Shooting at Muhammad cartoon conference in Dallas

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

But that's not the message. I'm sure you're familiar with Pamela Geller. The message of this was that Muslims are bad, bad people, the same bullshit she always perpetuates. She doesn't give two shits about free speech.

An event is more than one person, and even if she's disgusting, Geller should have the right to spew her hate without being shot at just like the KKK does.

[Cyrisnia]

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And, as stated, further alienating Muslims who don't have any desire to commit harm, and causing America to be seen as a place directly hostile to their beliefs. I get what they're trying to do, but it just seems incredibly juvenile and petty.

If one is alienated by America because of free speech, it's decidedly not America's problem, nor should it be. Folks who have an attitude that 'other people shouldn't be able to say [x]' are harmful to America and, frankly, should damn well be alienated by the US and have their beliefs treated as hostile. Whether such arises out of Islam, Christianity, or secular political philosophy.

I won't argue it's juvenile and petty, but, such is life. Muhammed gets drawn unflatteringly, crucifixes get put in jars of urine, and Nickelback is allowed to keep making shitty music. *shrug*

It's not free speech that alienates Muslims, it's what's being said. They agree with the concept of the speech itself, but are understandably disturbed when people use that speech to intentionally offend them. Understandably so, since it's a rude thing to do. Almost as rude as Nickelback continuing to put out albums (And, man, that's the tie that binds us all together, isn't it?).

[Gauthier]

But that's not the message. I'm sure you're familiar with Pamela Geller. The message of this was that Muslims are bad, bad people, the same bullshit she always perpetuates. She doesn't give two shits about free speech.

An event is more than one person, and even if she's disgusting, Geller should have the right to spew her hate without being shot at just like the KKK does.

And where did someone explicitly make a cartoon villain diatribe that they deserved to be shot? Saying that a shooting is predictable is Not The Exact Same Thing.

[Gauthier]

If one is alienated by America because of free speech, it's decidedly not America's problem, nor should it be. Folks who have an attitude that 'other people shouldn't be able to say [x]' are harmful to America and, frankly, should damn well be alienated by the US and have their beliefs treated as hostile. Whether such arises out of Islam, Christianity, or secular political philosophy.

I won't argue it's juvenile and petty, but, such is life. Muhammed gets drawn unflatteringly, crucifixes get put in jars of urine, and Nickelback is allowed to keep making shitty music. *shrug*

It's not free speech that alienates Muslims, it's what's being said. They agree with the concept of the speech itself, but are understandably disturbed when people use that speech to intentionally offend them. Understandably so, since it's a rude thing to do. Almost as rude as Nickelback continuing to put out albums (And, man, that's the tie that binds us all together, isn't it?).

It's like continually baiting Nickelback and Nickelback fans, then saying that every single Nickelback fan in the world are violent tone-deaf douches when one finally reaches his or her boiling point and lashes out.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You're right. Satire is not and should not be limited by my understanding. Could you explain exactly what there was about these drawings that made them satire as opposed to simple trolling?

Yes, not backing down to threats of freedom of expression for once. here is their winner.



I could list multiple other winners, some historical and well done portraits, some funny, and some for the point that freedom of expression should be defended even in spite of threats which is rationale enough for such contests alone.

No, she sees Islam in general as a threat. I do not. She sees Muslims who identify as religious as being inherently prone to violence. I do not.

Not the point in question. She's made points on how even small Muslim communities have elements that can be dangerous, and you've through your point made notion of how said community could take to ire and that the results stood predictable. In a way, you surpass her on that point.

Source for your claims regarding Sharia courts in Texas? And do they have any legal standing?

It wasn't baiting due to my not liking them. I don't have any opinion on the cartoonists other than that they may be somewhat misguided. It's baiting because they're causing offense to a group of people for the sheer sake of causing offense and eliciting a negative reaction. That's the definition of baiting.

In terms of Texas i said tribunal, and here is the website.

http://www.islamictribunal.org/about-it/

And no, while you miss-define them as well as the term, the word more accurately used for the above is simply offend, baiting implies setting things up deliberately for such to happen. Given that none of the arrangers had any provable points made to ensure this contest was made in hopes of sparking a violent reaction as you have hypothesized leaves your victim blaming very little to lean on.

