• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

MIght as well lure them into the open where they can be dealt with as in this case rather than waiting for them to pull another 9-11?

Exactly what I said the other day.

Digging through the last several pages of the thread, it seems that several conservatives seem to believe that defending Geller's right to free speech entails condoning or refraining from criticizing her hateful rhetoric. Somehow, in this alternate universe, pointing out that she's a hateful bigot (even while pointing out she has the right to be) means liberals are "against free speech."

libs are against Free Speech if it counters their religion....that being liberalism! liberalism transcends all rational thought!
 
Re: Two Shot at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

awww.. you can lie about what i say, but i can't lie about what you say?... that's not very fair.

I changed it to misrepresent... sorry about the liar comment that yo apparently quoted prior to my changing it.

I clarified why I said what I said a few posts above this... ^^^
 
Re: Two Shot at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

C'mon, you know the racket. Even saying what Geller's group was doing was legal yet kinda prickish and that violent response was wrong means you're absolving the attackers.

maybe read my response before you say dumb **** about me again?
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

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

Spot On!!

The difference here is in how you PERCEIVE the two rallies.

It used to be the left would rally behind an artist to defend the art and expression-remember piss Christ?

But if its a muslim who might be offended (imagine that) and suddenly its crickets.

You dont have to agree with my observation just understand how you appear.

Exactly. What's good for conservatives is no good as libs see it. Hypocrites that they are.......
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

WRONG WRONG WRONG

in a free society, leaders of cults, politicians, celebrities etc are all going to be the target of criticism. I don't recall any Christians shooting up an artu museum in reaction to the "piss Christ" exhibit.

making fun of Mohammed is a free speech exercise that we Americans should protect and defend. and if people want to commit violence as a result, I say shoot them down as the cop did in this case

Absolutely!!!! :thumbs::thumbs:
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

FBI Overlooked TX Gunman Because 'So Many Like Him'...

An unidentified “senior law enforcement official” tells the New York Times that, while the FBI had been aware of Garland, Texas jihadist attacker Elton Simpson for nearly a decade, they did not follow his violent, pro-jihad tweets as closely as they could have because “there are so many like him” that the agency is overwhelmed.

Official: FBI Overlooked Texas Shooter's Violent Tweets Because 'There are So Many Like Him' - Breitbart

Geller performed a good service to the country, smoking this scum out of it's nest. She is talking about a followup event. I need to clear my schedule so I can attend.

The USA has many of these turds all over the country........flushing them out...is a Good thing! The more they end them....at the source.....the better.
 
Re: Two Shot at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

I changed it to misrepresent... sorry about the liar comment that yo apparently quoted prior to my changing it.

I clarified why I said what I said a few posts above this... ^^^

no worries.. i'm not offended... I won't come shoot at you or otherwise assault you.;)

my short skirt analogy relies on incitement of sexual thoughts (not an invitation for sex, as you said) of some men.
talking trash about Mohammed, or drawing pictures of him, or whatever...incites anger in some extremists Muslims.

inciting these emotions simply doesn't' justify illegitimate reactions... and the victim ,in either case, is held blameless for the illegitimate actions of those whom retaliate.

no one has to like or agree with what these people are doing... but they have the right to do so, and nobody has the right to assault them over their speech.... end of story.
there's no hemming and hawwing about it.. there's no bull**** about " that's not legitimate free speech" or whatever... all that is nonsense. it's very cut and dry.

calling her and her people hateful bigots is irrelevant to the issue.... she did nothign wrong and did not deserve any attempt to assault her and her people... period.
her behavior or beliefs come into play if they were illegitimate... other than that, they don't matter one bit.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

What really puzzles me is how so called enlightened liberals/progressives worldwide, somehow think it morally ok for those at Charlie Hebdo to draw cartoons and be martyrs for the cause, but it's not ok for Pam Geller. :blink:
I believe the difference comes down to intent, or at least perceived intent.

Charlie Hebdo is a general interest satirical magazine (similar to the late National Lampoon), that just happened to have some satirical content involving Islam, and by 'some' satirical content, I mean 'very little' - they went after everyone: Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Governments, Political Parties, etc. They are pretty much equal opportunity as far as their satirical targets, and they spread it around.

The incident in Texas is perceived not only as taking target at a single group (Islam), but even worse they appear to goading & baiting them into a fight. And that makes it appear more hate directed than then the 'art' or 'satire' it was ostensibly billed as.

CH has proven editorial & satirical bona fides - the Texas group and Ms. Geller do not - at thier worst, they're seen as hate group (a 1st amendment protected hate group, but a hate group none-the-less).

And I believe the rationale above is why the rest of the world is not rallying to Texas' side as they did to France.
 
