My thoughts on the shooting of two terrorists in Garland, TX

[Stevicus]

On the news in DC they were saying that they shot them and stuck the dogs on them after. Can't think of anything more just than sicking dogs on cold-blooded murders trying to kill innocent civilians at an art museum. Pretty deplorable. For their sake, they might want to choose another state next time.

I was just reading that the would-be killers had been roommates living in Phoenix. They drove 1000 miles to Dallas just to get shot.

 

[freethinker44]

Unless the event itself didn't have anything to do with the attempted murder, then it has to be terrorism, as it was done because of religious beliefs, right? The 911 thing is accurate though. Not much similarity.

Being done because of religious beliefs isn't necessarily terrorism. Terrorism is a specific legal term. It has a certain weight to it and you can't just go throwing it around every where. This shooting is more in the category of someone opening fire at a KKK rally than a terrorist attack.

 

[McBell]

The problem is that you insist on distorting my position. Whether this distortion is intentional or a consequence of agenda-driven ignorance is unclear. But let me be clear:

• I unconditionally defend the right of these islamophobic bigots to incite in the way they did.
• I unreservedly condemn the terrorist fools who would attack that right.
• I unreservedly condemn the islamophobic agenda of hateful bigots such as Pamela Geller.

I was merely assisting you in attacking your strawman:

And those who equate hate-speech and provocation with constructive criticism is blinded by their own biases.

Whether your distortion is intentional or a consequence of agenda-driven ignorance is unclear.

 

[leibowde84]

Being done because of religious beliefs isn't necessarily terrorism. Terrorism is a specific legal term. It has a certain weight to it and you can't just go throwing it around every where. This shooting is more in the category of someone opening fire at a KKK rally than a terrorist attack.

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover ""domestic,"" as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

I would certainly argue that these men, and others who have perpetrated violence for the same reasons, are intending to "influence the policy of [our] government by intimidation (violence)". While this is up for argument, I can't see any other reason why they would use violence in these circumstances. They want to show that if our freedom of speech restrictions aren't changed, then violence will be a result. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[freethinker44]

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover ""domestic,"" as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

The patriot act is complete crap and desperately needs to be repealed.

I would certainly argue that these men, and others who have perpetrated violence for the same reasons, are intending to "influence the policy of [our] government by intimidation (violence)". While this is up for argument, I can't see any other reason why they would use violence in these circumstances. They want to show that if our freedom of speech restrictions aren't changed, then violence will be a result. What are your thoughts on this?

Are they though? All we know so far is that a couple people shot up a hate group rally. I'm not saying it is or isn't terrorism, I'm just saying it's premature to call it that.

 

[Stevicus]

My point is that there is no requirement for criticism to be constructive. Whether or not that is the case, criticism is protected under US law. And, drawing a picture of Muhammad is not even close to "inciting violence". The fact that people become violent over cartoons is not the fault of cartoonists, it is the fault of those with "thin-skins" and a willingness to kill over religious beliefs. Our ridicule should be concentrated on them. The cartoons are actually doing a good job of bringing psychopaths like this out into the open, whether we agree with them or not.

I can kind of see both points of view here. I suppose it ultimately depends on how one defines "inciting violence."

I suppose this contest might have been a way of saying "screw you" to terrorists or anyone who would try to kill someone over a cartoon depicting Muhammad. I don't know if it can be considered directly "inciting violence," but when put into the overall context, it may be more analogous to Clint Eastwood saying "Do you feel lucky, punk?" or "Go ahead, make my day."

Taunting people to get them mad enough to fight is an old American tradition. I don't partake of that tradition myself, and I'm not going to pass judgment on whether it's right or wrong. But I also have to acknowledge the cold hard fact of reality that, if you taunt someone to get them mad enough to fight, don't be surprised if you succeed.

On the other hand, if you're the shakiest gun in the West being taunted by a skilled gunfighter, best to just try to keep it cool and not get angry.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Happens all the time in the US. People just ignore it. It seems pretty emementry that people will always do their best to offend others, and the obvious best option is to ignore them. The more people get upset, the more attention those who are trying to offend get.

