Two Islamist dead after attacking cartoon event in Texas

[nuprin001]

If only the Americans would AMEND their constitution so these people would just KNOW they could say whatever they wanted... Oh wait.. It's called the FIRST AMENDMENT making this whole disgusting exercise of theirs little more than a show of solidarity against ALL MUSLIMS who find the depiction of their Prophet Mohammed to be insulting...

So you're suggesting that, because they have that right, that they shouldn't exercise it?

So hobbying should be 100% legal. But nobody should actually partake, right?

That is an utterly infantile and selfish POV. The point of the First Amendment is that people are ALLOWED to be insulting. If your response to insult is violence, then maybe that's YOUR problem, not theirs.

Which, in the end, was the point of that competition. It was to highlight that, in the US, those people have the right to say insulting things to Muslims, just as Muslims have the right to say insulting things to Christians and Jews. And that nobody has the right be commit violence against one another for those discussions.

Which was a test that, in the body of those two morons who were taken down by a traffic cop with apparently all the effort of squashing a bug, Muslims failed spectacularly. You realize that, right? That in a test of whether or not Muslims in America "got it" with respect to free speech, Muslims failed. And failed even in their failure, by going up against TEXANS in such a woefully pathetic fashion.

 

[K Douglas]

She supports Breivik, the lunatic who killed all those kids in Norway. You think "she can't be all bad"?

Of all the dickish things you have ever said - and there have been many, many, many - this is likely the most dickish.

You get to make a snide, little snickering slight at a few of the lefty organizations you hate by embracing a woman who applauds child-killers. Well done.

oh for fuck's sake. She doesn't support Breivik this is just another obfuscation of the truth by left wing kooks at Think Progress and Media Matters. She has repeatedly condemned the attack.

 

[nobody123]

If you believe in the principle, as you are saying here and I have no reason to disbelieve, may I suggest that you make that clear to all and sundry involved?

What an absurd exercise in irrelevance. Should I also say "crime is bad though, mmmkay?" any time I criticize police for shooting yet another unarmed citizen? Should I have a sig file with "stay in school" and "don't do bad shit" as well? Should I start any subsequent reviews I make of SP's with "I hate terrorists"? And do I really need to preface every single motherfucking post I make from this point on with my wholehearted support of puppies and rainbows?

But sure, if it makes you happy. I wholeheartedly believe in the principle of free speech. Where's my motherfucking cookie?

Because the principle of free speech isn't "easy", and if you're going to believe in it and defend it you might have to say more than "that bitch was stupid".

No. No I don't. That bitch was stupid. She had a right to be stupid, but that doesn't change the fact that she and her little circus event are stupid. There is no fucking obligation to "prove" my bona fides as a free speech crusader by going into any more detail about her right to be a stupid cunt, even if I expend hella more pixels on precisely why she is a stupid cunt. Speaking of which...

That said: while I'm not a fan of how these people handled things in Texas, and while I fully support their right to do so, I think their purpose to stir up speech on this topic has validity. Simply as a demonstration of free speech, to do a thing because you can do it, how is this effectively any different than Slut Walks or Scout Willis walking around NYC topless? I know you support that, nobody123, but doesn't this competition in Texas serve as much a purpose as those?

So what makes it "icky" to you? Break it down. What makes this "icky" and Slut Walks/Scout Willis topless (other than the obvious prurient, of course) or any of the hundreds of other ways one can exercise one's freedom of speech/expression? What about this bothers you?

It's "icky" because it is a publicity stunt for a contemptible sack of shit of a human being that has succeeded beyond her wildest expectations, not in the least because it resulted in death and suffering. It is "icky" because anything that gives a platform for someone that promotes hate, racism, and terrorism (just, you know, not the Muslim kind) is icky. It is "icky" because as Art Spiegelman put it so much more eloquently than I ever will, "Pam Geller’s organization is intentionally trying to start war of culture with Islam by saying that all Muslims are terrorists under the surface, and we’re going to prove it. Do the group members deserve free speech protection? Of course. But they’re hiding behind that banner with things that have very little to do with free speech and a lot to do with race hate." ( http://time.com/3849465/art-spiegelman-je-suis-charlie-but-im-not-pamela-geller/ ) It is "icky" because if these shitstains had the slightest intention of actually pushing the boundaries of free expression, they would have included cartoons of, say, Jesus giving Mohammad a blow job. You know why nothing even close happened? Because these fucksticks care no more for actual freedom of speech than they do for freedom of religion. Pamela Geller and her legion of assclowns are PRECISELY the type of hypocrites so many here want me to be. Alas, I ain't your Huckleberry. They have the right. No question. Doesn't mean it is good, decent, ethical, etc.

Slut Walks, meanwhile, promote more than hatred for others thinly veiled by bullshit equivocating about free speech. Slut Walks promote the very good, right, ethical, etc. idea that just because a woman dresses provocatively there is no reason to harass or assault them. As for Scout Willis... never really gave her much though, but, well, I like tits. (aw hell. I just had to go all prurient there, didn't I)

 

[Asclepius]

And again many people found "Piss Christ" deeply offensive, and found "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "The Life of Brian" likewise to be insulting, but I don't recall anyone attempting to murder those behind the above.

