(05-04-2015 02:48 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 02:43 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 02:30 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 02:01 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  JMU, encouraging the provocation of any religion only leads to more radicalization. Just because this woman, or you and I, have a right to draw whatever the f*ck we want to on a piece of paper, it doesn't mean we should be so blatantly disrespectful for no reason. The people who did this are dead, who exactly are we showing off to? Those muslims who *didn't* attack us?

Who has said anything about anyone "showing off" other than you? Use your own words. I'll, if you'd kindly, use mine.

Weakness creates a vacuum. We've seen this worldwide now for years and millions upon millions of innocent people are paying the price for our, and others, deliberate weakness. Shall we now indulge that here? At home? To what end?

Do you honestly think if we're just "nicer" or more "accommodating" to these terrorists they wouldn't be stockpiling weapons or responding to the calls of some radical ******** in Yemen to kill as many Satans, their words, as they can?

C'mon.

No one is calling all anything, all anything. I've had dozens of Muslim friends growing up, roommates, adult drinking buddies or whatever and kids Ive coached. A LOT. *Hell, I've been invited to India a dozen times, need to take them up on that.*

We're talking about this set of asssholes. No one else. This "artshow" wasn't going to incite anyone but exactly who it did.

An again, good for them. It exposed a terrorist cell or some conspiracy and there are probably people alive because of it. Thankfully not these two jerkwads.
Enjoy your 72 virgins, A. Virgins don't usually have a clue what they're doing and complain a lot. B. I hope they're virgins for a reason- fat, dumb and ugly. Eff-U.

Do you think I'm worried about offending terrorists? I'm worried about radicalizing moderate muslims by explicitly trying to antagonize them. Unless you think all muslims are terrorists, you should be worried about this.

clearly you either can't read, or don't comprehend the written language.

Til the 'morrow, g'night.

You haven't addressed any of my argument ya dunce. I put it in bold this time, hopefully you'll address it, and save us all from the eyeroll every single person had when they read your painfully stereotypical "THIS INTOLERANT STUFF IM SAYING IS OK BECAUSE I HAVE FRIENDS WHO ARE XXXXX" that addressed nothing pertinent.

Ok, just because I know you'll forget the actual argument itself, here it is again.

I'm worried about radicalizing moderate muslims by explicitly trying to antagonize them.

Address that.

Just glad the Right people Got Killed and everyone else is Safe !

(05-03-2015 09:32 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 09:29 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 08:36 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  In a Dallas suburb. Few details are available. It was an art contest to draw a caricature of Muhammad. About 300 people attended.

The way I see it, we should not change our lifestyle to be more sensitive to Islam. We need to do what we always do. But this art contest was clearly just an attempt to poke a finger in the eyes of Muslims. It seems a little over the top and completely unnecessary.

Hopefully there are no casualties.

Hey Uconn, good on you for seeing this for what it is. Have some positive Karma.

Also, good work by the police and hope everyone involved is safe (except of course for those who shot at innocent people for a drawing).

This outcome was 100% certain. Really stupid thing to do.

I concur. Not necessary IMO. There is no need to set out to intentionally disrespect anyones faith....regardless of how invalid I may think it is. I do however think the Muslims need to understand that in America we do not tolerated violence as retaliation for those act of disrespect.

(05-03-2015 10:18 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The Garland police had over 40 officers on site. They were prepared for anything. Nice work.

Again, we should *not* change our lifestyle to be more sensitive to Islam. No Western country should ever bow to Islam. We need to live our lives like we want, and if that offends anyone, to hell with them.

At the same time, I see no reason to go out of our way to offend Islam. Texans don't routinely get together to draw pictures of Muhammad; it's not something we normally do. So why do this now? It's just to raise a middle finger at Islam. I'm better than that. I don't need to do that.

Agree, but the same should be true for all religions in the U.S. This is one of those arguments where you pit liberty on one side and security on the other. It seems that many want to see us give up our rights to free speech in order to be "safe". In reality it's analogous to our country paying protection money. We pay the price of squelching our right to speak out against something we don't like and in exchange we don't see Islamists kill people in the U.S. - for now at least.

But this is an interesting exercise to expand for all of the pet peeves seen by the right and the left. People critical of gay marriage shouldn't be silenced just like people in favor of ending the war on drugs should be allowed to speak out. The religious right wants to censor speech. Liberals on college campuses want to silence free speech.

