You keep reverting to this argument as if anyone here is suggesting that the shooters were in the right.
Once again - nobody is saying this.
However, the fact that it prompted an inappropriate reaction in no way lessens the donkey-cave nature of the original action. Quite the opposite, in fact, wouldn't you think?
Insaniak said it perfectly. Well done, +1 and all that.
That being said, how is that concrete wall feeling on your forehead? Are we getting to the point in the thread where we get to call all the "free speech is always okay, no matter what!!" posters any name we want without getting in trouble? I mean, they ARE requesting we do so. The idea that if they choose to hit the triangle of friendship, they demean their entire argument and just show themselves to be hypocritical asses does make me a little bit happy.
*still not supporting the Muslims actions. Also not supporting the people who put on the conference. And I won't be supporting either group. At all.
Are someone in this discussion saying that humour, art and criticism of authorities is nonsense, worthless, immoral, bad idea or idiotic?
Are someone in this discussion saying that in case criticism of authorities result in violent reactions, such criticism is nonsense, bad idea, immoral or idiotic?
In a situation when you can not criticise authorities, that is when it is utmost important to do so. Criticising authorities in the face of danger is the right thing to do. Because historiy teaches us what happens if we don't.
Every single day musicians travel around the world, burning bibles, screaming about burning churches, killing jesus, raping nuns and slaughtering angels. No reaction.
One day a small group of people draw muhammad. Terrorist attack.
Which brings us back to the idea that just because you can doesn't automatically mean that you should.
Hey... that's your opinion. Not something that I subscribe to.
And I noticed that you left out the concept of Heckler's Veto... here, I'll quote the salient point:
Briefly, the legal framework is based on a court case Hill v. Colorado 530 US 703, 735 where the US Supreme Court found that the government can not grant power to a private actor, the heckler, to unilaterally silence a speaker because of a concern for the violent reaction by the heckler. The excuse of the local government during the civil rights movement in the U.S. for not giving permits to civil rights marchers to protest segregation was that the marches would create a public danger or put participants in danger because of the violence that might ensue. The Supreme Court found this unacceptable and a deprivation of the First Amendment rights of the marchers.
Outside of legal parlance, it has come to mean that the heckler himself creates the veto and suppresses the speech by creating the violent reaction or the threat of violent reaction. The end result of this is usually that the individual who is potentially being heckled will self-censor for fear of the reaction it might create.
That being said, how is that concrete wall feeling on your forehead? Are we getting to the point in the thread where we get to call all the "free speech is always okay, no matter what!!" posters any name we want without getting in trouble? I mean, they ARE requesting we do so. The idea that if they choose to hit the triangle of friendship, they demean their entire argument and just show themselves to be hypocritical asses does make me a little bit happy.
*still not supporting the Muslims actions. Also not supporting the people who put on the conference. And I won't be supporting either group. At all.
You can separate the two further buddy...
You can support the PRINCIPLE of free speech. You can also separate that act from the CONTENT of said speech.
It's an important distinction.
All this talk about, "Which brings us back to the idea that just because you can doesn't automatically mean that you should" is simply a "yeah, but..." circular arguments.
I can call you every single word on George Carlin's list of things not to say in polite conversation. According to your viewpoint, that means I should.
However, I'm not a gakky human being. So I won't. I will admit the temptation is pretty strong though at this point.
I'm pretty sure you blocked me though already, since you haven't responded to me in any of my posts over the last 6 pages, Baxx. Doesn't covering up my words for yourself count as a form of censorship? Where'd your belief go in showing it off? Clearly you should be embracing my comments, not hiding from them.
You keep reverting to this argument as if anyone here is suggesting that the shooters were in the right.
Once again - nobody is saying this.
However, the fact that it prompted an inappropriate reaction in no way lessens the donkey-cave nature of the original action. Quite the opposite, in fact, wouldn't you think?
Which brings us back to the idea that just because you can doesn't automatically mean that you should.
with all the back lash you are giving them, saying that they *should not have done the art show* yes, you are indeed justifying the shooting despite denying such a thing. Saying they shouldnt have done the show is tantamount to justifying the shooting, even if you do not want it to be interpreted as such.
in the same way as you are unilaterally saying the art show isn not about freedom of speech and that it is strictly about provoking muslims, your claim that they shouldnt provoke muslims is in fact justifying the action that was provoked.
timetowaste85 wrote: I can call you every single word on George Carlin's list of things not to say in polite conversation. According to your viewpoint, that means I should.
However, I'm not a gakky human being. So I won't. I will admit the temptation is pretty strong though at this point.
I'm pretty sure you blocked me though already, since you haven't responded to me in any of my posts over the last 6 pages, Baxx. Doesn't covering up my words for yourself count as a form of censorship? Where'd your belief go in showing it off? Clearly you should be embracing my comments, not hiding from them.
I haven't blocked you or anything. I haven't noticed anything you've said that needed answering. Usually I respond to statements made by others which I think is wrong or particularly interesting or provocative. Maybe you haven't made such statements, or I didn't read close enough.
Sure I can behave and act polite in front of other people.
But I can never stop criticising authorities. Never. And I can never stop enjoying and creating blasphemy and art. Never.
timetowaste85 wrote: I can call you every single word on George Carlin's list of things not to say in polite conversation. According to your viewpoint, that means I should.
Whether you should is irrelavant. You have that RIGHT to do so.
Just allow me to "retort", as it is my right as well.
However, I'm not a gakky human being. So I won't. I will admit the temptation is pretty strong though at this point.
Baxx wrote: If you can make blasphemous art, you should make blasphemous art.
Why?
Why not? Seriously...
we have piss jesus and poo virgin mary, no one got shot, no one claims people shouldnt do art that *literally* in a universally degrading way pisses and poops on Christianity.
But the mere depiction (not even derogatory, you cannot even portray mohammad positively) is art that shouldnt be done.
why exactly?
what is the difference between the one artist who pisses on christ, and an artist who draws mohammad.
be specific in what the difference between those two art forms is that makes piss Jesus a "should" and mohammad a "should not"
timetowaste85 wrote: I can call you every single word on George Carlin's list of things not to say in polite conversation. According to your viewpoint, that means I should.
Whether you should is irrelavant. You have that RIGHT to do so.
Just allow me to "retort", as it is my right as well.
However, I'm not a gakky human being. So I won't. I will admit the temptation is pretty strong though at this point.
Good to know.
Right, exactly, freedom of speech is universal, its not freedom to say what I think you *should* say.
This way the idiots out themselves, they say things that are stupid, exposing their stupidity to the world.
I want these people to feel free to inform me of their stupidity, it is their right after all.
The capacity to create art does not in itself constitute an imperative to do so, just as the ability to call someone a gak-smelling knobgobler does not demand that we make use of it.
Baxx wrote: If you can make blasphemous art, you should make blasphemous art.
Why?
Why not? Seriously...
What if I don't want to make blasphemous art? I most certainly have the capacity to create blasphemous art, so the question then is, to what purpose would I do so? I'm interested in hearing the reasoning behind the above call to create blasphemous art for the sake of creating blasphemous art.
Baxx wrote: If you can make blasphemous art, you should make blasphemous art.
Why?
Why not? Seriously...
we have piss jesus and poo virgin mary, no one got shot, no one claims people shouldnt do art that *literally* in a universally degrading way pisses and poops on Christianity.
But the mere depiction (not even derogatory, you cannot even portray mohammad positively) is art that shouldnt be done.
why exactly?
what is the difference between the one artist who pisses on christ, and an artist who draws mohammad.
be specific in what the difference between those two art forms is that makes piss Jesus a "should" and mohammad a "should not"
Wikipedia wrote:The piece later caused a scandal when it was exhibited in 1989, with detractors, including United States Senators Al D'Amato and Jesse Helms, outraged that Serrano received $15,000 for the work, and $5,000 in 1986[11] from the taxpayer-funded National Endowment for the Arts. Serrano received death threats and hate mail, and he lost grants due to the controversy.
Find where anyone in this thread has argued in favour of Piss Christ but against drawing Mohammad and stop spouting strawmen.
I'm constantly seeing effort into removing cause or value in the actions and art made by others.
Because you disagree with someone, does that mean their art is worthless? Does that mean their actions are nonsense? Does that mean that their effort into criticising authorities is a bad idea?
I would like someone to tell me the difference between drawing muhammad and playing in a metal band. Is one idiotic / donkey-cave behaviour / bad idea / nonsense / worthless while the other is not? I would in that case like to know why.
I know alot of people say music is evil and bad. I'm picking up same wibes here.
I always show consideration for those around me.
I never show any consideration or respect for mass-murderous tyrants and dictators. Not now, not ever.
thats not even close to addressing the point I brought up mr godly walrus, so its funny you bring up straw men when your post is the only one in sight.
what is the specific difference between the two depictions that makes one a should not, and one a should?
The capacity to create art does not in itself constitute an imperative to do so, just as the ability to call someone a gak-smelling knobgobler does not demand that we make use of it.
Blasphemy is an important tool to enforce freedom where there is none. This is part of history. You are correct it is also usefull to constantly ensure that we have that freedom. And any infringement on freedom will quickly be noticed by the use of blasphemy. Which surely is the case here.
If you don't criticise authorities in the face of threat, that's when bad things happen. That's why you should do it.
Baxx wrote: I'm constantly seeing effort into removing cause or value in the actions and art made by others.
Because you disagree with someone, does that mean their art is worthless? Does that mean their actions are nonsense? Does that mean that their effort into criticising authorities is a bad idea?
I would like someone to tell me the difference between drawing muhammad and playing in a metal band. Is one idiotic / donkey-cave behaviour / bad idea / nonsense / worthless while the other is not? I would in that case like to know why.
I know alot of people say music is evil and bad. I'm picking up same wibes here.
Context matters. Showing up playing Sabaton at a Holst festival, while legal, is rather poor taste, whereas doing it on a rock festival is nothing out of the ordinary. Similarly, drawing Mohammed isn't the issue, it's that it's done by a group that, based on earlier actions, blatantly doesn't seek friendly co-existance with any form of Islam. It's even in their damn name.
easysauce wrote: thats not even close to addressing the point I brought up mr godly walrus, so its funny you bring up straw men when your post is the only one in sight.
what is the specific difference between the two depictions that makes one a should not, and one a should?
There is no such distinction, you're implying that someone's made that distinction when no one has, which is a strawman.
easysauce wrote: thats not even close to addressing the point I brought up mr godly walrus, so its funny you bring up straw men when your post is the only one in sight.
what is the specific difference between the two depictions that makes one a should not, and one a should?
There is no such distinction, you're implying that someone's made that distinction when no one has, which is a strawman.
easysauce wrote: thats not even close to addressing the point I brought up mr godly walrus, so its funny you bring up straw men when your post is the only one in sight.
what is the specific difference between the two depictions that makes one a should not, and one a should?
There is no such distinction, you're implying that someone's made that distinction when no one has, which is a strawman.
I just don't think you grasped the implications of what transpired.
'If you deliberately try to provoke a reaction from religious extremists, it's possible that you'll get a reaction from religious extremists?'
So what are the various terrorist acts from the minority of religious extremists over the last century or so supposed to provoke?
satire is an acceptable form of protesting against a religion you might not agree with, you dont affect people by being blaize you do it by being provocative. provocative ideas are the hallmark of a free society.
we do not curtail freedom of speech based on what some whacko might do.
yes we all want to be polite to everyone as much as we can, but some would consider two gays holding hands "impolite" and some would not. They have the right to do so despite what anyone thinks about the should or should not. You dont seem to be able to separate the idea that what you think everyone should do is just your opinion, not some universal truth that everyone must be held up to.
again you are using the "but she asked for it, dressing in a manner that enhanced her desirability, and wearing make up to look sexy" argument, like its putting meat in front of a starving animal.
people are not animals, we are expected to see things that upset us, and deal with it appropriately.
we do not expect to never see things that upset us (well... obviously going by this thread some of us do expect this, but its not an ideal worth striving for)
I just don't think you grasped the implications of what transpired.
