- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
- Messages
- 33,522
- Reaction score
- 10,826
- Location
- Between Athens and Jerusalem
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Its almost like it takes men capable of violence in close proximity to stop the violent acts of aggressors. Lolz at choosing texas for an attack.
Well, Mahor Hasan choose an army base in Texas. Of course that was just a workplace accident according to the current administration.
It was as disguising calling a terror attack by a known islamist (that the govt was to PC to address), as it was referring to the Paris Jewish deli attack as random violence.
Look how insane leftism is. :doh
I do. Some debaters on this issue fall into the illogical trap of alleging that if you criticise the provocative actions of people who have been attacked, then you are automatically supporting the attacker.Then maybe you should start thinking about what you write before you post it.
Two shot dead outside Muhammad Art Exhibit in Garland
This was at a facility in Garland, Texas, near Dallas.
I gather this was an exhibit of artwork that depicts Muhammad, a la Charlie Hebdo, in defiance of radical Muslims and in affirmation of freedom of speech.
Two guys drove up armed with guns and explosives, opened fire, and were killed straight away by return fire.
It's a bad idea to go gunning for any group of Texans without a lot of firepower.
It was as disguising calling a terror attack by a known islamist (that the govt was to PC to address), as it was referring to the Paris Jewish deli attack as random violence.
Look how insane leftism is. :doh
You're really starved for attention, aren't you? Pretty sad.
I do. Some debaters on this issue fall into the illogical trap of alleging that if you criticise the provocative actions of people who have been attacked, then you are automatically supporting the attacker.
I can't understand your comment because it doesn't make grammatical sense.
I can't understand your comment because it doesn't make grammatical sense.
As a Brit I'm normally anti guns in society.
This is one of the rare occaisions that it works just fine.
Americans value their 1st amendment highly-mostly save some on the left. If the choice is between freedom of speech and censorship (and Im not saying it is), well im picking freedom of speech. Even if opponents say its "for our safety".
The problem here is violent islam, not our freedom of speech.
I do. Some debaters on this issue fall into the illogical trap of alleging that if you criticise the provocative actions of people who have been attacked, then you are automatically supporting the attacker.
Don't flatter yourself. You are simply blaming the ones being attacked for the attack.
Actually no. I recommend you take some classes on verbal reasoning.
The problem in this case is both. Vigilante violence by Islamic extremists is a problem no-one is disputing.
On freedom of speech, it's a right but not an absolute one. No right is absolute. So when the exercise of your freedom of speech foreseeably provokes violence from people who then put my life at risk, then my life comes first and your freedom of speech comes second. If only we lived in a better world without violent people who don't react to provocation. But we don't. So till we do, I'd like you to take it upon yourself to consider the impact that your freedom of speech could have, in advance of exercising it.
Think of freedom of speech like a fast car. If you look after it responsibly and drive safely, then it will go on for years and give you and others a lot of enjoyment. But if you drive it like a madman and run it into the ground, then you can expect your freedom to drive fast cars to be curtailed by your irresponsibility. Freedom of speech is to be cherished - groups like these people in Garland in fact treat it with contempt and risk its future for all of us.
The problem in this case is both. Vigilante violence by Islamic extremists is a problem no-one is disputing.
On freedom of speech, it's a right but not an absolute one. No right is absolute. So when the exercise of your freedom of speech foreseeably provokes violence from people who then put my life at risk, then my life comes first and your freedom of speech comes second. If only we lived in a better world without violent people who don't react to provocation. But we don't. So till we do, I'd like you to take it upon yourself to consider the impact that your freedom of speech could have, in advance of exercising it.
Think of freedom of speech like a fast car. If you look after it responsibly and drive safely, then it will go on for years and give you and others a lot of enjoyment. But if you drive it like a madman and run it into the ground, then you can expect your freedom to drive fast cars to be curtailed by your irresponsibility. Freedom of speech is to be cherished - groups like these people in Garland in fact treat it with contempt and risk its future for all of us.
No. Talking of provocation, you believe that the action of an anti-Muslim group which puts on a public event where participants draw pictures of Mohammed is provocative?Jihadi terrorists find it provocative that we don't all follow and obey sharia law. So your solution is that we stop provoking them by submitting?
I disagree - they deliberately offended and provoked the entire Muslim world, and they knew it.What you are proposing is analogous to banning short skirts because there are rapists out there. Or freedom of religion because of the existence of cults.
No action by the citizens at this even deserve even a cursory glance-they didn't do anything wrong.
No. Talking of provocation, you believe that the action of an anti-Muslim group which puts on a public event where participants draw pictures of Mohammed is provocative?
I disagree - they deliberately offended and provoked the entire Muslim world, and they knew it.
You're more than welcomed to conduct your own experiment on such social behaviors and tell a woman who just got raped that the skirt she was wearing was too short and that's what motivated the rapist to rape her. See what reaction you get for that.
I disagree - they deliberately offended and provoked the entire Muslim world, and they knew it.
You seem to be suggesting that such events in Europe should now require armed vigilantes, instead of regular police. If there are security threats, I think we should leave it to the police to handle them, and of course the organisers should pay for the privilege.
Of course a more sensible route would be to consult Muslim groups and even ask them to contribute to such event so that offence can be minimised and positive relations between different groups can be strengthened. If the group in Texas had made this kind of effort, then this incident would probably have been avoided. Unfortunately, they think Muslims are bad people and deserve a good kicking.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?