1. That's not satire. That's an outright blatant statement, and a somewhat juvenile one under the circumstances. Subjective, I know, but that's how I see it. "I must draw something offensive! Why? Because I have the right to do so, and a few assholes in America think that I shouldn't!"

2. I don't surpass her on anything. Your reasoning here isn't faulty so much as it is nonexistent. Yes, there are Muslim radicals in the world. We've all known that since before even the first WTC attack in the 90s. Some live in America. That's also obvious. She believes that all religious Muslims are prone to violence. I do not.

3. Tribunal. From you link, it looks like the equivalent of a Jewish beth din, a system designed to resolve religious disputes, but lacking civil legal authority. That's...not something to be concerned about, since it only affects Muslims, and only if they consciously choose to abide by the court's decisions.

4. Yes, baiting implies setting things up deliberately to provoke a reaction. That, I suspect, is exactly what Geller was doing.

[Gauthier]

Yes, not backing down to threats of freedom of expression for once. here is their winner.



I could list multiple other winners, some historical and well done portraits, some funny, and some for the point that freedom of expression should be defended even in spite of threats which is rationale enough for such contests alone.



Not the point in question. She's made points on how even small Muslim communities have elements that can be dangerous, and you've through your point made notion of how said community could take to ire and that the results stood predictable. In a way, you surpass her on that point.




In terms of Texas i said tribunal, and here is the website.

http://www.islamictribunal.org/about-it/

And no, while you miss-define them as well as the term, the word more accurately used for the above is simply offend, baiting implies setting things up deliberately for such to happen. Given that none of the arrangers had any provable points made to ensure this contest was made in hopes of sparking a violent reaction as you have hypothesized leaves your victim blaming very little to lean on.

1. That's not satire. That's an outright blatant statement, and a somewhat juvenile one under the circumstances. Subjective, I know, but that's how I see it. "I must draw something offensive! Why? Because I have the right to do so, and a few assholes in America think that I shouldn't!"

2. I don't surpass her on anything. Your reasoning here isn't faulty so much as it is nonexistent. Yes, there are Muslim radicals in the world. We've all known that since before even the first WTC attack in the 90s. Some live in America. That's also obvious. She believes that all religious Muslims are prone to violence. I do not.

3. Tribunal. From you link, it looks like the equivalent of a Jewish beth din, a system designed to resolve religious disputes, but lacking civil legal authority. That's...not something to be concerned about, since it only affects Muslims, and only if they consciously choose to abide by the court's decisions.

4. Yes, baiting implies setting things up deliberately to provoke a reaction. That, I suspect, is exactly what Geller was doing.

It's telling when people assume Freedom of Speech also includes Freedom From Criticism and Freedom From Responsibility. It's like Spiderman saying "Uncle Ben can kiss my ass."

[Herskerstad]

Yes, not backing down to threats of freedom of expression for once. here is their winner.

(Image)

I could list multiple other winners, some historical and well done portraits, some funny, and some for the point that freedom of expression should be defended even in spite of threats which is rationale enough for such contests alone.



Not the point in question. She's made points on how even small Muslim communities have elements that can be dangerous, and you've through your point made notion of how said community could take to ire and that the results stood predictable. In a way, you surpass her on that point.




In terms of Texas i said tribunal, and here is the website.

http://www.islamictribunal.org/about-it/

And no, while you miss-define them as well as the term, the word more accurately used for the above is simply offend, baiting implies setting things up deliberately for such to happen. Given that none of the arrangers had any provable points made to ensure this contest was made in hopes of sparking a violent reaction as you have hypothesized leaves your victim blaming very little to lean on.

1. That's not satire. That's an outright blatant statement, and a somewhat juvenile one under the circumstances. Subjective, I know, but that's how I see it. "I must draw something offensive! Why? Because I have the right to do so, and a few assholes in America think that I shouldn't!"

2. I don't surpass her on anything. Your reasoning here isn't faulty so much as it is nonexistent. Yes, there are Muslim radicals in the world. We've all known that since before even the first WTC attack in the 90s. Some live in America. That's also obvious. She believes that all religious Muslims are prone to violence. I do not.