'If you deliberately try to provoke a reaction from religious extremists, it's possible that you'll get a reaction from religious extremists?'
So Pam's skirt was too short? She was just asking for it?
Don't you realize how silly that statement is?
It's like... some right-winger shoots up a Planned Parenthood rally. You going to blame PP for provoking that reaction?
What about Martin Luther King Jr.? Do you think he provoked his assassin and thus should bear part of the blame of his death?
No.
Planned Parent, MLK, Pam fething Gellner should be free to express their views without ANY fear of violence.
THAT... insaniak is what we need to stand for.
They absolutely should, but your comparison is off. Rape victims generally do not go around trying to get raped to prove a point, there's a fair bit of context here suggesting that this was a deliberate provocation in the hopes of getting some nutter to go violent.
Context matters. Showing up playing Sabaton at a Holst festival, while legal, is rather poor taste, whereas doing it on a rock festival is nothing out of the ordinary. Similarly, drawing Mohammed isn't the issue, it's that it's done by a group that, based on earlier actions, blatantly doesn't seek friendly co-existance with any form of Islam. It's even in their damn name.
Sure context matters. According to muslim terrorists, making criticising art is such a poor taste it doesn't matter where you do it. Drawing Muhammad is the issue regardless of place, be it France, Denmark or Texas.
Let's say you have a swedish metal band like Anti-Christ, Bestial Mockery, The Project Hate MCMXCIX or similar consisting of "a group that's, based on earlier actions, blatantly doesn't seek friendly co-existance with any form of Christianity. It's even in their damn name".
Now you say what? That this is an issue? Is it poor taste? Doing a show in a rock festival would be out of the ordinary?
They absolutely should, but your comparison is off. Rape victims generally do not go around trying to get raped to prove a point, there's a fair bit of context here suggesting that this was a deliberate provocation in the hopes of getting some nutter to go violent.
But you're saying that people who criticise authorities generally goes around trying to get killed by fanatics?
This was a deliberate provocation to ensure freedom. As similar provocations are done every single day, every second.
I just don't think you grasped the implications of what transpired.
'If you deliberately try to provoke a reaction from religious extremists, it's possible that you'll get a reaction from religious extremists?'
So Pam's skirt was too short? She was just asking for it?
Don't you realize how silly that statement is?
It's like... some right-winger shoots up a Planned Parenthood rally. You going to blame PP for provoking that reaction?
What about Martin Luther King Jr.? Do you think he provoked his assassin and thus should bear part of the blame of his death?
No.
Planned Parent, MLK, Pam fething Gellner should be free to express their views without ANY fear of violence.
THAT... insaniak is what we need to stand for.
They absolutely should, but your comparison is off. Rape victims generally do not go around trying to get raped to prove a point, there's a fair bit of context here suggesting that this was a deliberate provocation in the hopes of getting some nutter to go violent.
No... the comparison is valid.
It matters not ONE BIT, if the rape victim/PP/MLK/Pam G actually DID deliberately provoke.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
timetowaste85 wrote: I like the rape analogy. But let's make it a teeny bit more accurate, shall we:
College girl goes to frat party yells "have at, boys" and rufies HERSELF, then gets upset when she wakes up with man-juice leaking out of every hole.
I mean, they should have worn condoms, clearly!
That's a bit more like what happened here.
So... It's Gellnar's fault that these terrorists tried to kill her?
Context matters. Showing up playing Sabaton at a Holst festival, while legal, is rather poor taste, whereas doing it on a rock festival is nothing out of the ordinary. Similarly, drawing Mohammed isn't the issue, it's that it's done by a group that, based on earlier actions, blatantly doesn't seek friendly co-existance with any form of Islam. It's even in their damn name.
Sure context matters. According to muslim terrorists, making criticising art is such a poor taste it doesn't matter where you do it. Drawing Muhammad is the issue regardless of place, be it France, Denmark or Texas.
Let's say you have a swedish metal band like Anti-Christ, Bestial Mockery, The Project Hate MCMXCIX or similar consisting of "a group that's, based on earlier actions, blatantly doesn't seek friendly co-existance with any form of Christianity. It's even in their damn name".
Now you say what? That this is an issue? Is it poor taste? Doing a show in a rock festival would be out of the ordinary?
If those rock bands had a history of making life more difficult for Christians just because they could then yes, they'd be donkeycaves as well.
But you're saying that people who criticise authorities generally goes around trying to get killed by fanatics?
No, I'm saying that, based on their previous track record of being donkeycaves to Muslims, the organization involved sought to provoke a violent response, while at the same time minimizing risk to themselves by keeping a SWAT team on-site.
I just don't think you grasped the implications of what transpired.
'If you deliberately try to provoke a reaction from religious extremists, it's possible that you'll get a reaction from religious extremists?'
So Pam's skirt was too short? She was just asking for it?
Don't you realize how silly that statement is?
It's like... some right-winger shoots up a Planned Parenthood rally. You going to blame PP for provoking that reaction?
What about Martin Luther King Jr.? Do you think he provoked his assassin and thus should bear part of the blame of his death?
No.
Planned Parent, MLK, Pam fething Gellner should be free to express their views without ANY fear of violence.
THAT... insaniak is what we need to stand for.
They absolutely should, but your comparison is off. Rape victims generally do not go around trying to get raped to prove a point, there's a fair bit of context here suggesting that this was a deliberate provocation in the hopes of getting some nutter to go violent.
No... the comparison is valid.
It matters not ONE BIT, if the rape victim/PP/MLK/Pam G actually DID deliberately provoke.
Yes it does, because it ruins the argument that the SIOA were acting out of good faith and proves that they were, in fact, confrontational douchebags. That doesn't change the fact they have the right to be confrontational douchebags, and no one in this thread has claimed otherwise.
If those rock bands had a history of making life more difficult for Christians just because they could then yes, they'd be donkeycaves as well.
And if christians made the life of any non-christians a sure hell, that would surely be motivation for such a blasphemous reaction?
If this is your argument, then please tell me which of the people drawing muhammad has made the life of muslims more difficult? How was muslim lives made more difficult by drawing muhammad in a private event?
To my knowledge, very few anti-christian swedish metal bands seek friendly co-existance with christians. And this was how you described would cause a problem.
In my experience, very few anti-fascists want to live in friendly co-existance with neo-nazis.
Protestors criticise authorities, result in lethal reprisals.
Where is that the case? In any and all dictatorships.
North Korea
Syria
Libya
Nazi Germany
Soviet Russia
Red Khmer's Cambodia
If you don't want to be tortured and killed, you better keep your trap shut and stop criticising authorities!
However, if you dare criticise dictators, that's like being a slutty prostitute begging to be raped in a men's prison.
Pointing out causal relationships is not the same as condoning them. In a perfect world no one would be killed for one's views. We do not live in a perfect world.
If those rock bands had a history of making life more difficult for Christians just because they could then yes, they'd be donkeycaves as well.
And if christians made the life of any non-christians a sure hell, that would surely be motivation for such a blasphemous reaction?
If this is your argument, then please tell me which of the people drawing muhammad has made the life of muslims more difficult? How was muslim lives made more difficult by drawing muhammad in a private event?
Polarizing the view of Islam, spreading the idea that the entire religion, and by extention those that practice it, are "savages". Trying to paint an incredibly complex geopolitical situation as a clear-cut problem with a simple solution.
The only way to stop being killed for drawing art is keep drawing art. If your swedish metal bands didn't have blasphemous predecessor, they'd all be burned alive.
Tell me which blasphemous metal band wouldn't wish for christian protestors outside their concert venues? Are they all confrontational douchbags? From what I can see, they try as hard as possible to cause a response, but they get none.
Context matters. Showing up playing Sabaton at a Holst festival, while legal, is rather poor taste, whereas doing it on a rock festival is nothing out of the ordinary. Similarly, drawing Mohammed isn't the issue, it's that it's done by a group that, based on earlier actions, blatantly doesn't seek friendly co-existance with any form of Islam. It's even in their damn name.
Sure context matters. According to muslim terrorists, making criticising art is such a poor taste it doesn't matter where you do it. Drawing Muhammad is the issue regardless of place, be it France, Denmark or Texas.
Let's say you have a swedish metal band like Anti-Christ, Bestial Mockery, The Project Hate MCMXCIX or similar consisting of "a group that's, based on earlier actions, blatantly doesn't seek friendly co-existance with any form of Christianity. It's even in their damn name".
Now you say what? That this is an issue? Is it poor taste? Doing a show in a rock festival would be out of the ordinary?
If those rock bands had a history of making life more difficult for Christians just because they could then yes, they'd be donkeycaves as well.
But you're saying that people who criticise authorities generally goes around trying to get killed by fanatics?
No, I'm saying that, based on their previous track record of being donkeycaves to Muslims, the organization involved sought to provoke a violent response, while at the same time minimizing risk to themselves by keeping a SWAT team on-site.
I just don't think you grasped the implications of what transpired.
'If you deliberately try to provoke a reaction from religious extremists, it's possible that you'll get a reaction from religious extremists?'
So Pam's skirt was too short? She was just asking for it?
Don't you realize how silly that statement is?
It's like... some right-winger shoots up a Planned Parenthood rally. You going to blame PP for provoking that reaction?
What about Martin Luther King Jr.? Do you think he provoked his assassin and thus should bear part of the blame of his death?
No.
Planned Parent, MLK, Pam fething Gellner should be free to express their views without ANY fear of violence.
THAT... insaniak is what we need to stand for.
They absolutely should, but your comparison is off. Rape victims generally do not go around trying to get raped to prove a point, there's a fair bit of context here suggesting that this was a deliberate provocation in the hopes of getting some nutter to go violent.
No... the comparison is valid.
It matters not ONE BIT, if the rape victim/PP/MLK/Pam G actually DID deliberately provoke.
Yes it does, because it ruins the argument that the SIOA were acting out of good faith and proves that they were, in fact, confrontational douchebags. That doesn't change the fact they have the right to be confrontational douchebags, and no one in this thread has claimed otherwise.
Critizice all you want...
It doesn't matter if they were acting out of good faith or not.
There's no fething qualifications on freedom of expression. (except for extremely narrow exceptions, such as incitement/fraud/slander/etc...).
That's the point I'm trying to drive home.
I'm mean... there was an attempt of MASS F'N MURDER, on US soil, over a F'N cartoon.
Blasphemy is a form of speech, sure. And telling blasphemers that they are dicks is also speech.
Continuing to point out that criticizing blasphemy is wrong and trying to shut that down basically makes you the [insert your favorite dictator] of this thread.
So far we have "they didn't provoke" and "more people should provoke" as an argument by the same person. And now we have "don't tell people to shut up" and "shut up and stop criticizing those that criticize" as an argument by the same person.
Being provocative donkey-caves doesn't mean the attack was deserved. Just because they were attacked doesn't mean that we shouldn't be allowed to call them provocative donkey-caves.
Blasphemy is a form of speech, sure. And telling blasphemers that they are dicks is also speech.
Continuing to point out that criticizing blasphemy is wrong and trying to shut that down basically makes you the [insert your favorite dictator] of this thread.
So far we have "they didn't provoke" and "more people should provoke" as an argument by the same person. And now we have "don't tell people to shut up" and "shut up and stop criticizing those that criticize" as an argument by the same person.
Being provocative donkey-caves doesn't mean the attack was deserved. Just because they were attacked doesn't mean that we shouldn't be allowed to call them provocative donkey-caves.
How is this such a complicated discussion?
Blasphemy is speech. Blasphemy ensures freedom.
So you would say that pretty much 50% of any all-time top metal bands list consists of dicks and douchbags?
I don't expect you to enjoy bands like Motörhead, Black Sabbath or Slayer? They all fall under your critea of dicks.
I want to bring the drawing of muhammad into a broader category of blasphemous art which includes some of the best art created in all history.
I would like to know such artists are labeled donkey-caves on the same basis that muhammad drawing artists are.