There is Godwin's law, so the controversy thing I am dubbing the Ozzy MM law. The harder you push against it, the faster and easier it comes in.

When a person takes up arms against the U.S. or our allies,

What about when our allies are conducting gross violations of human rights? What about when our allies do not care about rights? What about when our allies aid and abet an attack against us?

We should be at war with Islamic State but not with Russia. We should be allies with Russia as a fellow nation of Christians. I'm undecided about China, though.

Why should we ally ourselves with them? Putin hasn't exactly been the leader that makes people think "gee, what a swell guy."

 

[leibowde84]

I can kind of see both points of view here. I suppose it ultimately depends on how one defines "inciting violence."

I suppose this contest might have been a way of saying "screw you" to terrorists or anyone who would try to kill someone over a cartoon depicting Muhammad. I don't know if it can be considered directly "inciting violence," but when put into the overall context, it may be more analogous to Clint Eastwood saying "Do you feel lucky, punk?" or "Go ahead, make my day."

Taunting people to get them mad enough to fight is an old American tradition. I don't partake of that tradition myself, and I'm not going to pass judgment on whether it's right or wrong. But I also have to acknowledge the cold hard fact of reality that, if you taunt someone to get them mad enough to fight, don't be surprised if you succeed.

On the other hand, if you're the shakiest gun in the West being taunted by a skilled gunfighter, best to just try to keep it cool and not get angry.

They aren't "taunting" them in the way you assume. At the very worst, they are asking that they defend their beliefs/ideas with a reasonable counter-argument or shut up, which I wholeheartedly agree with. It is unfair to assume that they WANTED a violent outburst, which is what you are claiming. Either way, the artists didn't do anything illegal and the terrorists broke the law without regard. No one is under any obligation to refrain from drawing Muhammad or openly criticising Islam in general. If they want to change that, they are welcomed to try, but they aren't going to get far. No one should expect a secular society to refrain from criticing religious beliefs.

 

[Nietzsche]

Sweet merciful Jesus you might be the least-informed person I've ever met. Allow me to demonstrate how wrong you are about everything.

Hey everybody, ad you may know there was a shooting in Garland, Texas of two terrorists who opened fire on a freedom of speech convention becauseit was a convention of cartoons of the 'prophet' Muhammad. The following comments are struck my own and and as a result, call me whatever names you wish, but I will not recant the comments to come.

Huh, we're off to a better start than I'd thought, because nor will I.

It is a disgrace that a shooting like this could occur on American soil. These people who have done this are no different than the people who attacked Us, the American mainland and our way of life, back on September 11th, 2001. As a result, we need to round up all these people who were an active part of the attack because these two couldn't of been the only ones in the cell, we need to round them up, do what it takes to get the information we need, and then put a bullet in their head.

You give me a chair, some duct-tape, a pair of pliers and some vinegar and I will get you to the point where you will say anything just to get the pain to stop. Torture only works if the individual actually knows anything. It's also extremely time-consuming.

Why should we allow them to live when they attack us? When a person takes up arms against the U.S. or our allies, they have forfeited their right to life and other rights. Our leaders, I.E., the president and his cabinet and the Congress are cowards. Right now we need to be overseas fighting against the evils of the Islamic State, of nations like Russia who expand beyond what is rightfully theirs. Why should we as a nation agree to international treaties such as Nuclear non-prolliferation treaties and treaties banning weapon systems in low earth orbit?

Yeeeeah no. How about cracking open a book detailing, say, 1800 to 1900. You're gonna notice something; tons of major & minor conflicts through out the entire period. However, since the founding of the United Nations, there's not been a single large-scale war between two serious world-powers. So yeah, those treaties work.

We should be building another aircraft carrier, maybe even two, we should be enlarging our nuclear arms stockpiles, and we should be building satellite arrays capable of carrying rods that when dropped from low earth orbit (LEO) would have the same destructive force as a small tactical warhead. We should also be researching ways of harvesting the materials that would be too expensive or too hard to obtain on Earth from the moon.