Re: Two Shot at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

no worries.. i'm not offended... I won't come shoot at you or otherwise assault you.;)

my short skirt analogy relies on incitement of sexual thoughts (not an invitation for sex, as you said) of some men.
talking trash about Mohammed, or drawing pictures of him, or whatever...incites anger in some extremists Muslims.

inciting these emotions simply doesn't' justify illegitimate reactions... and the victim ,in either case, is held blameless for the illegitimate actions of those whom retaliate.

no one has to like or agree with what these people are doing... but they have the right to do so, and nobody has the right to assault them over their speech.... end of story.
there's no hemming and hawwing about it.. there's no bull**** about " that's not legitimate free speech" or whatever... all that is nonsense. it's very cut and dry.

calling her and her people hateful bigots is irrelevant to the issue.... she did nothign wrong and did not deserve any attempt to assault her and her people... period.
her behavior or beliefs come into play if they were illegitimate... other than that, they don't matter one bit.

I hear you better but I still don't think that the analogy works...

I agree that nobody has the right to attack them over free speech.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

The incident in Texas is perceived not only as taking target at a single group (Islam), but even worse they appear to goading & baiting them into a fight.

^^^ This ^^^
 
Re: Two Shot at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Not at all. The two are separate. Doing something stupid, purposely drawing offensive pictures, is stupid and inciting violence. They are to blame for that but not for the violence... that is 100% the attackers fault. Putting a hand grenade in a childrens park is stupid especially if you know that there are people that want to pull the pin out there that will do it.

I understand that -- I was just referring to the approach of the "must demonize libs at all cost" crowd.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

libs are against Free Speech if it counters their religion....that being liberalism! liberalism transcends all rational thought!

:roll:
 
Re: Two Shot at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

awww.. you can lie about what i say, but i can't lie about what you say?... that's not very fair.

in that case, some of us would still blame the violent extremists, and you guys would still blame the group holding the event.

Emphasis mine. Pointing out that the group is a bag of dicks is not "blaming" them for violence.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

libs are against Free Speech if it counters their religion....that being liberalism! liberalism transcends all rational thought!
Quite honestly, you don't seem like a liberal to me.

But I find it interesting that you seem to think you know what they think.
 
Re: Two Shot at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

no worries.. i'm not offended... I won't come shoot at you or otherwise assault you.;)

my short skirt analogy relies on incitement of sexual thoughts (not an invitation for sex, as you said) of some men.
talking trash about Mohammed, or drawing pictures of him, or whatever...incites anger in some extremists Muslims.

inciting these emotions simply doesn't' justify illegitimate reactions... and the victim ,in either case, is held blameless for the illegitimate actions of those whom retaliate.

no one has to like or agree with what these people are doing... but they have the right to do so, and nobody has the right to assault them over their speech.... end of story.
there's no hemming and hawwing about it.. there's no bull**** about " that's not legitimate free speech" or whatever... all that is nonsense. it's very cut and dry.

calling her and her people hateful bigots is irrelevant to the issue.... she did nothign wrong and did not deserve any attempt to assault her and her people... period.
her behavior or beliefs come into play if they were illegitimate... other than that, they don't matter one bit.

No one has to like what Ms. Geller, Mr. Wilders, or anyone else who is a sworn enemy of Islamists has to say. All that counts is their right to say it, and in this country there is no question about that right. If some Islamist doesn't like it, that's just too damned bad. I hope artists who loathe Islam will express that loathing in the same way other artists have expressed their loathing of Christianity. Maybe someone will exhibit a figure of Muhammad immersed in urine or smeared with elephant dung. I also look forward to more Koran-burnings, just to make clear that when Americans want to speak, we do not ask foreign savages for permission.

People in other countries can grovel to jihadists if they want. But the right way for Americans to answer these curs, when they attack our fundamental personal liberties, is to exercise those liberties all the more forcefully. If we want to call ourselves free people, we can never, never, never be cowed by the threat of violence from these bastards, or any others.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Agreed, which makes my point.



FearandLoathing conflated the two, not seeing any difference between an LGBT rally and an event solely devoted to provoking retaliation. The GOP is doomed to fail on a national level until people like that are no longer the majority of the GOP base.


Why doesn't anything I've previously said not apply PissChrist..Piss Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes the artist has a right to produce the art, but does his right to produce it free him from the consequences of making that art? When you do things to cause a reaction, especially one that wouldn't have happened otherwise, then you share in the blame for the consequences.

Yeah, and when that guy was beheaded by the offended Christians... oh wait, that didn't happen.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

One thing came to mind when I heard about Pamela Geller's event in Texas ----- wow ----- that takes some balls.