I know of excellent poetry, litterature, drawings, music and art from different decades and different countries. All literally exploding with provocations. All explicitly offensive. And all supreme in quality.
It's already been mentioned that the SPLC considers the SIOA organization a hate group. So does the Anti-defamataion League.
Baxx wrote: Blasphemy is speech. Blasphemy ensures freedom.
So you would say that pretty much 50% of any all-time top metal bands list consists of dicks and douchbags?
I don't expect you to enjoy bands like Motörhead, Black Sabbath or Slayer? They all fall under your critea of dicks.
I want to bring the drawing of muhammad into a broader category of blasphemous art which includes some of the best art created in all history.
I would like to know such artists are labeled donkey-caves on the same basis that muhammad drawing artists are.
Were they created with the explicit purpose to attack Christians at every opportunity, or were they formed as bands that happened to have an "anti-Christian" message?
Baxx wrote: Blasphemy is speech. Blasphemy ensures freedom.
No, no it doesn't. Force of arms ensures freedom. For blasphemy to be tolerated, freedom has to already exist. You've got the causal relationship backwards.
Blasphemy is a form of speech, sure. And telling blasphemers that they are dicks is also speech.
True.
Continuing to point out that criticizing blasphemy is wrong and trying to shut that down basically makes you the [insert your favorite dictator] of this thread.
Nah... freedom of speech is inherently blasphemous in a diverse group.
So far we have "they didn't provoke" and "more people should provoke" as an argument by the same person. And now we have "don't tell people to shut up" and "shut up and stop criticizing those that criticize" as an argument by the same person.
Is this directed at me?
Being provocative donkey-caves doesn't mean the attack was deserved. Just because they were attacked doesn't mean that we shouldn't be allowed to call them provocative donkey-caves.
I don't think anyone has argued othwise ITT.
How is this such a complicated discussion?
Freedom of speech/expression is evidently hard to understand by some.
Because there was an attempt to PROVOKE an attempt of mass f'n murder, on US soil, over a F'N cartoon.
It succeeded. Score 1 point for Free Speech.
Strange how you are in a position to dicate the motivation of others. Can I do the same?
Your writing and participating in this thread is an attempt to provoke an attempt of mass murder. This is actually your motivation for being here. Over what? Small snippets of text?
Because there was an attempt to PROVOKE an attempt of mass f'n murder, on US soil, over a F'N cartoon.
It succeeded. Score 1 point for Free Speech.
Strange how you are in a position to dicate the motivation of others. Can I do the same?
Your writing and participating in this thread is an attempt to provoke an attempt of mass murder. This is actually your motivation for being here.
Does it work?
What evidence do you have to back that theory up? Because, you know, we've actually provided examples of SOIA being donkeycaves to Muslims in the past. Is there anything in insaniak's posting history that makes it likely that he is trying to provoke violence?
Strange how you are in a position to dicate the motivation of others. Can I do the same?
Well, of course you can. Sharing opinions is pretty much how discussion works.
You're free to disagree, obviously... but it seems pretty clear to me that the reaction that they received was pretty much exactly what the organisers of this event were fishing for.
I think we just got trolled for 12 pages. Nobody is actually stupid enough to believe in what the trolls have been spewing. Well done, Baxx. We all fell party to a well done trolling. I'm slightly ashamed at falling for it so badly, honestly. How did you convince some of the long time members to join you in this trolling attempt? That's the part that confuses me the most, I think.
What evidence do you have to back that theory up? Because, you know, we've actually provided examples of SOIA being donkeycaves to Muslims in the past. Is there anything in insaniak's posting history that makes it likely that he is trying to provoke violence?
Would you say Charlie Hebdo attempted to provoke an attempt of mass murder in Paris?
I'm not so much interested in discussing specifics of this event, because it consists of a group of individuals who does not necessarily share the same motive. And I care about the principles, not the specifics. From my impression there seems to be that some of the organizers are rather uptight christian radicals which I have no respect for.
Strange how you are in a position to dicate the motivation of others. Can I do the same?
Well, of course you can. Sharing opinions is pretty much how discussion works.
You're free to disagree, obviously... but it seems pretty clear to me that the reaction that they received was pretty much exactly what the organisers of this event were fishing for.
I don't believe they thought, in their wildest dream, that this would turn out exactly the way it happened.
Their critics is what pushing their profile higher. o.O
Strange how you are in a position to dicate the motivation of others. Can I do the same?
Well, of course you can. Sharing opinions is pretty much how discussion works.
You're free to disagree, obviously... but it seems pretty clear to me that the reaction that they received was pretty much exactly what the organisers of this event were fishing for.
What their motives were I find completely irrelevant for this topic.
Strange how you are in a position to dicate the motivation of others. Can I do the same?
Well, of course you can. Sharing opinions is pretty much how discussion works.
You're free to disagree, obviously... but it seems pretty clear to me that the reaction that they received was pretty much exactly what the organisers of this event were fishing for.
It's not like I didn't post a copy of the speech given by the organizer given at this very event where she states that she thinks that Muslims run our government and that the event was organized and held at this specific venue because some Muslims met there last year for a "we support the Prophet" event.
Swedish metal is garbage. If I listened to that audio trash all the time I'd probably be an angry donkey-cave, too. It all makes sense.
Additionally, and I wasn't going to address it intitially, but I guess I will now - it's laughably arrogant when a condescending, Sam Harris guzzling atheist espouses the claim that, by simply being a Sam Harris guzzling atheist that they are intellectually superior and not a...what was it... "Sheep waiting to be brainwashed." Especially when they're prosthetizing, almost verbatim, the same tired "I'm an intellectually superior atheist" schtick that every other one does.
It's a pretty delightful irony, really.
I also thought it was particularly cute how you selectively ignored every historical instance of mass murderers acting on behalf of personal power as opposed to on behalf of a higher power. A lovely bit of selective editing, indeed.
What evidence do you have to back that theory up? Because, you know, we've actually provided examples of SOIA being donkeycaves to Muslims in the past. Is there anything in insaniak's posting history that makes it likely that he is trying to provoke violence?
Would you say Charlie Hebdo attempted to provoke an attempt of mass murder in Paris?
No, because, again, they did not have an agenda that consists of "Muslims are the evulz!!11!!oneone".
I don't believe they thought, in their wildest dream, that this would turn out exactly the way it happened.
So the presence of a SWAT team was, what? Because cops just happen to enjoy a bit of Mohammed art?
I do like to spend tens of thousands of dollars hiring a security force for an event that has no intention of being offensive while knowing that there are idiots who will respond with terrorism.
That doesn't mean that organizers should have to accept that terrorism is going to happen or that we have to tolerate terrorism as a response.
But arguing that this isn't what they were doing despite their own statements and preparation to defend against such an attack makes that argument pretty shaky.
Maybe all the "hide your purse, lock your car" signs at the parking lot are preemptive victim blaming...
cincydooley wrote: Swedish metal is garbage. If I listened to that audio trash all the time I'd probably be an angry donkey-cave, too. It all makes sense.
Additionally, and I wasn't going to address it intitially, but I guess I will now - it's laughably arrogant when a condescending, Sam Harris guzzling atheist espouses the claim that, by simply being a Sam Harris guzzling atheist that they are intellectually superior and not a...what was it... "Sheep waiting to be brainwashed." Especially when they're prosthetizing, almost verbatim, the same tired "I'm an intellectually superior atheist" schtick that every other one does.
It's a pretty delightful irony, really.
I also thought it was particularly cute how you selectively ignored every historical instance of mass murderers acting on behalf of personal power as opposed to on behalf of a higher power. A lovely bit of selective editing, indeed.
You need to give me more text to work with cause I've lost the references here.
Can I quote you in my signature on you saying swedish metal is garbage?
whembly wrote: I'm mean... there was an attempt of MASS F'N MURDER, on US soil, over a F'N cartoon.
Indeed. And why did that happen?
Because there was an attempt to PROVOKE an attempt of mass f'n murder, on US soil, over a F'N cartoon.
It succeeded. Score 1 point for Free Speech.
So its a case of "the western dbags dared me to do it" and all the jihadis friends were doing it too so these guys thought it would be ok to shoot some people?
Also you are claiming its just an "attempt" to provoke now? what constitutes that? because basically anything controversial ever, could be construed as that. Sure its provocative to do this art, same as a mini skirt is provocative.
Once an activity as benign as drawing a picture becomes the standard for something that can provoke mass murder then we have a problem.
The problem is not that people drew a cartoon they knew would provoke people, its that some people are provoked to mass murder other people over a cartoon.
What evidence do you have to back that theory up? Because, you know, we've actually provided examples of SOIA being donkeycaves to Muslims in the past. Is there anything in insaniak's posting history that makes it likely that he is trying to provoke violence?
Would you say Charlie Hebdo attempted to provoke an attempt of mass murder in Paris?
No, because, again, they did not have an agenda that consists of "Muslims are the evulz!!11!!oneone".
They had an agenda of "make fun of everyone now look at our 'Jesus, a Jew, and Mohammed walk into an orgy' comic".
They also knew that they were provoking and they were okay with that and didn't hide behind a 'we weren't trying to piss people off' excuse.
whembly wrote: I'm mean... there was an attempt of MASS F'N MURDER, on US soil, over a F'N cartoon.
Indeed. And why did that happen?
Because there was an attempt to PROVOKE an attempt of mass f'n murder, on US soil, over a F'N cartoon.
It succeeded. Score 1 point for Free Speech.
Hmmm...yet the US is now 2 less lurking terrorists on its soil. I'm kind of thankful they got provoked into such a foolish decision instead of succeeding somewhere in the future.
I find the group that put on this "show" was ignorant, careless and morally reprehensible. Still they had the right to be free from violence and the would've been murders have no right to violence. Citizens of the US are free to be offended by their actions they are not free to seek violence against their offenders.
It is a wasted effort to choose this point to make the fight against racists in this events context. Nobody wants to hear it right now, as in Joan/John Q Public. It is far more concerning that 2 individuals just attenpted mass murder on US soil as members (however distance) of a globally growing cult of murder and totalitarian theocracy. They attempted mass murder in opposition of the most basic of US rights.
People are actually arguing that the group that drew ugly pictures of a religious figure had it coming to them....on US soil...right? That we should watch what we do or say in fear of provoking lurking murders in our country? Instead of being concerned about the lurking murders.
cincydooley wrote: Swedish metal is garbage. If I listened to that audio trash all the time I'd probably be an angry donkey-cave, too. It all makes sense.
Additionally, and I wasn't going to address it intitially, but I guess I will now - it's laughably arrogant when a condescending, Sam Harris guzzling atheist espouses the claim that, by simply being a Sam Harris guzzling atheist that they are intellectually superior and not a...what was it... "Sheep waiting to be brainwashed." Especially when they're prosthetizing, almost verbatim, the same tired "I'm an intellectually superior atheist" schtick that every other one does.
It's a pretty delightful irony, really.
I also thought it was particularly cute how you selectively ignored every historical instance of mass murderers acting on behalf of personal power as opposed to on behalf of a higher power. A lovely bit of selective editing, indeed.
I am a particular fan of him calling Muslims mass-murdering pedophiles, only to get offended because I might be calling his favorite Swedish metal band "stupid".
timetowaste85 wrote: I like the rape analogy. But let's make it a teeny bit more accurate, shall we:
College girl goes to frat party yells "have at, boys" and rufies HERSELF, then gets upset when she wakes up with man-juice leaking out of every hole.
I mean, they should have worn condoms, clearly!
That's a bit more like what happened here.
Not really. To make your analogy more accurate you need to have the college girl also hire a couple Big Pipe Hitting Bastards to guard her (since these folks paid 50k for armed security). Then when these pipe hitting bastards beat the feth out of the would be rapists, you start to get the right analogy.
The 'draw your favorite sword wielding prophet' thing may have reeked of
And that may upset people. Maybe even correctly so. But regardless, it was within their rights to have the contest, even if the intent WAS to piss off radical islamists. No one forced the two crap bags to show up in body armor and with rifles and damned sure no one made them pull the trigger.