We have more aircraft carriers than the entire rest of the world put together. And not the piddly little things China, India or Britain have. Supercarriers. And we should not ****ing weaponize space. That is the second most stupid thing I've ever heard, beaten only by the tin-foil hat wearing anti-vax lot.

During World War Two, We used to be the greatest military power in world history, even greater than Rome at the height of its power. If our leaders pulled their heads out of their asses and realized what is trully wrong with this nation, then we would be preparring for war against Russia, North Korea, and maybe even China.

What. Do..do you not know how this works? Do you have the slightest idea of what war with Russia or even worse, China would mean? Do you want to write-off the entire Northern Hemisphere? China & the US are reliant on one another economically. If one collapses, so does the other. And regarding Russia, do I really have to spell out how genuinely terrible a war between NATO and Russia would be?

Your world-view screams of someone who barely knows more than a 5yr old does about world politics, global economics & warfare.

 

[Stevicus]

They aren't "taunting" them in the way you assume. At the very worst, they are asking that they defend their beliefs/ideas with a reasonable counter-argument or shut up, which I wholeheartedly agree with. It is unfair to assume that they WANTED a violent outburst, which is what you are claiming.

No, I didn't say that they "WANTED" a violent outburst, nor was I even assuming that. That's why I compared it to Clint Eastwood's "Go ahead make my day," a line used in a scene where Dirty Harry had his gun pointed at an armed robber who had his gun pointed at an innocent woman. Obviously, Dirty Harry didn't want the woman in the scene to get shot, but he was making it clear that he wasn't going to back down, give in, or surrender no matter what.

They were prepared for it. That much is obvious, since they knew enough to post armed security and have cops standing by.

I don't know what kind of "counter-argument" one can expect to a cartoon depicting Muhammad.

Either way, the artists didn't do anything illegal and the terrorists broke the law without regard. No one is under any obligation to refrain from drawing Muhammad or openly criticising Islam in general. If they want to change that, they are welcomed to try, but they aren't going to get far. No one should expect a secular society to refrain from criticing religious beliefs.

I agree completely with what you're saying here. We have rights in this country, and people have a right to draw cartoons, criticize/satirize religion, burn flags, and many other things guaranteed by our Constitution. Anyone who lives in this country has to get used to the idea, however offensive it might seem.

But even then, one has to make allowances for practical reality. As a counter example, if a person dressed in a KKK costume went to Baltimore and jumped into the middle of the riots shouting the "N word," what do you think would happen to that person? Technically, he may have the "right" to do that, but I would still make the observation that it's probably a dumb thing to do.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is just no comparison between "hate speech" (assuming that the label is even justified, which is far less than clear) and actual firearms violence.

The killing of the two men is regrettable, but fully justified, quite unlike their own violence.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hey everybody, ad you may know there was a shooting in Garland, Texas of two terrorists who opened fire on a freedom of speech convention becauseit was a convention of cartoons of the 'prophet' Muhammad. The following comments are struck my own and and as a result, call me whatever names you wish, but I will not recant the comments to come.

It is a disgrace that a shooting like this could occur on American soil. These people who have done this are no different than the people who attacked Us, the American mainland and our way of life, back on September 11th, 2001. As a result, we need to round up all these people who were an active part of the attack because these two couldn't of been the only ones in the cell, we need to round them up, do what it takes to get the information we need, and then put a bullet in their head.

Why should we allow them to live when they attack us? When a person takes up arms against the U.S. or our allies, they have forfeited their right to life and other rights. Our leaders, I.E., the president and his cabinet and the Congress are cowards. Right now we need to be overseas fighting against the evils of the Islamic State, of nations like Russia who expand beyond what is rightfully theirs. Why should we as a nation agree to international treaties such as Nuclear non-prolliferation treaties and treaties banning weapon systems in low earth orbit?

