• 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

The Mark said:
If I know anything about Kobie, he never wanted to stop her from saying anything in the first place, so "came to your senses" would be inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Correct. And I've repeated that numerous times, and Grant has chosen to ignore that since it doesn't fit his narrative.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

I live 10 minutes from the Culwell Center. I am a proud infidel and will not bow to Allah (Satan)

PROUDTOBEANINFIDEL.jpg
 
LowDown said:
Two shot dead outside Muhammad Art Exhibit in Garland

This was at a facility in Garland, Texas, near Dallas.

I gather this was an exhibit of artwork that depicts Muhammad, a la Charlie Hebdo, in defiance of radical Muslims and in affirmation of freedom of speech.

Two guys drove up armed with guns and explosives, opened fire, and were killed straight away by return fire.

It's a bad idea to go gunning for any group of Texans without a lot of firepower.
Click to expand...



These events never took place.

It is all Right Wing Lies, Propaganda and Deception, and this whole story belongs on the CT forum!

These people were killed by White, Right Wing Terrorists.

Islam, by Definition, is a Religion of Peace and Beauty... or had you momentarily forgotten.

Muslims, by Definition, are victims of Christian Agression... or had you momentarily forgotten.

We have people who can help you remember, should you forget again.

Have a nice day. :)

-
 
This thread makes an interesting backdrop to the horrible events in Orlando.

There is no difference in the mind of Radical Islam between those attending the event at the Culwell Center in Texas and those in attendance at Pulse in Orlando. We are all an affront to Allah and must be exterminated.

Moral of the story is that if your lifestyle is an affront to Allah then you'd better be armed.
 
It's interesting reading some of the earlier comments in this thread, complete with the suggestion that offending Islamists comes with a nearly understandable "consequence" of potential danger and death. I am curious if the same people think the same way about the shooting in Florida. If people are gong to flaunt their gayness knowing that radical Islamists are offended by it, is what happened in Florida just a "consequence" as well?
 
X Factor said:
It's interesting reading some of the earlier comments in this thread, complete with the suggestion that offending Islamists comes with a nearly understandable "consequence" of potential danger and death. I am curious if the same people think the same way about the shooting in Florida. If people are gong to flaunt their gayness knowing that radical Islamists are offended by it, is what happened in Florida just a "consequence" as well?
Click to expand...

According to that logic, it would be just a "consequence". I guess I gotta hide my gayness in order to not be shot to death by some Islamic terrorist.
 
TheGoverness said:
According to that logic, it would be just a "consequence". I guess I gotta hide my gayness in order to not be shot to death by some Islamic terrorist.
Click to expand...

Oh, you can be just as out there with your gayness as you want, just so long as you understand that doesn't come without potential "consequences".
 
X Factor said:
It's interesting reading some of the earlier comments in this thread, complete with the suggestion that offending Islamists comes with a nearly understandable "consequence" of potential danger and death. I am curious if the same people think the same way about the shooting in Florida. If people are gong to flaunt their gayness knowing that radical Islamists are offended by it, is what happened in Florida just a "consequence" as well?
Click to expand...

Good point. People said Pamela Geller was partly at fault because she flaunted her Draw Muhammad contest in their faces and baited radical Muslims. What other things make radical Muslims mad and "bait" them into violence? Being gay, being a Christian, being Jewish, feminism, women in charge, Muslims who refuse to believe as they do, women who have pre-martial sex, women who show their ankles......
 
TheGoverness said:
According to that logic, it would be just a "consequence". I guess I gotta hide my gayness in order to not be shot to death by some Islamic terrorist.
Click to expand...

For the life of me, I cannot understand why all gay people aren't screeeeeeeeeeaming right now condemning radical Islam .... most of the ones I've seen are blaming guns and Christians.
 