3. Tribunal. From you link, it looks like the equivalent of a Jewish beth din, a system designed to resolve religious disputes, but lacking civil legal authority. That's...not something to be concerned about, since it only affects Muslims, and only if they consciously choose to abide by the court's decisions.

4. Yes, baiting implies setting things up deliberately to provoke a reaction. That, I suspect, is exactly what Geller was doing.

1 - Now I am really worried on the fact that you have judged anything in the past.

Satire
1.
the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2.
a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3.
a literary genre comprising such compositions

It shows irony in defiance of his violent threat. It exposes his violent nature. The picture denounces him as a person and shows the folly of ordering what people can and cannot draw. Being the work of parody and fiction, as while Muhammad himself did not have to deal with cartoonist, he did have to deal with poets and often dealt with such fatally. It checks out on the majority of the required fields, but it does not go as satire because yumyum thinks it too literal, as if it was just words dotted on a page. You may not like it or people who stand in defiance of threats on drawing the caravan raider, but it serves more of a purpose than to simply piss people off. The fact that you can't see that does not disqualify it from satire.

2 - A complete and blatant lie. Pamella has multiple times stated that she does not believe all Muslims to be violent. She believes Islam to be violent and given it's commandments in the quran and the hadiths, there is an easy case to make for that. Even in the hit piece of the Washington Post, it is stated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

Geller insists that she is not an “Islamophobe” and that she does not believe all Muslims are violent. But critics note that some of her associates are bluntly anti-Muslim. The keynote speaker at Sunday’s event, for instance, was Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliament member who has called for the Koran to be banned in his country and suggested a tax on Muslim headscarves.

So stop misrepresenting and projecting your straw-man. Short of a statement in which she categorically states that all Muslims are violent, you're shit out of luck and caught in a deliberate misrepresentation.

3 - It is a stop-gap for people in the Islamic mindset which they choose to go to before they'd go to a courts. While not illegal, the Islamic system has multiple issues which would in cases do wonderful things like give less of the inheritance to a daughter than a son. While not blocking people from the civil court it can result in unfortunate situations even in consent because of a religion, but it is quite similar to some of the early tribunals in Britain which now have courts which is why some people are obviously unsettled at the spread of such a legal practice.

4 - Given that you are not clairvoyant, what you think Geller might have been doing holds very little precedence to base anything on let alone that she was trying to provoke an attack by a cartoon contest. That you keep insisting the point is mind-boggling.

[Saiwania]

It looks like Gauthier was wrong on this. ISIS has claimed responsibility, so this is an open and shut case. This shooting was apart of a Jihad.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

1. That's not satire. That's an outright blatant statement, and a somewhat juvenile one under the circumstances. Subjective, I know, but that's how I see it. "I must draw something offensive! Why? Because I have the right to do so, and a few assholes in America think that I shouldn't!"

2. I don't surpass her on anything. Your reasoning here isn't faulty so much as it is nonexistent. Yes, there are Muslim radicals in the world. We've all known that since before even the first WTC attack in the 90s. Some live in America. That's also obvious. She believes that all religious Muslims are prone to violence. I do not.

3. Tribunal. From you link, it looks like the equivalent of a Jewish beth din, a system designed to resolve religious disputes, but lacking civil legal authority. That's...not something to be concerned about, since it only affects Muslims, and only if they consciously choose to abide by the court's decisions.

4. Yes, baiting implies setting things up deliberately to provoke a reaction. That, I suspect, is exactly what Geller was doing.

1 - Now I am really worried on the fact that you have judged anything in the past.

Satire
1.
the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2.
a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3.
a literary genre comprising such compositions

It shows irony in defiance of his violent threat. It exposes his violent nature. The picture denounces him as a person and shows the folly of ordering what people can and cannot draw. Being the work of parody and fiction, as while Muhammad himself did not have to deal with cartoonist, he did have to deal with poets and often dealt with such fatally. It checks out on the majority of the required fields, but it does not go as satire because yumyum thinks it too literal, as if it was just words dotted on a page. You may not like it or people who stand in defiance of threats on drawing the caravan raider, but it serves more of a purpose than to simply piss people off. The fact that you can't see that does not disqualify it from satire.