We should be building another aircraft carrier, maybe even two, we should be enlarging our nuclear arms stockpiles, and we should be building satellite arrays capable of carrying rods that when dropped from low earth orbit (LEO) would have the same destructive force as a small tactical warhead. We should also be researching ways of harvesting the materials that would be too expensive or too hard to obtain on Earth from the moon.

During World War Two, We used to be the greatest military power in world history, even greater than Rome at the height of its power. If our leaders pulled their heads out of their asses and realized what is trully wrong with this nation, then we would be preparring for war against Russia, North Korea, and maybe even China.

I HOPE you are kidding.


But I assume that you are not, so let me just say that engaging in militarism is a sure-fire way to attain nothing worth pursuing. It is self-defeating, almost by design.

I'm a bit scared that you don't realize it.

 

[leibowde84]

No, I didn't say that they "WANTED" a violent outburst, nor was I even assuming that. That's why I compared it to Clint Eastwood's "Go ahead make my day," a line used in a scene where Dirty Harry had his gun pointed at an armed robber who had his gun pointed at an innocent woman. Obviously, Dirty Harry didn't want the woman in the scene to get shot, but he was making it clear that he wasn't going to back down, give in, or surrender no matter what.

They were prepared for it. That much is obvious, since they knew enough to post armed security and have cops standing by.

I don't know what kind of "counter-argument" one can expect to a cartoon depicting Muhammad.



I agree completely with what you're saying here. We have rights in this country, and people have a right to draw cartoons, criticize/satirize religion, burn flags, and many other things guaranteed by our Constitution. Anyone who lives in this country has to get used to the idea, however offensive it might seem.

But even then, one has to make allowances for practical reality. As a counter example, if a person dressed in a KKK costume went to Baltimore and jumped into the middle of the riots shouting the "N word," what do you think would happen to that person? Technically, he may have the "right" to do that, but I would still make the observation that it's probably a dumb thing to do.

I would say that a valid argument would be one that convinces, objectively, that Islam deserves special protection from insults and criticism. I haven't heard one yet, and no one should assume protection from insult (especially for a historical/religious figure).

 

[Aquitaine]

I wanna see such freedom of speech when its about jews.

The Onion published a cartoon depicting prophets from 4 major religions, Judaism included, and the accompanying title to the article is "No one murdered because of this image".
I can provide you with the link if you wish.

Two things to note here:
1) Judaism was one of the targetted faiths.
2) As the title states: no-one was murdered as a result. Hell there wasn't even a Media uproar about it - nothing.

 

[leibowde84]

I wanna see such freedom of speech when its about jews.

No One Murdered Because Of This Image - The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

[oldbadger]

We should be building another aircraft carrier, maybe even two, we should be enlarging our nuclear arms stockpiles, and we should be building satellite arrays capable of carrying rods that when dropped from low earth orbit (LEO) would have the same destructive force as a small tactical warhead...............................................................
................................ then we would be preparring for war against Russia, North Korea, and maybe even China.

Oh.... alright......... get on with it all.
But, please........
1. Don't invite us in the UK to join you in all this.
2. Could you keep the bloody noise down? Some of us are trying to snooze.
3. And tell your bloody aircraft carrier skippers to slow down when they pass us by? The wash 'n' all.....

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

By the way there were many jews at the exhibition of Hatred.
How come iam not surprised.
I always suspected them behind the anti-islam campaign.

 

[leibowde84]

By the way there were many jews at the exhibition of Hatred.
How come iam not surprised.
I always suspected them behind the anti-islam campaign.

Lol.

 

[leibowde84]

By the way there were many jews at the exhibition of Hatred.
How come iam not surprised.
I always suspected them behind the anti-islam campaign.

Some people consider portraits of people a display of that person's importance. You should give it a try.

 

[leibowde84]

By the way there were many jews at the exhibition of Hatred.
How come iam not surprised.
I always suspected them behind the anti-islam campaign.

Also ...No One Murdered Because Of This Image - The Onion - America's Finest News Source