George Harrison funded and produced “The Life of Brian” and was attached and nearly killed in his home by a man “sent by God”. John Lennon's comments on Christianity, led to his death.

There's a crazy fringe on every side. It does seem that the bulge is currently in their court.

That great philosopher, George Carlin, summed it up nicely, “Have you ever noticed that their stuff is shit and your shit is stuff?"

 

[Aardvark154]

An op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer making much the same point as already made in threads on TERB

"In 1987, Andres Serrano submerged a crucifix in a glass of his own urine and took a picture. Entitled “Piss Christ,” the photograph won first place in a contest sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts.

In 1996, another avant-garde artist, Chris Ofili, smeared elephant dung on a portrait of the Blessed Mother and displayed it in a government-funded Brooklyn museum.

And so the stage was set for the ensuing nightmare of Christian terror and violence that descended on the American art community.

Just kidding. Nothing of the sort happened. There were no canonical death warrants issued, no attempts on the artists’ lives, and no threats of violence against the artists, the contest organizers, the museum curators, or anyone else.

To be sure, Christians objected to “Piss Christ” and the feces-covered Holy Virgin. And they rightfully wondered why their tax dollars had been used to promote these blasphemies. But their objections and questions were condescendingly dismissed by the secular left in the media and intelligentsia. As one prominent art critic sniffed, Ofili’s “The Holy Virgin Mary” was “deliberately provocative” in order to “jolt viewers into an expanded frame of reference, and perhaps even toward illumination.”

As if in one voice, the mainstream media and self-anointed intelligentsia argued that antiquated religious sensitivities must not be allowed to interfere with either an artist’s free expression or his right to government funding regardless of how offensive his work may be to Christians.

Well, it seems that things have changed.

In Garland, Texas, on Sunday, two radical Muslims died trying to replicate the Charlie Hebdo massacre by mounting an armed attack on a “draw Mohammed” cartoon contest. We are not talking about drawings of Mohammed dunked in urine or smeared with animal dung. No, the gunmen apparently deemed the mere drawing of Mohammed to be an offense punishable by death.

What has been the response of the liberal media to this act of lunacy? Have the talking heads come to the defense of the cartoonists’ right of free expression in a pluralistic society? Has anyone publicly observed that drawings of Mohammed might “jolt” Muslims into an expanded frame of reference” or “illumination”? Far from it. The overall media consensus has been to blame the intended murder victims for recklessly provoking the terrorists. Such provocation, we are told, is unacceptable and irresponsible behavior given the risk of retaliation by offended radical Muslims.

By this bizarre logic, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Selma marchers should be condemned for instigating the melee on the Edmund Pettus bridge. Same for the three murdered civil-rights workers in Mississippi, the victims of Bull Connor’s police dogs, and anyone else who has taken a stand that might irritate violence-prone people.

For the mainstream media and chattering classes, dumping on peaceful, law-abiding Christians is good, safe sport. But pointing the finger of blame at murderous Muslim fanatics? Well, let’s not get carried away. Rather than draw the ire of radical Muslims by firmly and unequivocally condemning the attack, the infotainment industry has concentrated its attention on the provocative nature of the draw-Mohammed contest. After all, like a drunken, immodestly dressed rape victim, weren’t the draw-Mohammed contestants just asking for it?

Better to question the wisdom of cartoonists exercising their rights than to acknowledge and vigorously confront and expose the elephant in the room, i.e., that there is a disturbingly large number of radical Muslims in this country who oppose our Constitution and who believe that murder is an appropriate sanction for those who offend Islam. That, of course, is the real story behind the attack in Texas. But to grapple with that might inflame those radicals and pose a risk to careers and corporate profits, or result in expulsion from the preening ranks of the politically correct.

All of which leads to this question: Given their pusillanimous double standard, why should any reasonable or serious person believe, respect, or credit the self-serving mainstream media?"


http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/...dard-on-offending-Christians-and-Muslims.html

 

[elmo]

Yes. Because the world is a simplistic place where every decision is binary. If I disapprove of a horrible cunt of a person, that absolutely MUST mean that I support the murderous scum she herself dislikes. It also means that since I did not call you a moronic dumbfuck, you must be the smartest man on the planet.

Thanks for the compliment but considering the source...I'll take it with a grain of salt. Seriously, I might be top ten at best. This thread seems to have brought out a very colourful use of the English language from you, is there something that the adults around her can help your simplistic, childish mind to understand or did you want to just continue with your tantrum?

 

[AdamH]

And again many people found "Piss Christ" deeply offensive, and found "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "The Life of Brian" likewise to be insulting, but I don't recall anyone attempting to murder those behind the above.

Again, nobody's defending the attackers.. Why defend the provokers?? Of course they have the right to provoke.. It doesn't mean they're not ass fucks for doing it..

 

[AdamH]

So you're suggesting that, because they have that right, that they shouldn't exercise it?

... The point of the exercise was to supposedly prove they had the right.. This didn't need proving.. They do have it and we all know it.. Therefore the exercise was fruitless...

Worse yet, it offended hundreds (maybe thousands or even millions) of peace loving Muslims who also find it offense.. Worse STILL is it further isolates Muslims already living in the United States (it sends a message that there are those who feel that Muslims aren't welcome in "their" society) which further exacerbates the problem of extremism..