I worry about moderate Muslims actually picking up and reading their sacred rag more than any antagonizing.

Moderate Muslims become radicalized by reading the Quran, not by listening to Gellar.

Islam is deadly for "moderate Muslims" too.

Feds ID one Jihadi as Elton Simpson of Arizona. He's a Radical Convert well known to the Feds for his attempts to fly to Jihadi Training Camps

(05-04-2015 08:46 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Feds ID one Jihadi as Elton Simpson of Arizona. He's a Radical Convert well known to the Feds for his attempts to fly to Jihadi Training Camps

Is that the one a judge let go a couple of years ago?

(05-04-2015 03:19 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 02:48 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 02:43 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 02:30 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 02:01 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  JMU, encouraging the provocation of any religion only leads to more radicalization. Just because this woman, or you and I, have a right to draw whatever the f*ck we want to on a piece of paper, it doesn't mean we should be so blatantly disrespectful for no reason. The people who did this are dead, who exactly are we showing off to? Those muslims who *didn't* attack us?

Who has said anything about anyone "showing off" other than you? Use your own words. I'll, if you'd kindly, use mine.

Weakness creates a vacuum. We've seen this worldwide now for years and millions upon millions of innocent people are paying the price for our, and others, deliberate weakness. Shall we now indulge that here? At home? To what end?

Do you honestly think if we're just "nicer" or more "accommodating" to these terrorists they wouldn't be stockpiling weapons or responding to the calls of some radical ******** in Yemen to kill as many Satans, their words, as they can?

C'mon.

No one is calling all anything, all anything. I've had dozens of Muslim friends growing up, roommates, adult drinking buddies or whatever and kids Ive coached. A LOT. *Hell, I've been invited to India a dozen times, need to take them up on that.*

We're talking about this set of asssholes. No one else. This "artshow" wasn't going to incite anyone but exactly who it did.

An again, good for them. It exposed a terrorist cell or some conspiracy and there are probably people alive because of it. Thankfully not these two jerkwads.
Enjoy your 72 virgins, A. Virgins don't usually have a clue what they're doing and complain a lot. B. I hope they're virgins for a reason- fat, dumb and ugly. Eff-U.

Do you think I'm worried about offending terrorists? I'm worried about radicalizing moderate muslims by explicitly trying to antagonize them. Unless you think all muslims are terrorists, you should be worried about this.

clearly you either can't read, or don't comprehend the written language.

Til the 'morrow, g'night.

You haven't addressed any of my argument ya dunce. I put it in bold this time, hopefully you'll address it, and save us all from the eyeroll every single person had when they read your painfully stereotypical "THIS INTOLERANT STUFF IM SAYING IS OK BECAUSE I HAVE FRIENDS WHO ARE XXXXX" that addressed nothing pertinent.

Ok, just because I know you'll forget the actual argument itself, here it is again.

I'm worried about radicalizing moderate muslims by explicitly trying to antagonize them.

Address that.

I'll take a stab at it. The issue I think we are really talking about is one of decency. The prohibition on drawing pictures of Muhammad would be respected if not for the fact of the violent response that is associated with such depictions. Again, while I find 'Piss Christ', Burning the US Flag and Westboro Church offensive, like Voltaire I believe in defending the right of someone to do it.

So what is more important, offending moderate Muslims or allowing violence to change the fundamental tenets of this country?

(05-04-2015 09:05 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 03:19 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 02:48 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 02:43 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 02:30 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Who has said anything about anyone "showing off" other than you? Use your own words. I'll, if you'd kindly, use mine.

Weakness creates a vacuum. We've seen this worldwide now for years and millions upon millions of innocent people are paying the price for our, and others, deliberate weakness. Shall we now indulge that here? At home? To what end?

Do you honestly think if we're just "nicer" or more "accommodating" to these terrorists they wouldn't be stockpiling weapons or responding to the calls of some radical ******** in Yemen to kill as many Satans, their words, as they can?

C'mon.

No one is calling all anything, all anything. I've had dozens of Muslim friends growing up, roommates, adult drinking buddies or whatever and kids Ive coached. A LOT. *Hell, I've been invited to India a dozen times, need to take them up on that.*

We're talking about this set of asssholes. No one else. This "artshow" wasn't going to incite anyone but exactly who it did.

An again, good for them. It exposed a terrorist cell or some conspiracy and there are probably people alive because of it. Thankfully not these two jerkwads.
Enjoy your 72 virgins, A. Virgins don't usually have a clue what they're doing and complain a lot. B. I hope they're virgins for a reason- fat, dumb and ugly. Eff-U.