Things like Serrano's PissChrist (publicly funded in part), the Westboro fethers and stomping on the American flag piss me off. Yet I am able to maintain a bit of self control, recognize the gak bags doing these things are gak bags and I don't gun up and start capping them. I have participated in a couple Patriot Guard missions to thwart the Westboro gak bags, but did so well within the legal framework we all live under.
Was the contest provocative/antagonistic? Yep. Does that justify attempting mass murder? Heck no. Should the Feds clamp down of folks with antagonistic points of view and the intent and means to put out that point of view in a very public manner? NO. They should not.
cincydooley wrote: Swedish metal is garbage. If I listened to that audio trash all the time I'd probably be an angry donkey-cave, too. It all makes sense.
Additionally, and I wasn't going to address it intitially, but I guess I will now - it's laughably arrogant when a condescending, Sam Harris guzzling atheist espouses the claim that, by simply being a Sam Harris guzzling atheist that they are intellectually superior and not a...what was it... "Sheep waiting to be brainwashed." Especially when they're prosthetizing, almost verbatim, the same tired "I'm an intellectually superior atheist" schtick that every other one does.
It's a pretty delightful irony, really.
I also thought it was particularly cute how you selectively ignored every historical instance of mass murderers acting on behalf of personal power as opposed to on behalf of a higher power. A lovely bit of selective editing, indeed.
I am a particular fan of him calling Muslims mass-murdering pedophiles, only to get offended because I might be calling his favorite Swedish metal band "stupid".
I don't understand, when did I ever call muslims mass-murdering pedophlies?
I think you are trying to lie about me to slander me?
If you accuse me of having said something, quote me where I said it.
Did I say such things? Or did in fact you call muslims mass-murdering pedophiles?
And most importantly, where did I get offended by someone calling my favourite Swedish metal band stupid? And did you ever say such a thing?
Look, nobody is expecting everyone to adopt Muslim beliefs. Just to show a little respect for them... because the current lack of respect is a very large part of the problem that muslim countries have with the west.
Instead of saying 'Can't draw Mohammed? Huh, that's a bit odd...' we jump straight to 'You can't tell me what to do! Not being allowed to draw someone is a stupid rule!' and then we do everything we can to ridicule it.
Expecting people to show a modicum of respect for others' beliefs isn't forcing people to adopt those beliefs. Just to not be donkey-caves.
If nobody is expecting everyone to adpot to muslim beliefs, the world would be a few artists richer, don't you think? The lack of respect is a very large part of the problem that I have with muslim countries. So muslim countries can arrest, torture and execute minorities and who ever they wish, gays, heathens what ever. And now you argument for muslim countries having a problem with lack of respect due to some cartoons? Your morals are off the chart dude!
You expect me to show respect for mass-murdering pedophiles? Ok, if you show respect to my political belief and my genocidal ethnic cleansing political tyrant idol, I'll be happy to show respect to any and all authoritive figures you or anyone else have.
People are actually arguing that the group that drew ugly pictures of a religious figure had it coming to them....on US soil...right? That we should watch what we do or say in fear of provoking lurking murders in our country? Instead of being concerned about the lurking murders.
In fact, no.
Despite the fervent attempts to claim we're pulling the "she asked for it" card, none of that is going on.
But you are pulling the this-is-senseless/worthless/only provocation/bad idea card?
I saw alot of upright honest people participating in that event, people with valid viewpoints. People who others would characterize as idiots, donkey-caves and douchebags because they dare criticise and provoce authorities in the face of threat.
Baxx wrote: People who others would characterize as idiots, donkey-caves and douchebags because they dare criticise and provoce authorities in the face of threat.
That doesn't sound very sensible at all, could you point us to where people are doing this so that we may mock them?
insaniak wrote: Look, nobody is expecting everyone to adopt Muslim beliefs. Just to show a little respect for them... because the current lack of respect is a very large part of the problem that muslim countries have with the west.
That is a joke, right?
Muslims countries have very, very different problems from each other. But the problems are basically never “the West do caricature of Mohammad”, or “the West has no respect for Islam”. Most of the time the problems are linked to people living inside the country, or from economical and political relationships with other Western or non-Western countries that have nothing to do with religion or respect.
insaniak wrote: Instead of saying 'Can't draw Mohammed? Huh, that's a bit odd...' we jump straight to 'You can't tell me what to do! Not being allowed to draw someone is a stupid rule!' and then we do everything we can to ridicule it.
Rather “So, you want to kill people for the silly crime of drawing Mohammad ? feth you, I will do it anyway.”
The first caricatures were not motivated by infringing this religious rule, and yet still created massive troubles. The latter were an answer to this violent reaction.
cincydooley wrote: People draw Muhammad because they want to specifically to agitate those that believe Muhammad should not be drawn.
insaniak wrote: Or the way my desire to not annoy my Christian friends 'forces' me to not use the Lord's name as a swear word around them.
Goddamnit!
But seriously, see above. You should really reconsider who you want to be nice to. People like Marjane Satrapi and Nebil Karoui, or people like their opponents?
timetowaste85 wrote: I like the rape analogy. But let's make it a teeny bit more accurate, shall we:
College girl goes to frat party yells "have at, boys" and rufies HERSELF, then gets upset when she wakes up with man-juice leaking out of every hole.
I mean, they should have worn condoms, clearly!
That's a bit more like what happened here.
That was pretty disgusting.
Frazzled wrote: Mass murderer? You should read the Quran some time. If you consider any "conqueror" type a mass murderer, then that fits. If you don't, it don't.
That is not from the Quran, but from the Sīra. Know your stuff.
And no, not all conqueror decide to kill every adult male member of a defeated tribe, and to reduce the rest into slavery.
cincydooley wrote: Yes, you enlightened Europeans. Please, teach us more.
insaniak wrote: 'If you deliberately try to provoke a reaction from religious extremists, it's possible that you'll get a reaction from religious extremists?'
Is violence a proportionate reaction, or a disproportionate reaction?
Baxx wrote: People who others would characterize as idiots, donkey-caves and douchebags because they dare criticise and provoce authorities in the face of threat.
That doesn't sound very sensible at all, could you point us to where people are doing this so that we may mock them?
Sure. Here:
cincydooley wrote: People draw Muhammad because they want to specifically to agitate those that believe Muhammad should not be drawn.
Baxx wrote: People who others would characterize as idiots, donkey-caves and douchebags because they dare criticise and provoce authorities in the face of threat.
That doesn't sound very sensible at all, could you point us to where people are doing this so that we may mock them?
Sure. Here:
cincydooley wrote: People draw Muhammad because they want to specifically to agitate those that believe Muhammad should not be drawn.
Where does cincy call anyone an idiot, donkey-cave, or douchebag because they dare criticise and provoke authorities in the face of threat? You REALLY need to stop making up arguments to argue against, we've called you out loads of times already.
Well I constantly see unclear statements that to draw muhammed is senseless, it is of no value, it is a bad idea and so forth. And I'm seeing descriptions like idiots, donkey-caves and douchbags all over.
I've asked multiple times for direct quotes, but all I get is dubious.
Baxx wrote: Well I constantly see unclear statements that to draw muhammed is senseless, it is of no value, it is a bad idea and so forth. And I'm seeing descriptions like idiots, donkey-caves and douchbags all over.
I've asked multiple times for direct quotes, but all I get is dubious.
No, you don't. The direct quotes have been provided.
Baxx wrote: People who others would characterize as idiots, donkey-caves and douchebags because they dare criticise and provoce authorities in the face of threat.
That doesn't sound very sensible at all, could you point us to where people are doing this so that we may mock them?
Sure. Here:
cincydooley wrote: People draw Muhammad because they want to specifically to agitate those that believe Muhammad should not be drawn.
Where does cincy call anyone an idiot, donkey-cave, or douchebag because they dare criticise and provoke authorities in the face of threat? You REALLY need to stop making up arguments to argue against, we've called you out loads of times already.
cincydooley wrote: Yes. They were terrorists. And the event organizers are donkey-caves. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
literally the 2nd quote...
For some reason some people think its more of a problem that people would draw a cartoon, with full knowledge that it is provocative, then that people are so easily provoked as to kill other human beings over a cartoon.
Again,
the problem is not that people drew these cartoons knowing that a small # of people find the cartoons provocative, the problem is that a small # of people are able to be provoked to mass murder simply by cartoons.
Is our culture about protecting the things like freedom of speech,
or accommodating a small # of people, and being "nice" to them where the only thing between them killing, and not killing, is a cartoon.
There's so much text flying around, I have trouble keeping up. But thank you. One such example of people being described as donkey-caves, and the apparant reason in my eyes is because they dare to criticise in the face of threat of murder and terror.
I, d-usa, of Oklahoma City at the IP address on file somewhere within the deep hidden servers of Dakka-Dakka, hereby declare that this event was organized by a group that I consider to be a giant big veined penis, at a location directly chosen to add insult to the basic premise of the event, which is to stand up to the Muslims running the government of the United States by drawing offensive cartoons because they have freedom of speech as evidenced by the direct quotes of the person that was in charge of the events which I observed with my own eyes and heard with my own ears and the video of which I posted in this thread, a person that I consider queen of the donkey caves involved in organizing this.
There is your direct quote. You will notice a lack of any attempt to forbit her from being stupid. You will notice a lack of any justification for attacking her. She is just an idiot, that's my opinion.
That and that metal sucks and that blasphemous Swedish metal isn't any sort of freedom fighting and that it is just a fashionable way to make impressionable youths pay for t-shirts with weird writing on it that nobody can read.
For some reason some people think its more of a problem that people would draw a cartoon, with full knowledge that it is provocative, then that people are so easily provoked as to kill other human beings over a cartoon.
For some reason some people think its more of a problem that people would draw a cartoon, with full knowledge that it is provocative, then that people are so easily provoked as to kill other human beings over a cartoon.
whembly wrote: I'm mean... there was an attempt of MASS F'N MURDER, on US soil, over a F'N cartoon.
Indeed. And why did that happen?
Because there was an attempt to PROVOKE an attempt of mass f'n murder, on US soil, over a F'N cartoon.
It succeeded. Score 1 point for Free Speech.
You are the one stating that its the provokers fault and focusing on them instead of the terrorists.
You are stating that the mass murder happened because the event organizers had the event, which is just simply not true. It happened because some people cannot handle a cartoon like adults.
You are the one stating that its the provokers fault and focusing on them instead of the terrorists.
You are stating that the mass murder happened because the event organizers had the event, which is just simply not true. It happened because some people cannot handle a cartoon like adults.
Actually, the mass murder did not happen at all, because the attempting perps got made room temp before they could succeed.
easysauce wrote: You are the one stating that its the provokers fault and focusing on them instead of the terrorists.
You are stating that the mass murder happened because the event organizers had the event, which is just simply not true. It happened because some people cannot handle a cartoon like adults.
easysauce wrote: You are the one stating that its the provokers fault and focusing on them instead of the terrorists.
You know that it's possible to think that one person's actions are wrong while simultaneously thinking that someone else's actions are wrong, right?
You are stating that the mass murder happened because the event organizers had the event, which is just simply not true.
So... if there hadn't been a Mohammed-themed 'art' contest being run, which Mohammed-themed art contest would these two guys have shown up at?
Well, it seems at least one of these wondrously considerate and accommodating citizens tried to go overseas to wage Jihad, and since they were both radicalized and considered themselves good Mujahadin the odds of them just chilling out and being law abiding polite citizens of the US is pretty slim. They eventually would have found another excuse to gun up and claim their place in paradise, either CONUS or someplace else. Seeing as they were clearly tactically 'challenged' from a skills perspective, it was not likely to end up well for them wherever they decided to attempt mass slaughter of nonbelievers. They used this event and venue as an excuse to get in on all those martyr benefits.
Evidently the attackers lacked the agency to make their own decisions, and could only respond to this provocation by violence...
I never said that.
In the wake of Charlie Hebdo, though, it would be the epitome of naive to organise an event like this and not expect that a violent response was likely. And given the level of security on hand, that's exactly what the organisers expected.
