

I would censor 2 & 5

TIDE-HSV said:

Don't know if anyone else noticed, but this traffic cop was a pretty fair country shot. These guys were armed with assault rifles and body armor and he took both of 'em out - with his service pistol. At this point, I would think they had to be head shots. The last split second of these two guys consciousness must have been amazement. I saw a video a while back shot by a surveillance camera at a service station in Brazil. The assaulter circled around, came up behind his intended victim. He put a headlock on the guy and put his pistol to the guy's head. An off duty cop was standing right there. He initially put his hands up, but then he bladed his body, drew and then shot the only thing showing - the assaulter's head. From the shootee's body language, you can see a split second of astoundment and then he jerks and falls backwards and out. Unfortunately, the YouTube account which put up the video has been taken down...

Click to expand...

It is on LiveLeak however.

GreatDanish said:

Interestingly (to me, anyway), it seems different sides stand on different sides of these debates - the right stands on one side in this issue, the left the other. But if we were talking about sexual assault at a college party, the sides would be switched. But, they are essentially the same arguments, are they not?

- You have the right to do as you wish and you shouldn't have to fear other people's misdeeds. After all, it's their responsibility to behave responsibly.
- The crime is not the victim's fault.
- The perpetrator should be held accountable. Severely even.
- The victim could have protected himself/herself by being aware of how others might interpret his/her actions and behavior.

I think everyone can agree, though, that the real problems in both circumstances are the perpetrators.

Now, I will jump out of the hornet's nest and watch the fight.

Click to expand...

A lot of the examples I see people using are saying something like, don't go into the red part of town and call red people stupid. It looks like this event was held at a civic center type place, and as far as I know it wasn't in the middle of a Muslim community. It looks like the Muslim folk came a long way to cause trouble.

BamaPokerplayer said:

A lot of the examples I see people using are saying something like, don't go into the red part of town and call red people stupid. It looks like this event was held at a civic center type place, and as far as I know it wasn't in the middle of a Muslim community. It looks like the Muslim folk came a long way to cause trouble.

Click to expand...

They're just trying to make peace.

BamaPokerplayer said:

A lot of the examples I see people using are saying something like, don't go into the red part of town and call red people stupid. It looks like this event was held at a civic center type place, and as far as I know it wasn't in the middle of a Muslim community. It looks like the Muslim folk came a long way to cause trouble.

Click to expand...

there is a pretty big difference in saying "it may not be the best idea to do that" and "don't do that"

"the muslim folk" didn't cause the trouble. two d-bags who are muslim did. again, a pretty big difference.

TIDE-HSV said:

It matters not a whit what her intention was. It is a matter of free speech. Burning the flag is free speech - and offensive to most. Free speech is more important to protect, the more offensive it is. In these kinds of reactions, the radicals reveal much more about themselves than they do about free speech. Would I do it? No, of course not. However, I would defend to the death her right to do it...

Click to expand...

Utter awesomeness!!!


I recall a conversation I had with a guy in medical school (he was Army, I was **) who was an atheist. He told me I was the only Bible thumper he'd ever met that he actually liked (quite the exaggeration since I'm not but I guess there are degrees of everything). I looked back at him and said, "I hate your atheism and we obviously disagree, but I'd stand back to back with you and defend your right not only to not believe in my God but to make fun of Him if you so desired." He sorta smiled and said, "And I feel the same way about you." We fist bumped and that was that. And he was quite the ultraconservative/libertarian. Heck, we agreed about most things except religion. Granted, the military instills that value into folks but it's still important to live it.

I hated the cross in the urine but you know what? I don't want it banned (although whether this is deserving of federal funding is another issue altogether). Better a few things that should be left unsaid than censorship and calling it freedom.