<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">ISIS claims responsibility for attack on anti-Islamist event in Texas. <a href="https://twitter.com/PeteWilliamsNBC">@PeteWilliamsNBC</a> starts us off <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NBCNightlyNews?src=hash">#NBCNightlyNews</a> <a href="http://t.co/rGMYYzneMs">pic.twitter.com/rGMYYzneMs</a></p>— NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/595717523343048705">May 5, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Federal investigators search for clues after Texas attack. <a href="https://twitter.com/Miguelnbc">@MiguelNBC</a> reports now <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NBCNightlyNews?src=hash">#NBCNightlyNews</a> <a href="http://t.co/OqtWX6pM2a">pic.twitter.com/OqtWX6pM2a</a></p>— NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/595718106837852160">May 5, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">After Texas attack, ISIS warns of more to come. <a href="https://twitter.com/PeteWilliamsNBC">@PeteWilliamsNBC</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/Miguelnbc">@MiguelNBC</a> report: <a href="http://t.co/ez7EnFhnaq">http://t.co/ez7EnFhnaq</a></p>— NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/595732218028367873">May 5, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
This is a lot like that time when an artist created a "Jesus Piss" piece, and a bunch of Christians showed up and tried to shoot the place up. Oh wait...
Actually KKK marches have been defended by the ACLU as free speech, and the AFDI has been classified as a hate group. To try to say that one is about free speech and the other is about hate is a cheap lie. They are both about hate and the right to speak their hate openly and let us all be exposed to it. Just because on is directed at a religion doesn't make it ok. Hate can be directed towards a race or a religion. Hate is hate. Let's not buy into junior high rationalizations.
You simply lack the intellectual capability to distinguish between criticizing an ideology and hating on people. Or you are just babbling and taking on random positions, as you have done for years under at least two different screen names, New Yorker/Sweet Lou. Talk about schizophrenia. Nobody is taking you seriously. Just recently, you made a grand announcement that you would stop posting and leave the forum. Nobody took that seriously either.
I don't understand shooting at people who aren't physically threatening me or someone else. I don't understand intentionally trying to offend someone just to prove I can do it and won't get arrested.
Lol, they had to take Arizona off of their list of cells. For their next terror attack in Texas, they'll have to have someone drive all the way from California or Michigan.
I can try to help you with that one. If everyone always were to try to avoid offending others, then, by default, those who act offended the most - or even threaten others for saying things that the aggressors deem "offensive" - define the boundaries of what can be said or what cannot be said, according to their rules. Therefore, if you do not push back on such aggressive moves to curtail speech that would not be considered illegal in Western countries, you basically allow those who are more intolerant of certain types of speech (e.g. satire, cartoons, humor, or even just criticism) to de facto intimidate the majority into conforming to their (real or tactical) sensitivities. E.g., just because many Muslims get upset about some South Park episode and some of them even make death threats, do you think the South Park creators (or anyone else creating satirical or humorous content) should "preemptively self-censor", catering to the lowest common denominator of who could be offended? My answer to this is no. We should not allow such bullying tactics to dictate what we can or cannot say. If it is legal, we are allowed to say it, even more so when the large majority of the population would never think of it as offensive. But the only way to ensure that that freedom will continue to exist is to use it. If you don't, the intimidators have already won.
ISIS....... taking credit for the WORST attempted terrorist act in recent history. Two scrubs in a compact foreign car, drive from Arizona to Texas... they have rifles and attempt to attack a highly fortified event. They shoot a security guard in the FOOT and both are mowed down by a security guard with a HAND gun. Not sure I would take credit for this one.
Freedom means being free to do things which others may not like. We can't avoid offending people. We should just do what we think is right, hopefully taking a moment to seriously consider whether what we're doing is the right thing or not. Sometimes that will involve offending people. Tough for them. Now, in this case, I understand that your opinion is that creating these pictures is the right thing to do because it is sending a message about the importance of free speech. Fair enough. But others may not agree with you in that assessment that these events, the way they're setup and with the rhetoric used by the organizers, are really constructive or helpful.
I am not disagreeing with you. And in fact, I would never personally want to be involved with an event like this or with the people who organized it, but from an overall society point of view, not only do I think it should be allowed - and certainly be defended - but I think it is actually something necessary, as a response to bullies who try to curtail freedoms by intimidation and threats. That, in itself, is a huge difference to the KKK rallies someone mentioned earlier. They might be within the boundaries of what is protected as free speech, but they serve no other purpose than expressing hate against other races. Drawing Mohammed is actually a response to bullies trying to intimidate people who want to express their right to free speech, and therefore serves an actual purpose. But I would still not want to be associated personally with an event like this, because I suspect that it would also attract people who are not motivated by defending free speech, but by promoting hate against Muslims, and I don't stand for that.
You may be right...I still don't understand it. You went on in a later post to say you'd never attend an event like this. I wouldn't either...because I think it's stupid. I don't feel bullied by anyone regarding Muhammad portraits. I'm just not interested in offending someone when it's of no concern to me. Their religious belief that creating an icon of a man they deem to be a prophet is not threatening to me, personally. I'm aware that others have been threatened in that regard...but my bet is that not one person who attended that event in Dallas has ever been directly threatened by a Muslim. And most don't even know a Muslim. My kid has a close friend who is Muslim. Great kid. I would never ever never do something to try to intentionally offend that kid or his family.
Other than two Muslims who just tried to murder them with assault rifles. For what, exactly? So Kurt Westergaard, the whole team of Charlie Hebdo, Theo van Gogh...you would bet they would never have been directly threatened by a Muslim...had they just stayed quiet and not offended anyone...like you. Intimidation works because too many of those who don't feel personally affected remain indifferent, or even cater to it. And again, it's not just violent, loony Islamists being totally separated from regular Muslims. Way too many of the "regular Muslims" are just as outraged, and the violent ones just "do the job for them". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...sympathise-with-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.html
I wonder how many on the left that were pushing the "Je suis Charlie" stuff when Charlie Hebdo got attacked are now speaking out against this group for doing something similar and getting attacked... Political alignment seems to be all that matters to some.
I'm guessing the Charlie Hebdo people were not anti-Muslim bigots that like the woman who was behind this exhibit. Not a single person has said anyone has deserved to be threatened or worse for doing this, whether it's this bigot or those in France who are exercising their free speech.
Did you click on the link from my last post? 27 % of British Muslims sympathize with the Charlie Hebdo murderers.
You're just showing your bias. Actually the Charlie Hebdo people are VERY anti-Muslim.....they are against all religions. Of course, they are left leaning so it was viewed as people just "exercising their free speech" and this group is right leaning so they are viewed as "hateful bigots". It's adorable how simplistic people are.