Josie said:
Good point. People said Pamela Geller was partly at fault because she flaunted her Draw Muhammad contest in their faces and baited radical Muslims. What other things make radical Muslims mad and "bait" them into violence? Being gay, being a Christian, being Jewish, feminism, women in charge, Muslims who refuse to believe as they do, women who have pre-martial sex, women who show their ankles......
Click to expand...

You'd perhaps have a point if The Pulse was having some kind of "Mecca of Gayness" night or something purposefully aimed at antagonizing muslims.

You really don't see a difference between:

1. Having an event SPECIFICALLY aimed at engaging in something that offends Muslims for the purpose of showing you don't care that it offends them because it's free expression

2. Engaging in a routine event that is not relating to or concerning muslims in the slightest because it's free expression.
 
Zyphlin said:
You'd perhaps have a point if The Pulse was having some kind of "Mecca of Gayness" night or something purposefully aimed at antagonizing muslims.

You really don't see a difference between:

1. Having an event SPECIFICALLY aimed at engaging in something that offends Muslims for the purpose of showing you don't care that it offends them because it's free expression

2. Engaging in a routine event that is not relating to or concerning muslims in the slightest because it's free expression.
Click to expand...

What's the argument here? Islamic violence might sort of ok depending on the situation? Call me crazy but I don't believe death is a reasonable "consequence" regardless off the circumstances.
 
Zyphlin said:
You'd perhaps have a point if The Pulse was having some kind of "Mecca of Gayness" night or something purposefully aimed at antagonizing muslims.

You really don't see a difference between:

1. Having an event SPECIFICALLY aimed at engaging in something that offends Muslims for the purpose of showing you don't care that it offends them because it's free expression

2. Engaging in a routine event that is not relating to or concerning muslims in the slightest because it's free expression.
Click to expand...

You say that as if it is a secret that homosexuality offends radical Muslims and we have no examples of radical Muslims murdering homosexuals for being homosexuals.

Being gay antagonizes radical Muslims.
 
Zyphlin said:
You'd perhaps have a point if The Pulse was having some kind of "Mecca of Gayness" night or something purposefully aimed at antagonizing muslims.

You really don't see a difference between:

1. Having an event SPECIFICALLY aimed at engaging in something that offends Muslims for the purpose of showing you don't care that it offends them because it's free expression

2. Engaging in a routine event that is not relating to or concerning muslims in the slightest because it's free expression.
Click to expand...

The very act of being gay offends Muslims just as the act of making fun of Muhammad offends them. Same same.
 
jmotivator said:
You say that as if it is a secret that homosexuality offends radical Muslims and we have no examples of radical Muslims murdering homosexuals for being homosexuals.
Click to expand...

No. I say that as if there's a difference between engaging in something you know offends them, but your engaging in it has ZERO to do with offending them....and engaging in something you know offends them, but your engaging in it has significantly to do with offending them.

Let me give you a flip side analogy....

Fundamentalist Christians are offended by taking the lords name in vain.

There's a massive difference though between someone who's going through their normal routine day and says "Jesus H. Christ" when upset by something, not realizing there's a fundamentalist Christian within earshot and....

....putting up a giant sign outside of a fundamentalist church that says "JESUS ****ING CHRIST".

While both "offends" said group, one is clearly being done with the intent or at least some level of purpose to offend (Be it to actually offend, or make a point about the offense) while the other is likely not even thinking about the fact that it may offend someone.

Are people seriously trying to act like there's not levels to antagonization? Why do people get ****ing ridiculously on this stupid black and white kick anytime it fits their narrow little political agendas, but when it doesn't all of a sudden they see all kinds of grey.
 
Josie said:
The very act of being gay offends Muslims just as the act of making fun of Muhammad offends them. Same same.
Click to expand...

They both offend them.

But one is being done with said offense being the purpose or integral to the purpose of the act.

And one is being done without even a thought as to how it may offend muslims.

Those are two EXTREMELY DIFFERENT THINGS.

For ****s Sake.
 
So, Islamic terrorism is justifiable in some instances. Depends on who the potential victims are, I suppose.
 