2 - A complete and blatant lie. Pamella has multiple times stated that she does not believe all Muslims to be violent. She believes Islam to be violent and given it's commandments in the quran and the hadiths, there is an easy case to make for that. Even in the hit piece of the Washington Post, it is stated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

Geller insists that she is not an “Islamophobe” and that she does not believe all Muslims are violent. But critics note that some of her associates are bluntly anti-Muslim. The keynote speaker at Sunday’s event, for instance, was Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliament member who has called for the Koran to be banned in his country and suggested a tax on Muslim headscarves.

So stop misrepresenting and projecting your straw-man. Short of a statement in which she categorically states that all Muslims are violent, you're shit out of luck and caught in a deliberate misrepresentation.

3 - It is a stop-gap for people in the Islamic mindset which they choose to go to before they'd go to a courts. While not illegal, the Islamic system has multiple issues which would in cases do wonderful things like give less of the inheritance to a daughter than a son. While not blocking people from the civil court it can result in unfortunate situations even in consent because of a religion, but it is quite similar to some of the early tribunals in Britain which now have courts which is why some people are obviously unsettled at the spread of such a legal practice.

4 - Given that you are not clairvoyant, what you think Geller might have been doing holds very little precedence to base anything on let alone that she was trying to provoke an attack by a cartoon contest. That you keep insisting the point is mind-boggling.

1. That's not irony.

2. She believes all RELIGIOUS Muslims to be violent, and claims that moderate ones do not represent Islam in general, or Muslims worldwide.

Muslims that say, “You know that this is not our religion, and this is not who we are,” they’re speaking from their own personal subjectivity. And while I respect that and I encourage individualism, which is completely against the collectivism of Islam — there is no individualism — they are not speaking for the ummah. The ummah is the worldwide Muslim community.

No. I believe most Muslims are secular. I don’t believe that most Muslims subscribe to devout fundamentalist Islam by any stretch of the imagination. And we need the secular Muslims to win the battle for the reformation of Islam.

That's a weird one, since she literally just said that the worldwide Muslim community is the "collectivism" type that she's against. Interesting, though, that she defines them as "secular" rather than "moderate", but to do so would fly in the face of her claim that there is no such thing as moderate Islam. Weirdly enough, she's a religious Jew, but obviously doesn't follow the Torah to the letter. For some reason, though, such a thing is impossible in Islam.

Here's some more:

"Islam is not a race. This is an ideology. This is an extreme ideology, the most radical and extreme ideology on the face of the earth."

And here:

"Now do I see everything through the prism of Israel? No, I don't, but I do think it's a very good guide. It's a very good guide because, like I said, in the war between the civilized man and the savage, you side with the civilized man. … If you don't lay down and die for Islamic supremacism, then you're a racist anti-Muslim Islamophobic bigot. That's what we're really talking about."

In the wake of the terrorist attacks in Norway committed by Anders Breivik, she claimed that the young people killed were bound to become "leaders of the party responsible for flooding Norway with Muslims who refuse to assimilate, who commit major violence against Norwegian natives including violent gang rapes, with impunity, and who live on the dole."

Yeah, she's anti-Islam in general. To claim to be anti-Islam and not anti-Muslim is pure sophistry, reminiscent of those who claim to be fine with gay people, but to disapprove of homosexuality.

3. Again, as it does not even have the force of law that you'd get from a Model U.N. proposal, it's irrelevant. These courts have been around since there have been enough Muslims in America to need them. Are you concerned about the existence of the beth din in Jewish communities, which plays the same role?

4. I admit that it's speculation on my part, but again, what choices are we looking at here? Remember that we're seeing this through the eyes of someone who claims that radical Muslims are on American soil (true), and pose a threat to our very way of life (arguable at best, and I'd say laughable, but okay).

a) Our first option is that she believes that radical Muslims pose a threat to our freedoms, held an event to promote free speech that included a contest to draw Muhammed, and yet somehow, even in the light of Charlie Hebdo, did not think that doing such a thing would cause a violent reaction from these radicals who are supposedly a threat to America. This would mean that she was aware of a threat, held an event that was likely to attract the attention of said threat, and yet did not connect the two. This would make her an outright idiot.

b) The second choice is that she didn't actually think that anything would happen since she's been exaggerating the threat that she believes that radical Muslims pose. This would make her a liar. It would also still make her an idiot, because again, Charlie Hebdo.

c) The third choice is that she was aware of the risk, and went ahead anyway, putting the lives of everyone in the building at risk (although they did voluntarily sign up for it, so I'm not acting like they were tricked into this). This seems the most likely of the options to me. However, if this is the case, then she knew that she was holding an event that would incite certain passions. That's fine: She knew the risk, and I suspect that the participants must have been aware on some level of the same. However, it does mean that she was, with full knowledge and intent, baiting an entire community, and drawing the attention of religious assholes with guns.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It looks like Gauthier was wrong on this. ISIS has claimed responsibility, so this is an open and shut case. This shooting was apart of a Jihad.