Well, it seems at least one of these wondrously considerate and accommodating citizens tried to go overseas to wage Jihad, and since they were both radicalized and considered themselves good Mujahadin the odds of them just chilling out and being law abiding polite citizens of the US is pretty slim. They eventually would have found another excuse to gun up and claim their place in paradise, either CONUS or someplace else. Seeing as they were clearly tactically 'challenged' from a skills perspective, it was not likely to end up well for them wherever they decided to attempt mass slaughter of nonbelievers. They used this event and venue as an excuse to get in on all those martyr benefits.
Sure.
That doesn't change the (apparently deliberately) provocative nature of the event in question.
Left to its own devices, a man-eating tiger is going to eat someone. Deliberately walking into his den wearing 15kg of raw meat strapped to your legs is still going to provoke him... the fact that he would have eaten someone else if you hadn't come along doesn't change that.
You are the one stating that its the provokers fault and focusing on them instead of the terrorists.
You are stating that the mass murder happened because the event organizers had the event, which is just simply not true. It happened because some people cannot handle a cartoon like adults.
Actually, the mass murder did not happen at all, because the attempting perps got made room temp before they could succeed.
easysauce wrote: You are the one stating that its the provokers fault and focusing on them instead of the terrorists.
You know that it's possible to think that one person's actions are wrong while simultaneously thinking that someone else's actions are wrong, right?
right, and if you were listening, you would know that my point is that the organizers were not in the wrong to hold their event, right? right?
I will say it again for you,
The problem is NOT that they put on an even that they knew would offend some people, the problem IS that some people are so offended by a cartoon that they are willing to kill people over it.
Well, it seems at least one of these wondrously considerate and accommodating citizens tried to go overseas to wage Jihad, and since they were both radicalized and considered themselves good Mujahadin the odds of them just chilling out and being law abiding polite citizens of the US is pretty slim. They eventually would have found another excuse to gun up and claim their place in paradise, either CONUS or someplace else. Seeing as they were clearly tactically 'challenged' from a skills perspective, it was not likely to end up well for them wherever they decided to attempt mass slaughter of nonbelievers. They used this event and venue as an excuse to get in on all those martyr benefits.
Sure.
That doesn't change the (apparently deliberately) provocative nature of the event in question.
Left to its own devices, a man-eating tiger is going to eat someone. Deliberately walking into his den wearing 15kg of raw meat strapped to your legs is still going to provoke him... the fact that he would have eaten someone else if you hadn't come along doesn't change that.
And?
They tried here. And got capped without doing too much damage in the process. And the crap bags staging the event got to exercise their free speech.
Left to its own devices, a man-eating tiger is going to eat someone. Deliberately walking into his den wearing 15kg of raw meat strapped to your legs is still going to provoke him... the fact that he would have eaten someone else if you hadn't come along doesn't change that.
well its a good thing we are human beings that should be held to a higher standard then base animals!
it is in animal nature to eat when hungry, hence why meat in front of a tiger by its nature will be eaten.
it is not human nature to kill people over cartoons, hence why only a small % of the population is riled up by a cartoon to the point where they shoot people.
again, you keep focusing on the artists provocation and diminishing/deflecting the blame onto them.
Which you've literally taken out of context. Well done.
you called the organizers douches, thats not out of context when talking about people in this thread painting the event organizers as douches... besides which, no one should give a hoot how douchey they are when you have crazy people that attempt murder over cartoons to give a hoot about.
Evidently the attackers lacked the agency to make their own decisions, and could only respond to this provocation by violence...
I never said that.
In the wake of Charlie Hebdo, though, it would be the epitome of naive to organise an event like this and not expect that a violent response was likely. And given the level of security on hand, that's exactly what the organisers expected.
You have consistently laid the blame for this at the feet of those who organized the event, and attempted to diminish the role of those who carried out this shooting with whom the ultimate responsibility lies;
insaniak wrote: 'If you deliberately try to provoke a reaction from religious extremists, it's possible that you'll get a reaction from religious extremists?'
With any event like this that causes controversy there is likely to be a reaction. But to categorize an attempt at murder as the same as any other reaction, like a peaceful protest is just asinine.
insaniak wrote: Because there was an attempt to PROVOKE an attempt of mass f'n murder, on US soil, over a F'N cartoon.
insaniak wrote: You're free to disagree, obviously... but it seems pretty clear to me that the reaction that they received was pretty much exactly what the organisers of this event were fishing for.
So are you able to substantiate these claims that the organizers were attempting to "PROVOKE an attempt of mass f'n murder" yet, or that the shooting "was pretty much exactly what the organisers of this event were fishing for"? It's statements like these, with no evidence, and leaps of logic, that show an attempt to deflect the responsibility for this attempt at murder.
easysauce wrote: again, you keep focusing on the artists provocation and diminishing/deflecting the blame onto them..
Yes, in a discussion that involves one point that we agree on, and one point that we disagree on, my posts explaining my disagreement focus on the point that we disagree on.
Weird how that works.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: But to categorize an attempt at murder as the same as any other reaction, like a peaceful protest is just asinine.
Probably just as well that nobody has done that, then.
Well, it seems at least one of these wondrously considerate and accommodating citizens tried to go overseas to wage Jihad, and since they were both radicalized and considered themselves good Mujahadin the odds of them just chilling out and being law abiding polite citizens of the US is pretty slim. They eventually would have found another excuse to gun up and claim their place in paradise, either CONUS or someplace else. Seeing as they were clearly tactically 'challenged' from a skills perspective, it was not likely to end up well for them wherever they decided to attempt mass slaughter of nonbelievers. They used this event and venue as an excuse to get in on all those martyr benefits.
Sure.
That doesn't change the (apparently deliberately) provocative nature of the event in question.
Left to its own devices, a man-eating tiger is going to eat someone. Deliberately walking into his den wearing 15kg of raw meat strapped to your legs is still going to provoke him... the fact that he would have eaten someone else if you hadn't come along doesn't change that.
And?
They tried here. And got capped without doing too much damage in the process. And the crap bags staging the event got to exercise their free speech.
Sounds like a good thing.
They were wearing body armor to Even money say they had no plates in
Dreadclaw69 wrote: But to categorize an attempt at murder as the same as any other reaction, like a peaceful protest is just asinine.
Probably just as well that nobody has done that, then.
You just did. To go back to the analogy used earlier you basically said that if someone dresses like a slut they deserve to get treated like a slut. You are blaming the victims.
You claimed that if you seek to provoke a reaction that you should expect a reaction. In this instance was the reaction of violence proportionate, or disproportionate?
So are you able to substantiate these claims that the organizers were attempting to "PROVOKE an attempt of mass f'n murder" yet, or that the shooting "was pretty much exactly what the organisers of this event were fishing for"? It's statements like these, with no evidence, and leaps of logic, that show an attempt to deflect the responsibility for this attempt at murder.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: You claimed that if you seek to provoke a reaction that you should expect a reaction. In this instance was the reaction of violence proportionate, or disproportionate?
I already said (several times) earlier in the thread that I think the reaction was inappropriate.
What you're taking as meaning something completely different is my statement that this inappropate reaction should have been (and seemingly was) completely expected, given recent events.
If you seek to provoke a reaction, then absolutely you should expect a reaction. And if you've seen the reaction that has resulted previously, you should expect a similar reaction.
That's not an endorsement of that reaction. Nor is it a suggestion that this reaction is no different to writing a stinging rebuke on Twitter. It's simply a statement that if someone does something that prompts a violent response from religious extremists, there's a very strong likelihood that someone else doing the same thing will prompt a similar reaction.
So are you able to substantiate these claims that the organizers were attempting to "PROVOKE an attempt of mass f'n murder" yet, or that the shooting "was pretty much exactly what the organisers of this event were fishing for"?
It's a statement of opinion, not a doctorate submission. That opinion is based on the nature of the event, the timing of the event, the location of the event, and the nature of the people organising it.
It's statements like these, with no evidence, and leaps of logic, that show an attempt to deflect the responsibility for this attempt at murder.
Then you're still completely misunderstanding the point being made.
The shooters are entirely responsible for their own actions. That is not in dispute.
That doesn't change the fact that this event was a trigger for those actions.
What you're taking as meaning something completely different is my statement that this inappropate reaction should have been (and seemingly was) completely expected, given recent events.
If you seek to provoke a reaction, then absolutely you should expect a reaction. And if you've seen the reaction that has resulted previously, you should expect a similar reaction.
That's not an endorsement of that reaction. Nor is it a suggestion that this reaction is no different to writing a stinging rebuke on Twitter. It's simply a statement that if someone does something that prompts a violent response from religious extremists, there's a very strong likelihood that someone else doing the same thing will prompt a similar reaction.
You've made this statement over and over again. I've asked what purpose it has. What's the motivation? Is there some point behind this? Or is it only stating the obvious without any deeper meaning to it? Is it relevant in any aspect?
It looks to me as if you have an opinion between the lines of this statement.
easysauce wrote: again, you keep focusing on the artists provocation and diminishing/deflecting the blame onto them..
Yes, in a discussion that involves one point that we agree on, and one point that we disagree on, my posts explaining my disagreement focus on the point that we disagree on.
Weird how that works.
Right, your point is that its not ok to provoke people without expecting a violent reaction from a very small # of people who shoot people over cartoons.
My point is that the terrorists didnt shoot this place up because of the cartoon, they shot it up because it was convenient for them target to them at the time in a long standing campaign of terror against various things they dont like. Its not like ISIL hasnt been making threats and has the means to carry them out in terms of small scale attacks. If they really are just a tiger as you assert, if its not this piece of meat, its the next piece. If not this event, another.
Since ISIL has taken credit for the attack, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32589546 its a bit shady to blame some small time event organizers when they were just the target of opportunity not the root cause is just silly.
We are lucky this event spent the money on security and avoided tragedy, its not the victims fault they were chosen, regardless of how much they were asking for it, or how douchey they are.
Right, your point is that its not ok to provoke people without expecting a violent reaction from a very small # of people who shoot people over cartoons.
Well this particular behaviour comes from an interpretation of islam. I can condemn an entire religions based on the violent message they include and how they inspires violence.
Baxx wrote: Well this particular behaviour comes from an interpretation of islam.
I know all about that version. I also dealt with quite a few other "versions" that were not radicalized. Just warning you in a polite way to not brand an entire group of people who follow the Islamic faith.
Right, your point is that its not ok to provoke people without expecting a violent reaction from a very small # of people who shoot people over cartoons.
No, that is not, and has never been, my point.
You're the one using the tiger analogy, that to dress in a meat suit in a tiger cage is to expect to be eaten, much the same way to do things ISIL disapproves of is to expect to be attacked. (who are not most mustlims as ive stated)
insaniak wrote: it would be the epitome of naive to organise an event like this and not expect that a violent response was likely. And given the level of security on hand, that's exactly what the organisers expected.
insaniak wrote: 'If you deliberately try to provoke a reaction from religious extremists, it's possible that you'll get a reaction from religious extremists?'
insaniak wrote: Because there was an attempt to PROVOKE an attempt of mass f'n murder, on US soil, over a F'N cartoon.
insaniak wrote: it seems pretty clear to me that the reaction that they received was pretty much exactly what the organisers of this event were fishing for.
riight, you never said anything that blamed the victim or said they were provoking it or asking for it...
Baxx wrote: Well this particular behaviour comes from an interpretation of islam. I can condemn an entire religions based on the violent message they include and how they inspires violence.
We can go down that road with point; counter point.
Baxx wrote: Well this particular behaviour comes from an interpretation of islam.
I know all about that version. I also dealt with quite a few other "versions" that were not radicalized. Just warning you in a polite way to not brand an entire group of people who follow the Islamic faith.
I never talked about muslims. There may be a language barrier here cause when I speak of things like "religion" or "islam", I don't mean people.
easysauce wrote: your the one using the tiger analogy, that to dress in a meat suit in a tiger cage is to expect to be eaten, much the same way to do things ISIL disapproves of is to expect to be attacked. (who are not most mustlims as ive stated)
More or less, yes.