Do you think I'm worried about offending terrorists? I'm worried about radicalizing moderate muslims by explicitly trying to antagonize them. Unless you think all muslims are terrorists, you should be worried about this.

clearly you either can't read, or don't comprehend the written language.

Til the 'morrow, g'night.

You haven't addressed any of my argument ya dunce. I put it in bold this time, hopefully you'll address it, and save us all from the eyeroll every single person had when they read your painfully stereotypical "THIS INTOLERANT STUFF IM SAYING IS OK BECAUSE I HAVE FRIENDS WHO ARE XXXXX" that addressed nothing pertinent.

Ok, just because I know you'll forget the actual argument itself, here it is again.

I'm worried about radicalizing moderate muslims by explicitly trying to antagonize them.

Address that.

I'll take a stab at it. The issue I think we are really talking about is one of decency. The prohibition on drawing pictures of Muhammad would be respected if not for the fact of the violent response that is associated with such depictions. Again, while I find 'Piss Christ', Burning the US Flag and Westboro Church offensive, like Voltaire I believe in defending the right of someone to do it.

So what is more important, offending moderate Muslims or allowing violence to change the fundamental tenets of this country?

That's the primary issue with this. In the case of Muslims, it's encouraged to be "decent" or risk violence. Christians do not behave in the same way when their religious objects are lampooned.

The larger issue is that the constitution does not guarantee the right to not be offended or the laws stating that you must be decent in your free speech. Granted, some level of decent conversation needs to be enforced, and it is typically on the local level. You don't want to see f bombs dropped all over the place all the time. However, IDEAS should never be squelched for the sake of decency. The KKK should never be censored because of their ideas no more than a Baptist, Catholic, Muslim, senior citizen groups, etc. The ideas should flow freely and it's up to the public to sift thru the ideas and tease out what is good for the country or your locality vs what is detrimental. Provided those ideas don't cause issues with another's rights to life, liberty and to pursue their own happiness then it's fair game for discussion.

Garland police just had a news conference. The two muslim pigs had on bullet proof vests and assault rifles. One Garland officer took them both out with his pistol. Great work officer.

(05-04-2015 09:05 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 03:19 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 02:48 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 02:43 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 02:30 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Who has said anything about anyone "showing off" other than you? Use your own words. I'll, if you'd kindly, use mine.

Weakness creates a vacuum. We've seen this worldwide now for years and millions upon millions of innocent people are paying the price for our, and others, deliberate weakness. Shall we now indulge that here? At home? To what end?

Do you honestly think if we're just "nicer" or more "accommodating" to these terrorists they wouldn't be stockpiling weapons or responding to the calls of some radical ******** in Yemen to kill as many Satans, their words, as they can?

C'mon.

No one is calling all anything, all anything. I've had dozens of Muslim friends growing up, roommates, adult drinking buddies or whatever and kids Ive coached. A LOT. *Hell, I've been invited to India a dozen times, need to take them up on that.*

We're talking about this set of asssholes. No one else. This "artshow" wasn't going to incite anyone but exactly who it did.

An again, good for them. It exposed a terrorist cell or some conspiracy and there are probably people alive because of it. Thankfully not these two jerkwads.
Enjoy your 72 virgins, A. Virgins don't usually have a clue what they're doing and complain a lot. B. I hope they're virgins for a reason- fat, dumb and ugly. Eff-U.

Do you think I'm worried about offending terrorists? I'm worried about radicalizing moderate muslims by explicitly trying to antagonize them. Unless you think all muslims are terrorists, you should be worried about this.

clearly you either can't read, or don't comprehend the written language.

Til the 'morrow, g'night.

You haven't addressed any of my argument ya dunce. I put it in bold this time, hopefully you'll address it, and save us all from the eyeroll every single person had when they read your painfully stereotypical "THIS INTOLERANT STUFF IM SAYING IS OK BECAUSE I HAVE FRIENDS WHO ARE XXXXX" that addressed nothing pertinent.

Ok, just because I know you'll forget the actual argument itself, here it is again.

I'm worried about radicalizing moderate muslims by explicitly trying to antagonize them.

Address that.