X Factor said:
What's the argument here? Islamic violence might sort of ok depending on the situation? Call me crazy but I don't believe death is a reasonable "consequence" regardless off the circumstances.
Click to expand...

What's the argument here, we should ban all muslims.

Hey, just using your same ****ty logic back at you X Factor. Read a post, make a stupid question implying the poster made an idiotic point they didn't make.

No, the argument is not that Islamic violence is okay. The argument is simple.

1. The issues regarding this event and the happenings in Orlando are different, and the attempts to equate them as being exactly the same, and thus trying to equate the responses as deserving to be exactly the same, is wrong.

2. That there is a definite different level in terms of the irresponsibleness of ones actions and the risks it potentially places one into, as it relates to going to a gay club and hosting an event that is specifically done to engage in something inflammatory for the purpose of highlighting its inflammatory nature.

Again, it's the difference between an Atheist in passing conversation saying they don't like people telling them merry Christmas because they don't believe in any gods.....and an atheist purposefully putting up a display of a Flying Spaghetti Monster crushing a manger with a sign saying "YOUR GOD IS A FRAUD" in the middle of a public display of Christmas decorations.

You all are pathetically attempting to act as if the only thing that matters is whether or not an act bothers a radical muslim, and all other context is irrelevant, the two things are automatically the same.
 
X Factor said:
So, Islamic terrorism is justifiable in some instances. Depends on who the potential victims are, I suppose.
Click to expand...

So, ban all muslims. I guess it depends on if they're brown enough or not, I suppose.
 
Zyphlin said:
They both offend them.

But one is being done with said offense being the purpose or integral to the purpose of the act.

And one is being done without even a thought as to how it may offend muslims.

Those are two EXTREMELY DIFFERENT THINGS.

For ****s Sake.
Click to expand...
With the exact same results. Because....radical Islam....

Wait...NOT the 'same' results. In Texas...people fought back.
 
Zyphlin said:
They both offend them.

But one is being done with said offense being the purpose or integral to the purpose of the act.

And one is being done without even a thought as to how it may offend muslims.

Those are two EXTREMELY DIFFERENT THINGS.

For ****s Sake.
Click to expand...
With the exact same results. Because....radical Islam....

Wait...NOT the 'same' results. In Texas...people fought back.
 
Zyphlin said:
What's the argument here, we should ban all muslims.

Hey, just using your same ****ty logic back at you X Factor. Read a post, make a stupid question implying the poster made an idiotic point they didn't make.

No, the argument is not that Islamic violence is okay. The argument is simple.

1. The issues regarding this event and the happenings in Orlando are different, and the attempts to equate them as being exactly the same, and thus trying to equate the responses as deserving to be exactly the same, is wrong.

2. That there is a definite different level in terms of the irresponsibleness of ones actions and the risks it potentially places one into, as it relates to going to a gay club and hosting an event that is specifically done to engage in something inflammatory for the purpose of highlighting its inflammatory nature.

Again, it's the difference between an Atheist in passing conversation saying they don't like people telling them merry Christmas because they don't believe in any gods.....and an atheist purposefully putting up a display of a Flying Spaghetti Monster crushing a manger with a sign saying "YOUR GOD IS A FRAUD" in the middle of a public display of Christmas decorations.

You all are pathetically attempting to act as if the only thing that matters is whether or not an act bothers a radical muslim, and all other context is irrelevant, the two things are automatically the same.
Click to expand...

What difference should the level of antagonistism make though? You're making big issue of the distinction so it must impact you in a way I'm not understanding, so I'm asking.
 
When radical Islam says KILL them because they are drawing cartoons, and KILL them because they are gay, and KILL them because they are your wife and they talked to a man at work, and KILL them because she is your daughter and she disobeyed you and brought shame and disgrace upon your family, and KILL them, because, well...**** it...just because.......

It might be time to start looking at the actual problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom