Thread: Two Shot at Muhammad Art Exhibit [W:439, 529, 978, 1489]

Originally Posted by Fearandloathing

I had my head handed to me by a so-called "liberal" for suggesting way back in 2009 that Obama's "enemies" were not the same as America's enemies. Since then he and his stupid voter followers have been proving me right.

Benghazi was a terrorist attack on US soil, and NOTHING was done about it. But, we have to see the government 'shut down' a few times to be reminded that the reeal "enemies" are Americans, members of congress in fact.

Terrorists walk free, but Republicans must be demonized. You would think aliens had come

You have completely lost your mind.

Originally Posted by US Conservative

Meet the new left. Isis isn't the problem, conservatives are. And the TEA party is worse than Hamas. See how this works?

Nobody said anything of the sort. More blatant strawmen.

Originally Posted by TurtleDude

no she doesn't. If Bush supporters had come a gunning for someone who drew a picture of Bush looking like a chimp or the ass who posted a bill board that had OBL sodomizing Bush, would you claim that the BDS artist deserved having hit men gunning for him?

Look, this is a free society. Those who get their panties in a wad over opinions they don't like need to deal with it. and if they react violently, they need to end up like those two scum bags in Texas did

on a slab

If you do something intentionally knowing that it will cause violence you are partially responsible. Just a fact.

Kids know this. We teach them to ignore or move on when dealing with an asshole but we also teach the asshole that their behaviour is unacceptable.

Disagree all you want. I really don't care.

Also, Bush is not a religion, race, gender or sexuality... Bush is a person. You created a Straw Man, nothing more.

I know of nothing besides religious faith that could drive a person to take it upon themselves to murder someone over a cartoon. People can be paid to do that kind of thing, or threatened, all for the glory or power of a dictator. But no one just decides to kill over a cartoon without religious zeal driving them to it.

Originally Posted by Thrilla

wearing short skirts has been argued to be a justification of rape...the analogy fits this scenario pretty well.

drawing Mohammed may incite anger in the same way a short skirt incites sexual thoughts.... neither justify an unlawful response, though... in both cases, the victim is 100% innocent of wrongdoing.

It isn't analogous. Simply walking around in a short skirt is not an invitation for sex. Insulting a religion is literally offensive. Nothing remotely close about the two.

Originally Posted by Grant

Yes, it's a given that when anyone is critical of Islam violence may occur. If that wasn't the case Muslims would be the butt of jokes everywhere.

But in fact Islamic violence and intimidation should not be allowed to silence anyone and that issue must be addressed. Pamela Geller is one of a handful of people in this world who dares stand up against these religious nutcases and she deserves credit for doing so.

You can let yourself be silenced through threats and intimidation, and ignore the violence being committed against Gays, women, heretics, and so on, but don't expect everyone else to follow in your shaky footsteps.

I agree completely. I am in no way condoning the silencing of people due to intimidation. I think that if you want to draw Allah with a bomb wrapped head gear go for it. If Muslims attack they should be stopped or killed. But if you draw that picture for the sole purpose of pissing off Muslims you are contributing to the problem. There really is no need to draw those pictures...

Originally Posted by Blemonds

Sorry, but it's your side blaming the victim. Some things never change

I blame the attacker for the violence. The cartoon lady is not a victim... she is an inciter. I blame her for inciting.

My side is realism. You should join it.

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva

It isn't analogous. Simply walking around in a short skirt is not an invitation for sex. Insulting a religion is literally offensive. Nothing remotely close about the two.

Look, the 1st amendment isn't for general topics that we all relate to - those discussions need no protections. The 1st amendment was created to protect the fringe discussions where people do not agree and where government may, had the 1st not been added to the Constitution, take retribution on those fringes. The way I see thrilla's analogy is from the perspective of "they were asking for it". In that way, it is analogous. However - it's irrelevant. Purposeful speech that incites anger is still protected speech in this case.

Originally Posted by US Conservative

Her and everyone there had their speech curtailed when two ISIS terrorists with guns and bombs decided to crash the party.

Couch it anyway you like, but it sure sounds to me like picking a fight - then claiming you've been attacked once you've succeeded.