I'll take a stab at it. The issue I think we are really talking about is one of decency. The prohibition on drawing pictures of Muhammad would be respected if not for the fact of the violent response that is associated with such depictions. Again, while I find 'Piss Christ', Burning the US Flag and Westboro Church offensive, like Voltaire I believe in defending the right of someone to do it.

So what is more important, offending moderate Muslims or allowing violence to change the fundamental tenets of this country?

You're creating a false dichotomy because the options aren't 'we all draw muhammad' or 'we repeal the 1st amendment'. Of course Geller has the right to say what she wants and organize similar minded people, I have stated as much so many times in this thread already, but that doesn't mean we have to celebrate her intentional attempt to antagonize an entire religion of a billion people. I think the KKK has every right to organize peacefully and state their views, but that doesn't mean I think they should be immune to societal pressure against saying those ignorant things, or that people shouldn't be able to judge them for what they say. That's ludicrous.

This woman isn't a hero, she's an intolerant bigot who designed an event to instigate muslims, and she absolutely has the right to do so without government interference. But I also have the right to ignore her, try to marginalize her socially, and point out the idiocy of her acts. We all do, and that's what we should do here, instead of some of the more mentally challenged posters literally calling her an 'american hero'.

Oh yes, blame everyone else.

Christians have cartoons and satire made about them and their beliefs all the time. Difference is, you don't see them trying to massacre folks on a regular basis as a result.

Islamic lunatics are a problem. If you can't see that, then you're simply not being objective.

(05-04-2015 07:05 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 10:18 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The Garland police had over 40 officers on site. They were prepared for anything. Nice work.

Again, we should *not* change our lifestyle to be more sensitive to Islam. No Western country should ever bow to Islam. We need to live our lives like we want, and if that offends anyone, to hell with them.

At the same time, I see no reason to go out of our way to offend Islam. Texans don't routinely get together to draw pictures of Muhammad; it's not something we normally do. So why do this now? It's just to raise a middle finger at Islam. I'm better than that. I don't need to do that.

Agree, but the same should be true for all religions in the U.S. This is one of those arguments where you pit liberty on one side and security on the other. It seems that many want to see us give up our rights to free speech in order to be "safe". In reality it's analogous to our country paying protection money. We pay the price of squelching our right to speak out against something we don't like and in exchange we don't see Islamists kill people in the U.S. - for now at least.

But this is an interesting exercise to expand for all of the pet peeves seen by the right and the left. People critical of gay marriage shouldn't be silenced just like people in favor of ending the war on drugs should be allowed to speak out. The religious right wants to censor speech. Liberals on college campuses want to silence free speech.

Not a single person in this thread has suggested any legislation or constitutional change which would infringe upon free speech, so I'm not sure exactly where this is coming from.

If you are that easily subject to being antagonized, then you aren't a "moderate Muslim" to begin with. Foh with that nonsense.

(05-04-2015 11:22 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Oh yes, blame everyone else.

Christians have cartoons and satire made about them and their beliefs all the time. Difference is, you don't see them trying to massacre being on a regular basis as a result.

Islamic lunatics are a problem. If you can't see that, then you're simply not being objective.

You should really read a thread before you comment on it. I promise you if you did, you'd look a lot less silly right now.

The Difference Between Paris And #Garland? Guns



People are alive today because Garland not only allows guns, but was prepared.

Quote:When armed terrorists attacked Charlie Hebdo headquarters over Muhammad cartoons on January 7, unarmed police officers were forced to flee for their lives. When armed men attacked people gathered in Garland, Texas, on May 3 over Prophet Muhammad cartoons, armed police cut them down — and the Daily Mail reported that the body of one was left lying the street while police searched for explosives.

The difference between Garland and Paris can be summed up in one word: guns.

On January 7, CBS News relayed reports from Britain’s Telegraph newspaper that the first two officers to arrive “were apparently unarmed” and “fled after seeing gunmen armed with automatic weapons and possibly a grenade launcher.” The UK’s Independent reported that “three policemen arrived on bikes but had to leave because [the attackers] were armed.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...and-paris/

The hero is the security guard! He took both these Muslim Pukes out with a pistol!

(05-04-2015 11:34 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  The hero is the security guard! He took both these Muslim Pukes out with a pistol!

That really is bad ass

Terrific Response From Mayor Of Garland To CNN About Holding Muhammad Event: “We All Swear To Uphold The Constitution”





Now this is a mayor, clear, coherent and right on, can we clone him and put him in every city? Garland’s response to this has been terrific, right down the line, from police response and care for the participants to the government.