And then after hearing about the shooting, I thought ---- attacking at an event in TEXAS thinking you'll actually be able to carry out your plan before someone shoots you?.... in TEXAS??? LOL!
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

I have to wonder what the jihadist were thinking. There are Texans who hunt feral pigs with high powered suppressed rifles and nightvision for sport and they think this is a good place to to show up spraying bullets?

My thought on this is this: If you have accepted as your religious beliefs that you need to kill people who will not accept your beliefs, you have declared your intentions. If you show up at an event with the intention of doing just that with the equipment to do it, you are an eminent threat and should be taken out for public defense. Jihadists do what they do with the intention of dying (it is their highest honor). So the cop who shot the two morons did not commit murder as the jihadists intended to die anyway. No different than shooting down a kamikaze plane before it reaches it's target.

A little further? Why not. Say those same hunters availed themselves as security at such events. Perhap a rooftop hunter would have taken the two armed jihadists down. They may actually be deserving of commendation for saving lived based on what the potential of what the jihadi weapons were. But you certainly can not murder someone who is already dead. It's really only a matter of timing. Now make that perfectly clear and see how often this happens in the future.

What the politically correct seem to overlook is that you can not dance around violent religious zealots who have already decided to die for their cause and expect them to leave you alone because of your compassion. So is drawing them in to the open and eliminating them a bad thing? It is no different than a police sting to catch drug dealers. So why not accept the help of the public for public safety? You want to be offended? Fine. Do it like the rest of us. Peacefully. Or die for your cause. Whatever you like.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Answered in post #661 right above this... though your failure to be able to read will hinder your comprehension.

You didn't answer anything; just another stumble round the issue, deflect and lie post like the others, then attack.

You should take your own advise for therapy. Maybe it can help with reality.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

One thing came to mind when I heard about Pamela Geller's event in Texas ----- wow ----- that takes some balls.

And then after hearing about the shooting, I thought ---- attacking at an event in TEXAS thinking you'll actually be able to carry out your plan before someone shoots you?.... in TEXAS??? LOL!

To the bolded. Not really, it just takes hate, and ignorance.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

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.

He doesn't seem to be able to comprehend simple analogies either I see.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

The cartoon contest was needlessly provocative? No — murdering cartoonists is needlessly provocative.

It was the jihadis, not I, who made the cartoons a flash point. If we surrender on that point and stop drawing Muhammad, we’ve established a precedent of surrendering to violent Sharia enforcement, and once established, we will be made to reinforce it again and again.

Did anyone think these 2 gunmen would have lived quiet lives as peaceable and loyal Americans if we hadn’t held the contest? They would have waged jihad elsewhere, on a less protected target, and killed more people.

“Pamela Geller: A Response to My Critics—This Is a War,” Time Magazine, May 6, 2015

The shooting happened at my American Freedom Defense Initiative Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest, when two Islamic jihadists armed with rifles and explosives drove up to the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland and attempted to gain entry to our event, which was just ending. We were aware of the risk and spent thousands of dollars on security — and it paid off. The jihadis at our free speech event were not able to achieve their objective of replicating the massacre at the offices of the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine last January — and to go it one better in carnage. They were not able to kill anyone. We provided enormous security, in concert with the superb Garland police department. The men who took the aspiring killers down may have saved hundreds of lives.

And make no mistake: If it weren’t for the free-speech conference, these jihadis would have struck somewhere else — a place where there was less security, like the Lindt cafe in Australia or the Hyper Cacher Kosher supermarket in Paris.

So, why are some people blaming me? They’re saying: “Well, she provoked them! She got what she deserved!” They don’t remember, or care to remember, that as the jihadis were killing the Muhammad cartoonists in Paris, their friend and accomplice was murdering Jews in a nearby kosher supermarket. Were the Jews asking for it? Did they “bait” the jihadis? Were they “provoking” them?

Are the Jews responsible for the Nazis? Are the Christians in the Middle East responsible for being persecuted by Muslims?

Drawing Muhammad offends Islamic jihadists? So does being Jewish. How much accommodation of any kind should we give to murderous savagery? To kowtow to violent intimidation will only encourage more of it.

This is a war.



- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/05/pam...tics-this-is-a-war.html/#sthash.O9pKppwd.dpuf
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

To the bolded. Not really, it just takes hate, and ignorance.

Hatred of radical Islam? Agreed.
Ignorance? Of what?
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

I didn't say that she is guilty of a crime. I said that she holds some blame. Learn to read.

Why does she hold some blame?
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

People need to stop comparing Geller to Charlie Hebdo. Charlie Hebdo had a long history of satire aimed at different religious and political figures. Geller is a far-right anti-Muslim activist.

To suggest they equate is beyond ridiculous.
 
Back
Top Bottom