Do you know how many people claimed responsibility for 9/11?

[Farnhamia]

poking the bear

what? the religion of PEACE? no way....

Borderline trolling. Knock it off.

[Polar Svalbard]

No, this is disrespectful to a good people and gives bad people a fake thing go raise their quota of death. Muslims aren't bad people no more than any other religion, and yet bad apples who say they are a religion just to rally others makes the whole batch moldy

[Cyrisnia]

No, this is disrespectful to a good people and gives bad people a fake thing go raise their quota of death. Muslims aren't bad people no more than any other religion, and yet bad apples who say they are a religion just to rally others makes the whole batch moldy

Basically.

[Faith Hope Charity]

Just wondering... what happened to the Je Suis Charlie sentiment?

Oh that's right.. Geller isn't of the right political stripe to engage in freedom of speech.

[Rookanse]

While drawing this is quite against the religion, let there be repercussions in countries where they don't have freedom of speech. America does, and you have the right to make fun/Protest whatever you want.

[Gauthier]

Just wondering... what happened to the Je Suis Charlie sentiment?

Oh that's right.. Geller isn't of the right political stripe to engage in freedom of speech.

Funny, only SIOA apologists jump on the Freedom of Speech and Victim Blaming bandwagon. Did anyone say that they ought to be censored?

When did Charlie Hebdo constantly rave about how Muslims are a threat to French society and that the country would be better off without them?

[Gauthier]

While drawing this is quite against the religion, let there be repercussions in countries where they don't have freedom of speech. America does, and you have the right to make fun/Protest whatever you want.

So if a bunch of fanatics itching for any pretense to be violent bites onto the red meat and someone innocent gets killed, Freedom From Responsibility right?

[Geilinor]

While drawing this is quite against the religion, let there be repercussions in countries where they don't have freedom of speech. America does, and you have the right to make fun/Protest whatever you want.

So if a bunch of fanatics itching for any pretense to be violent bites onto the red meat and someone innocent gets killed, Freedom From Responsibility right?

It's the fault of the murderers, the fanatics.

[Gauthier]

So if a bunch of fanatics itching for any pretense to be violent bites onto the red meat and someone innocent gets killed, Freedom From Responsibility right?

It's the fault of the murderers, the fanatics.

So whoever deliberately provoked the famatics can sleep easy at night without a bit of conscience. Good to hear.

[Diopolis]

I heard about this(I live in Dallas) and most of the locals seem to think that they got what was coming.
I'm glad more people didn't die in this.

[Gauthier]

I heard about this(I live in Dallas) and most of the locals seem to think that they got what was coming.
I'm glad more people didn't die in this.

The shooters or the organizers?

[In Gentem Et De Libris Scientiam]

When i first saw this in the news, i thought
"Why do these people have to shoot at cartoons of muhammad? it's not going to end well."

[Miletos]

So if a bunch of fanatics itching for any pretense to be violent bites onto the red meat and someone innocent gets killed, Freedom From Responsibility right?

It's the fault of the murderers, the fanatics.

Imagine this hypothetical.

This conference happens and the gunmen arrive. The gunmen start shooting at the conference, and in doing so hit a completely innocent and uninvolved member of the local community, who then dies.

Are you seriously going to contend that that bystander's death is solely the fault of the gunmen?

[MERIZoC]

But that's not the message. I'm sure you're familiar with Pamela Geller. The message of this was that Muslims are bad, bad people, the same bullshit she always perpetuates. She doesn't give two shits about free speech.

An event is more than one person, and even if she's disgusting, Geller should have the right to spew her hate without being shot at just like the KKK does.

I didn't say otherwise….?