That's a very, very long way away from "its not ok to provoke people without expecting a violent reaction from a very small # of people who shoot people over cartoons."
To be clear, what I've been saying is that in this specific situation the event organisers should have expected (and seemingly did expect) a violent reaction.
Not that people should expect a violent reaction to anything they do that might potentially provoke someone... Or that said violent reaction would be an acceptable response.
To be honest, I'm at a loss as to why you seem to find this idea so offensive. It's not 'blaming' the victim... it's just common sense. If I drop a rock on my foot, and it hurts, I'm going to expect that the next rock I drop on my foot might also hurt.
Baxx wrote: Well this particular behaviour comes from an interpretation of islam.
I know all about that version. I also dealt with quite a few other "versions" that were not radicalized. Just warning you in a polite way to not brand an entire group of people who follow the Islamic faith.
I am at loss as to why this point is so important to you. What is the point of it? I've asked multiple times, but have no clue as to why it in any way is relevant.
easysauce wrote: your the one using the tiger analogy, that to dress in a meat suit in a tiger cage is to expect to be eaten, much the same way to do things ISIL disapproves of is to expect to be attacked. (who are not most mustlims as ive stated)
More or less, yes.
That's a very, very long way away from "its not ok to provoke people without expecting a violent reaction from a very small # of people who shoot people over cartoons."
To be clear, what I've been saying is that in this specific situation the event organisers should have expected (and seemingly did expect) a violent reaction.
Not that people should expect a violent reaction to anything they do that might potentially provoke someone... Or that said violent reaction would be an acceptable response.
To be honest, I'm at a loss as to why you seem to find this idea so offensive. It's not 'blaming' the victim... it's just common sense. If I drop a rock on my foot, and it hurts, I'm going to expect that the next rock I drop on my foot might also hurt.
right, why do you seem surprised that people doing something they know could in theory cause a violent reaction to protect themselves and have an hint it was coming?
they took precautions as needed, that doesnt mean they wanted to be attacked, it just meant they knew it was a better then normal chance. thats common sense, when a rock falls on your head, you wear a helmet next time you go rock climbing, you dont quit rock climbing.
when you are trying to make a stand, and your oponents are not rational people who use words instead of bombs/bullets, you plan to have to protect yourself from actual threats to peoples lives.
easysauce wrote: right, why do you seem surprised that people doing something they know could in theory cause a violent reaction to protect themselves and have an hint it was coming?
I have no idea where you found surprise at this in any of my posts in this thread.
Insaniak's message isn't hard to understand at all. And he's made analogy after analogy to make his point. Yet you all keep coming back to an idea that the terrorists aren't being condemned. What is so difficult about his point that he doesn't support either group? A bunch of us who are in agreement with him NEVER said we support the terrorists. Nobody in the thread has ever said they support the terrorists. Everyone here disagrees with what they've done. However, the INTELLIGENT members also realize that the people who held the convention were giant douche nozzles. They were completely within their right to do so. Nobody has ever disagreed with that. I think Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park said it best: "you were all just so preoccupied with whether you could that you didn't stop to think that you should".*
This is the essence of the critics I've posted earlier. Dubious messages about people being donkey-caves and douchbags.
Since when did criticism and mockery of mass murderous authorities qualify for being douchbags and donkey-caves?
I reckon that's why you slander them. Because you use the message "just because they can doesnt mean they should".
So tell me, just because I can make art, that doesn't mean I should? Why shouldn't I?
I've heard this argument over and over again, yet there's no reason or value behind it.
Just because I can do something meaningfull in my life, that don't mean I should? Says who? You?
If someone have the opinion that drawing mass-murderous authorities is douchbag behavior, please say so in clear text. Or change how to communicate cause then I am mislead to believe that's what you mean.
I don't think "being part of a Muslim/Islam hating group and making a 'draw Muhammad' contest with the goal of offending a specific group of people you've already admitted to hating" counts as meaningful. Your definition of "meaningful" is clearly different than mine.
A tastefully done nude painting, or even a provocative one can draw criticism, but still be meaningful as it addresses the beauty of the human body. A loud, angry rock song that defines the things wrong with government can show the aspects we need to change. I can add a hundred more examples and you'll tell me I have no right to regulate art (or some other phrase meaning the same damn thing). You're a troll. Plain and simple. Anyway, at 400 posts on the site, I hope you wear out your welcome quickly and leave. You won't be missed.
insaniak wrote: That's not an endorsement of that reaction. Nor is it a suggestion that this reaction is no different to writing a stinging rebuke on Twitter. It's simply a statement that if someone does something that prompts a violent response from religious extremists, there's a very strong likelihood that someone else doing the same thing will prompt a similar reaction.
You compared the terrorists to an animal that has no higher no higher reasoning or logic to excuse their actions. Now you feel that violence is almost inevitable any time a given religion is mocked? So the organizers should have known better and not had their event? This basically puts topics completely off limits because of a fear of violence, and blaming anyone who does broach this topic for that reaction.
"Susan what happened to your face?"
"It was my fault"
"What?"
"I should have known not to ask him how his day at work went. I provoked him?"
Saying that we should expect violence because we say something that someone else takes as provocation is not the mark of a free society. No matter how ill advised this event may have been there was nothing about it that should have have attempted murder "likely". We do not tolerate people killing over a difference of opinion, and try to explain it away as the fault of the speaker for being provocative. Why are you making that excuse now?
It's a statement of opinion, not a doctorate submission. That opinion is based on the nature of the event, the timing of the event, the location of the event, and the nature of the people organising it.
Really? Because
insaniak wrote: Because there was an attempt to PROVOKE an attempt of mass f'n murder, on US soil, over a F'N cartoon.
That reads different to an opinion.
insaniak wrote: The shooters are entirely responsible for their own actions. That is not in dispute.
I agree
insaniak wrote: That doesn't change the fact that this event was a trigger for those actions.
And you're back to making excuses. Trigger or not, attempted murder is not an appropriate reaction.
The event was not a 'trigger', and thinking it was shows a total lack of understanding of what went on.
Just as the Boston Marathon was not a 'trigger' for the Tsarnaev brothers.
The perps in this case were radicalized and committed to jihad before this event was announced. Simpson as far back as 2011 was wanting to go kill for Allah in Somalia. We don't know yet when Soofi made his decision that killing then being killed for Allah was the way to go, but it was very VERY likely NOT because of this particular conference.
Even in the attacks in Paris, the perps had been radicalized well before and had already taken the path of jihad.
The conference was a target, NOT a trigger. Yes, it was chosen as a target to make a statement (just as the Charlie Hebdo office was) and to instill fear/change behavior patterns. But it was not a trigger.
The event was nothing more then the target, not a cause. Had this not occured, they probably would have hit a church or some other soft target.
Hell, we should probably be glad that this event did occur, because they had security there. There are so many targets of opportunity out there that doesn't have security.
timetowaste85 wrote: Insaniak's message isn't hard to understand at all. And he's made analogy after analogy to make his point. Yet you all keep coming back to an idea that the terrorists aren't being condemned. What is so difficult about his point that he doesn't support either group? A bunch of us who are in agreement with him NEVER said we support the terrorists. Nobody in the thread has ever said they support the terrorists. Everyone here disagrees with what they've done. However, the INTELLIGENT members also realize that the people who held the convention were giant douche nozzles. They were completely within their right to do so. Nobody has ever disagreed with that. I think Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park said it best: "you were all just so preoccupied with whether you could that you didn't stop to think that you should".*
* Slightly edited to remove the scientist part.
The message is flawed.
If you can't saying certain things (excepting very narrow prohibitations) in the "Arena of Ideas"... then Freedom of Speech doesn't exist.
And yes, you should SUPPORT peoples' rights to say/express abhorent ideas VEHEMENTLY.
The event was nothing more then the target, not a cause. Had this not occured, they probably would have hit a church or some other soft target.
Hell, we should probably be glad that this event did occur, because they had security there. There are so many targets of opportunity out there that doesn't have security.
Even if somebody says that you should know that there is a risk to your speech, you can still say it.
Even if you get your ass kicked for saying it, you can still say it, and people can still tell you that you are a dumbass for saying it.
They can say it because of freedom of speech, and everybody else can call them stupid idiots for saying it because of freedom of speech.
President Obama can go on TV and call them idiots, because of freedom of speech.
Congress critters can go on TV and call them heroes, because of freedom of speech.
All this bitching and moaning about "you can't criticize them for what they said" while at the same time criticizing what others said is just beyond stupid, and I am amazed that people don't see that.
They can say whatever stupid thing they want.
I can say that they are stupid for saying it.
You can say that I am stupid for thinking that they are stupid.
That's all fine.
But trying to say that we shouldn't be allowed to say that they are stupid while wrapping yourself in a misguided blanket of free speech is stupid.
Will the same people shout down veterans who complain about someone burning the flag? Will the same people shout down the idiots who are restricting the free speech of the Westborough Baptist Church with their loud motorcycles?
Calling people who use their speech idiots and misguided isn't restricting free speech. Telling others that they shouldn't call idiots out is restricting free speech.
Nobody, absolutely nobody, in this thread has tried to argue that there should be laws or regulations passed to prevent another "Draw Whoever" event. Nobody is arguing for increased regulations against free speech. People are using their speech to tell others that their speech is stupid. That's it.
The threshold d-usa, is that when bullets are about to fly over a fething cartoon... my give-a-feth meter over content dissipates.
So much effort is spent on whether or not Geller's group should've exercise this, and not enough spent on the fact that literally, two ISIL radicals just tried to commit mass murder on US soil.
It's like, people are acting like we do have laws against Hate Speech here in the states. (we don't)
geller and maplethorp both used art to provoke and offend. People love maplethorp because he offended Christians. People hate geller b cause she offend Muslims. People tell Christians to tolerate maplethorp and tell geller it's her fault.
Chriatians sued and protested. Islamists Brought guns and started shooting.
d-usa wrote: And who in this thread defended the terrorists?
Too many posters here are effectively blaming the victim. Fortunately this is Texas so everything turned out right in the end. Thanks Sam Houston!
Do you agree with this statement? I think you do. 1. In the US, freedom of speech extends to even speech we do not like or may find offensive. 2. I find the Geller stuff offensive, if not in content, in intent. 3. Regardless of #2, #1 still applies. 4. Regardless of #3, I still reserve the right to call Geller on it.
d-usa wrote: And who in this thread defended the terrorists?
Too many posters here are effectively blaming the victim. Fortunately this is Texas so everything turned out right in the end. Thanks Sam Houston!
Do you agree with this statement? I think you do.
1. In the US, freedom of speech extends to even speech we do not like or may find offensive.
2. I find the Geller stuff offensive, if not in content, in intent.
3. Regardless of #2, #1 still applies.
4. Regardless of #3, I still reserve the right to call Geller on it.
Like I said, she can bitch, I can bitch about her, others can bitch about me bitching about her, we all agree that terrorists are donkey-caves.
Saying that your actions will piss off violent terrorists, in addition to thousands of non-violent followers of the same faith, is not the same as advocating for or endorsing a Heckler's Veto.
Edit: saying you are stupid for leaving your purse in your front seat and the keys in the car does not advocate car theft. It's really not difficult, your conclusion is not supported by the evidence.
d-usa wrote: Saying that your actions will piss off violent terrorists, in addition to thousands of non-violent followers of the same faith, is not the same as advocating for or endorsing a Heckler's Veto.
Edit: saying you are stupid for leaving your purse in your front seat and the keys in the car does not advocate car theft. It's really not difficult, your conclusion is not supported by the evidence.
Disagree.
Criticizing the event’s organizers by saying they had "provoked" or “invited” the attack is an attempt to shame those people (and other like minded) from doing this again in the future, in fear of possible violent reprisal. That is the Heckler's Veto d...
Even then, so what it if was provocative... the damned purpose to tell these radical donkey-caves that they can’t dictate what we do or what we say, because we have THAT right to free expression. And furthermore, no religion deserves obedience or reverence.
If we were to obey the dictates of that strain of Islam, where we abide by the prohibition of drawing the prophet, aren't we succumbing to the threats of terrorisms?
Co'tor Shas wrote: They look more like soldiers than police in those pictures. Is is normal for them to use non-blue/black outfits?
It's because they're a SWAT team, I believe. And uniforms and equipment vary widely by department.
As for the OP: You'd likely be hard pressed to find a more adamant free speech advocate than me, but the whole purpose of this event was to be inflammatory, disrespectful and provocative to Muslims, whether peaceful or radical. I wonder if the event organizers got what they wanted out of it?
So why is it okay to put a crucifix in a jar of urine? Why is it okay to have a picture of Mary surrounded with elephant dung? Why is okay to mock Jesus? Is this also inflammatory, disrespectful to Christians? But I don't see Christians screaming God is Great and go on a killing spree because their religion is being mocked.
This is a free country. You should be able to voice or draw opinions and not worry about being killed for it. This proves a point that Islam is intolerant of those who are not Islam.
Baxx wrote: People who others would characterize as idiots, donkey-caves and douchebags because they dare criticise and provoce authorities in the face of threat.
That doesn't sound very sensible at all, could you point us to where people are doing this so that we may mock them?
Sure. Here:
cincydooley wrote: People draw Muhammad because they want to specifically to agitate those that believe Muhammad should not be drawn.
Where does cincy call anyone an idiot, donkey-cave, or douchebag because they dare criticise and provoke authorities in the face of threat? You REALLY need to stop making up arguments to argue against, we've called you out loads of times already.
cincydooley wrote: Yes. They were terrorists. And the event organizers are donkey-caves. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
literally the 2nd quote...
You're doing that thing where you attribute your interpretation of what someone meant to them again. Nothing in that quote says anything whatsoever about why cincy feels the event organizers were donkey-caves. The claim was that we call them donkey-caves because they critizise authority. We don't; we critizice them because they do so in a counter-productive and needlessly confrontational manner. Again, there's more than a little evidence to suggest that this was done to spite Muslims, as opposed to actually achieving anything.
CptJake wrote: The event was not a 'trigger', and thinking it was shows a total lack of understanding of what went on.
Just as the Boston Marathon was not a 'trigger' for the Tsarnaev brothers.
The perps in this case were radicalized and committed to jihad before this event was announced. Simpson as far back as 2011 was wanting to go kill for Allah in Somalia. We don't know yet when Soofi made his decision that killing then being killed for Allah was the way to go, but it was very VERY likely NOT because of this particular conference.
Even in the attacks in Paris, the perps had been radicalized well before and had already taken the path of jihad.
The conference was a target, NOT a trigger. Yes, it was chosen as a target to make a statement (just as the Charlie Hebdo office was) and to instill fear/change behavior patterns. But it was not a trigger.
That, I feel, is fair criticism. At the same time, though, I would argue that acting in a spiteful manner for the sake of being spiteful is not going to help prevent others from becoming radicalized; quite the contrary.
whembly wrote: The threshold d-usa, is that when bullets are about to fly over a fething cartoon... my give-a-feth meter over content dissipates.
So much effort is spent on whether or not Geller's group should've exercise this, and not enough spent on the fact that literally, two ISIL radicals just tried to commit mass murder on US soil.
It's like, people are acting like we do have laws against Hate Speech here in the states. (we don't)
Maybe that's the disconnect?
People expect ISIS to behave like militant islamists, because that's what they are. SIOA claims to be a group fighting for human rights; we hold such groups to a higher standard than petty, spiteful sniping.
Co'tor Shas wrote: They look more like soldiers than police in those pictures. Is is normal for them to use non-blue/black outfits?
It's because they're a SWAT team, I believe. And uniforms and equipment vary widely by department.
As for the OP:
You'd likely be hard pressed to find a more adamant free speech advocate than me, but the whole purpose of this event was to be inflammatory, disrespectful and provocative to Muslims, whether peaceful or radical. I wonder if the event organizers got what they wanted out of it?
So why is it okay to put a crucifix in a jar of urine? Why is it okay to have a picture of Mary surrounded with elephant dung? Why is okay to mock Jesus? Is this also inflammatory, disrespectful to Christians? But I don't see Christians screaming God is Great and go on a killing spree because their religion is being mocked.
This is a free country. You should be able to voice or draw opinions and not worry about being killed for it. This proves a point that Islam is intolerant of those who are not Islam.
Oh for the love of...
Where has anyone argued in favour of Piss Christ in this thread? Has anyone mentioned that they think it's great to mock Christian symbols but not Mohammad? No? Then take your strawman somewhere else; there's plenty of them in this thread as it is.
This is a free country. You should be able to voice or draw opinions and not worry about being killed for it. This proves a point that Islam is intolerant of those who are not Islam.
No, it proves that two militant Islamists were militant Islamists. A sample of two out of a billion+ followers is lower than statistically insignificant. Or is Christianity an insane murder cult because of the involvment of churches in the Rwandan Genocide?
You're doing that thing where you attribute your interpretation of what someone meant to them again. Nothing in that quote says anything whatsoever about why cincy feels the event organizers were donkey-caves. The claim was that we call them donkey-caves because they critizise authority. We don't; we critizice them because they do so in a counter-productive and needlessly confrontational manner. Again, there's more than a little evidence to suggest that this was done to spite Muslims, as opposed to actually achieving anything.
Why was it counter-productive? If the goal was to bring awareness to Muslim intolerance, then I would say that it achieved its goal.
Western democracies shouldn't avoid confrontation with Muslim intolerance in our own countries, quite the contrary, everybody should do their best to confront and expose the barbarity of Islam, because Islam is the complete opposite of Western ideals.
d-usa wrote: And who in this thread defended the terrorists?
That's tricky. I wouldn't argue anyone's defending the terrorists, rather there are some attempting to keep this anti-islamic attitude from getting out of hand.
While the act of violence against those present for the drawing contest isn't something I agree with, I also don't agree with holding the contest with it's express purpose being "Hey look at us doing something you don't like"
I don't care what side you're on regarding this event, so long as you don't condone agitating hate speech.
For reference:
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.
CptJake wrote: The event was not a 'trigger', and thinking it was shows a total lack of understanding of what went on.
Just as the Boston Marathon was not a 'trigger' for the Tsarnaev brothers.
The perps in this case were radicalized and committed to jihad before this event was announced. Simpson as far back as 2011 was wanting to go kill for Allah in Somalia. We don't know yet when Soofi made his decision that killing then being killed for Allah was the way to go, but it was very VERY likely NOT because of this particular conference.
Even in the attacks in Paris, the perps had been radicalized well before and had already taken the path of jihad.
The conference was a target, NOT a trigger. Yes, it was chosen as a target to make a statement (just as the Charlie Hebdo office was) and to instill fear/change behavior patterns. But it was not a trigger.
That, I feel, is fair criticism. At the same time, though, I would argue that acting in a spiteful manner for the sake of being spiteful is not going to help prevent others from becoming radicalized; quite the contrary.
And I'll argue even if no one drew the prophet or even threatened to draw the prophet ever again, folks are still gonna radicalize.
That link is to a pretty decent paper describing the radicalization process. Things like this contest may be used by the facilitator once the process is already started, but they are not really the trigger. These types of events are used as examples of the larger themes "The West is not suitable for Islam" and "The West is at War With Islam", and the facilitator will always be able to find examples. Groups like the ones holding this contest are nothing but a drop in the bucket of examples which are twisted to use in radicalization. The reality is, once the radicalization process has started, the fact we have a free society that values freedom is the problem, not specific examples of the freedom being exercised. That 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of religion' are themselves not compatible with a Salfist or Wahabi world view point, and as such those ideals are 'bad'.
Again, believing stuff like this contest are Triggers for the radicalization process if not for specific acts of violence, shows a lack of understanding of what is going on. Again, yes they can be used as examples, but what they are examples of is what is being used to radicalize and recruit.
Posters slamming Islam for ‘killing Jews’ can be displayed on MTA buses: court
A conservative firebrand said Tuesday she plans to paper at least 50 MTA buses with Islamophobic posters following a judge’s ruling the ads were protected by the First Amendment.
Manhattan Federal Court Judge John Koeltl wrote the MTA had improperly denied displaying Pamela Geller’s controversial posters featuring a picture of a menacing man with his face masked in a Middle Eastern scarf next to the quote, “Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah.” The quote was attributed to “Hamas MTV” and included the tagline, “That's His Jihad. What's yours?”
Though the MTA had accepted other incendiary posters by Geller's American Freedom Defense Initiative, it declined last year to post the “Killing Jews” ad, saying it could provoke violence.
The judge disagreed.
“While the court is sensitive to the MTA’s security concerns, the defendants have not presented any objective evidence that the Killing Jews advertisement would be likely to incite imminent violence,” Koeltl wrote.
Geller hailed the ruling, and said she would pay for more posters to be displayed than she originally planned.
“Islamic supremacists and craven government bureaucrats are put on notice — sharia restrictions on free speech are unconstitutional and will not stand in these United States,” she said.
An MTA spokesman said “We are disappointed in the ruling and we are reviewing our options.”
Monica Klein, a spokeswoman for Mayor de Blasio, said, “These hateful messages serve only to divide and stigmatize when we should be coming together as one city.”
“While those behind these ads only display their irresponsible intolerance, the rest of us who may be forced to view them can take comfort in the knowledge that we share a better, loftier and nobler view of humanity,” Klein said.
d-usa wrote: And who in this thread defended the terrorists?
That's tricky. I wouldn't argue anyone's defending the terrorists, rather there are some attempting to keep this anti-islamic attitude from getting out of hand.
While the act of violence against those present for the drawing contest isn't something I agree with, I also don't agree with holding the contest with it's express purpose being "Hey look at us doing something you don't like"
I don't care what side you're on regarding this event, so long as you don't condone agitating hate speech.
For reference:
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.
I don't like 'hate speech'...
but, I'll defend the right to express it.... along with me exercising my right to respond in kind.
See? No bullets need to fly.
One of the best thing I've seen is when the WestBoros Baptist protested over Kevin Smith's Redstate movie... he led a counter-protest:
Spoiler:
EDIT: removed original image because of a teeny tiny sign that might be inappropriate. Here's a rated-G:
You're doing that thing where you attribute your interpretation of what someone meant to them again. Nothing in that quote says anything whatsoever about why cincy feels the event organizers were donkey-caves. The claim was that we call them donkey-caves because they critizise authority. We don't; we critizice them because they do so in a counter-productive and needlessly confrontational manner. Again, there's more than a little evidence to suggest that this was done to spite Muslims, as opposed to actually achieving anything.
Why was it counter-productive? If the goal was to bring awareness to Muslim intolerance, then I would say that it achieved its goal.
Western democracies shouldn't avoid confrontation with Muslim intolerance in our own countries, quite the contrary, everybody should do their best to confront and expose the barbarity of Islam, because Islam is the complete opposite of Western ideals.
I would argue that relying on emotional arguments is the complete opposite of the rationalist, Enlightenment ideals we should be striving towards. Purposefully baiting awful people into doing awful things is hardly neccessary to point out the issues with Islam, and behaving in a respectless manner on purpose (as in, doing something you know someone won't like just to piss them off, as opposed to behaving in a respectless manner for some other goal) undermines whatever moral high ground one could claim. It doesn't matter how right one is if the one you're trying to convince won't talk to you because you were being smugly confrontational about the issue.
EDIT: Just for clarity, I'm not arguing that you're relying on emotional arguments, I'm arguing that SIOA are.
The event was nothing more then the target, not a cause. Had this not occured, they probably would have hit a church or some other soft target.
Hell, we should probably be glad that this event did occur, because they had security there. There are so many targets of opportunity out there that doesn't have security.
right, exactly, in the same way we do not call sarkeesian a douche for holding her events despite knowing full well she will get death threats, that we keep repeating how douchey this specific events organizers were is the same victim blaming as if anita sarkeesian was being called a douche for her events (or any person who does anything controversial that people will threaten violence over)
You're doing that thing where you attribute your interpretation of what someone meant to them again. Nothing in that quote says anything whatsoever about why cincy feels the event organizers were donkey-caves. The claim was that we call them donkey-caves because they critizise authority. We don't; we critizice them because they do so in a counter-productive and needlessly confrontational manner. Again, there's more than a little evidence to suggest that this was done to spite Muslims, as opposed to actually achieving anything.
Why was it counter-productive? If the goal was to bring awareness to Muslim intolerance, then I would say that it achieved its goal.
Western democracies shouldn't avoid confrontation with Muslim intolerance in our own countries, quite the contrary, everybody should do their best to confront and expose the barbarity of Islam, because Islam is the complete opposite of Western ideals.
I would argue that relying on emotional arguments is the complete opposite of the rationalist, Enlightenment ideals we should be striving towards. Purposefully baiting awful people into doing awful things is hardly neccessary to point out the issues with Islam, and behaving in a respectless manner on purpose (as in, doing something you know someone won't like just to piss them off, as opposed to behaving in a respectless manner for some other goal) undermines whatever moral high ground one could claim. It doesn't matter how right one is if the one you're trying to convince won't talk to you because you were being smugly confrontational about the issue.
EDIT: Just for clarity, I'm not arguing that you're relying on emotional arguments, I'm arguing that SIOA are.
And here is the perfect example of Blame the Victim.
The event was nothing more then the target, not a cause. Had this not occured, they probably would have hit a church or some other soft target.
Hell, we should probably be glad that this event did occur, because they had security there. There are so many targets of opportunity out there that doesn't have security.
right, exactly, in the same way we do not call sarkeesian a douche for holding her events despite knowing full well she will get death threats, that we keep repeating how douchey this specific events organizers were is the same victim blaming as if anita sarkeesian was being called a douche for her events (or any person who does anything controversial that people will threaten violence over)
Is Sarkeesian running adverts on the NYC subway basically amounting to "come at me, dudebros!" and posing SWAT teams at her events? No? Apples to oranges.
The event was nothing more then the target, not a cause. Had this not occured, they probably would have hit a church or some other soft target.
Hell, we should probably be glad that this event did occur, because they had security there. There are so many targets of opportunity out there that doesn't have security.
right, exactly, in the same way we do not call sarkeesian a douche for holding her events despite knowing full well she will get death threats, that we keep repeating how douchey this specific events organizers were is the same victim blaming as if anita sarkeesian was being called a douche for her events (or any person who does anything controversial that people will threaten violence over)
Is Sarkeesian running adverts on the NYC subway basically amounting to "come at me, dudebros!" and posing SWAT teams at her events? No? Apples to oranges.
So if they had not posted adequate security and all ended up dead, it would have been ok?
Because someone actually headed the warnings that makes them bad, makes them shouting "come at me bros?"
The event was nothing more then the target, not a cause. Had this not occured, they probably would have hit a church or some other soft target.
Hell, we should probably be glad that this event did occur, because they had security there. There are so many targets of opportunity out there that doesn't have security.
right, exactly, in the same way we do not call sarkeesian a douche for holding her events despite knowing full well she will get death threats, that we keep repeating how douchey this specific events organizers were is the same victim blaming as if anita sarkeesian was being called a douche for her events (or any person who does anything controversial that people will threaten violence over)
Is Sarkeesian running adverts on the NYC subway basically amounting to "come at me, dudebros!" and posing SWAT teams at her events? No? Apples to oranges.
So if they had not posted adequate security and all ended up dead, it would have been ok?
Because someone actually headed the warnings that makes them bad, makes them shouting "come at me bros?"
When that same organization has repeatedly run ads in high-profile places that demonize people based on their faith it is rather easy to portray their behaviour as "come at us bro!", yes. If one looks at the situation in isolation, such a conclusion would probably be harder to support, but the situation is the continuation of a concerted effort by SIOA to vilify Muslims as a whole.
The event was nothing more then the target, not a cause. Had this not occured, they probably would have hit a church or some other soft target.
Hell, we should probably be glad that this event did occur, because they had security there. There are so many targets of opportunity out there that doesn't have security.
right, exactly, in the same way we do not call sarkeesian a douche for holding her events despite knowing full well she will get death threats, that we keep repeating how douchey this specific events organizers were is the same victim blaming as if anita sarkeesian was being called a douche for her events (or any person who does anything controversial that people will threaten violence over)
Is Sarkeesian running adverts on the NYC subway basically amounting to "come at me, dudebros!" and posing SWAT teams at her events? No? Apples to oranges.
no, the comparison is apt,
the only difference is your personal emotions are different towards each of the events ideals/organizers.
Its a shame you are too emotional to see the connection.
the amount of publicity an opinion/person gets does not at some point justify violence against them or give cause to blame the victim.
The event was nothing more then the target, not a cause. Had this not occured, they probably would have hit a church or some other soft target.
Hell, we should probably be glad that this event did occur, because they had security there. There are so many targets of opportunity out there that doesn't have security.
right, exactly, in the same way we do not call sarkeesian a douche for holding her events despite knowing full well she will get death threats, that we keep repeating how douchey this specific events organizers were is the same victim blaming as if anita sarkeesian was being called a douche for her events (or any person who does anything controversial that people will threaten violence over)
Is Sarkeesian running adverts on the NYC subway basically amounting to "come at me, dudebros!" and posing SWAT teams at her events? No? Apples to oranges.
So if they had not posted adequate security and all ended up dead, it would have been ok?
Because someone actually headed the warnings that makes them bad, makes them shouting "come at me bros?"
No.
But I do think that the fact that they paid so much for security is evidence that they knew it was a "come at me bro" type event. Which just makes it seem silly that some are criticizing others for calling it that.
The event was nothing more then the target, not a cause. Had this not occured, they probably would have hit a church or some other soft target.
Hell, we should probably be glad that this event did occur, because they had security there. There are so many targets of opportunity out there that doesn't have security.
right, exactly, in the same way we do not call sarkeesian a douche for holding her events despite knowing full well she will get death threats, that we keep repeating how douchey this specific events organizers were is the same victim blaming as if anita sarkeesian was being called a douche for her events (or any person who does anything controversial that people will threaten violence over)
Is Sarkeesian running adverts on the NYC subway basically amounting to "come at me, dudebros!" and posing SWAT teams at her events? No? Apples to oranges.
So if they had not posted adequate security and all ended up dead, it would have been ok?
Because someone actually headed the warnings that makes them bad, makes them shouting "come at me bros?"
When that same organization has repeatedly run ads in high-profile places that demonize people based on their faith it is rather easy to portray their behaviour as "come at us bro!", yes. If one looks at the situation in isolation, such a conclusion would probably be harder to support, but the situation is the continuation of a concerted effort by SIOA to vilify Muslims as a whole.
This is going to be tricky..but what the Hell
htt
Some of the posters and what not her organization has put up
The event was nothing more then the target, not a cause. Had this not occured, they probably would have hit a church or some other soft target.
Hell, we should probably be glad that this event did occur, because they had security there. There are so many targets of opportunity out there that doesn't have security.
right, exactly, in the same way we do not call sarkeesian a douche for holding her events despite knowing full well she will get death threats, that we keep repeating how douchey this specific events organizers were is the same victim blaming as if anita sarkeesian was being called a douche for her events (or any person who does anything controversial that people will threaten violence over)
Is Sarkeesian running adverts on the NYC subway basically amounting to "come at me, dudebros!" and posing SWAT teams at her events? No? Apples to oranges.
So if they had not posted adequate security and all ended up dead, it would have been ok?
Because someone actually headed the warnings that makes them bad, makes them shouting "come at me bros?"
When that same organization has repeatedly run ads in high-profile places that demonize people based on their faith it is rather easy to portray their behaviour as "come at us bro!", yes. If one looks at the situation in isolation, such a conclusion would probably be harder to support, but the situation is the continuation of a concerted effort by SIOA to vilify Muslims as a whole.
UNless they are saying "come at me bros" thats not appropriate. EVen if they are you're still blaming the victim, making it the victim's fault instead of the wannabe murdering terrorists.
As noted, at least they tried to hit this instead of some church or school.
The event was nothing more then the target, not a cause. Had this not occured, they probably would have hit a church or some other soft target.
Hell, we should probably be glad that this event did occur, because they had security there. There are so many targets of opportunity out there that doesn't have security.
right, exactly, in the same way we do not call sarkeesian a douche for holding her events despite knowing full well she will get death threats, that we keep repeating how douchey this specific events organizers were is the same victim blaming as if anita sarkeesian was being called a douche for her events (or any person who does anything controversial that people will threaten violence over)
Is Sarkeesian running adverts on the NYC subway basically amounting to "come at me, dudebros!" and posing SWAT teams at her events? No? Apples to oranges.
no, the comparison is apt,
the only difference is your personal emotions are different towards each of the events ideals/organizers.
Its a shame you are too emotional to see the connection.
the amount of publicity an opinion/person gets does not at some point justify violence against them or give cause to blame the victim.
That's rather rich, considering the amount of times in this very thread that you've claimed people have said things they haven't. In fact, you're doing it in the very post I'm replying to, implying that I, or anyone else in this thread, has justified the violence against the event.
Since I'm getting tired of you implying that I've said things I haven't, I'll just spell it out with big, easy-to-read letters: VIOLENCE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS A RESPONSE TO BEING OFFENDED. EVER. Can you please stop pretending that's what we're saying now?
Further, the response above is just a flat "yes, its is", without any sort of justification, argument, or rationalization whatsoever. You're not contributing anything, you're just petulantly being contrary. I made an argument as to why I feel the two comparisons are not the same, if you can't even be bothered to formulate an argument I'm at a loss of why you're here in the first place.
There are legitimate grievances to make in regards to dogmatic Islam:
-Sharia Law is draconian, completely suppresses freedom of, well, anything (speech, thought, press, etc).
-Dogmatic Islam is oppressive to women.
-Dogmatic Islam is worse than the Westboro Baptist Church when it comes to LGBT rights.
If Gellar was concerned about Islamic reform, her group would be addressing those issues, PARTNERING with American Muslims (and western European Muslims) that agree reform is necessary, and getting someone on Bill Maher's show, because he, of all liberals, agrees with that.
But they didn't.
We can spin our wheels here, but I think it's foolish to claim that this situation was analogous with "she was asking for it because she was wearing a a short skirt with a thong." This is gaking on the doorstep, ringing the doorbell, and yelling "come at me, bro."
That still doesn't justify domestic terrorism in any manner. But the claims that Gellar wasn't purposefully (and hopefully) antagonistic is disingenuous at best.
These claims that provocation doesn't exist are getting pretty tiresome. Make no mistake: the terrorists are the criminals here. But that doesn't mean Gellar and her coterie aren't inflammatory, antagonistic donkey-caves.
I would argue that relying on emotional arguments is the complete opposite of the rationalist, Enlightenment ideals we should be striving towards. Purposefully baiting awful people into doing awful things is hardly neccessary to point out the issues with Islam, and behaving in a respectless manner on purpose (as in, doing something you know someone won't like just to piss them off, as opposed to behaving in a respectless manner for some other goal) undermines whatever moral high ground one could claim..
Why does this lie never stop? Not a single cartoon was drawn "just to" or with "the sole purpose" or "only to" provoke. I've called this out so many times, but it never stops!
This was not counter-productive. It was desperately needed confrontation.
Is there anything disrespectfull in drawing caricatures of mass-murdering dictators?
I would argue that relying on emotional arguments is the complete opposite of the rationalist, Enlightenment ideals we should be striving towards. Purposefully baiting awful people into doing awful things is hardly neccessary to point out the issues with Islam, and behaving in a respectless manner on purpose (as in, doing something you know someone won't like just to piss them off, as opposed to behaving in a respectless manner for some other goal) undermines whatever moral high ground one could claim..
Why does this lie never stop? Not a single cartoon was drawn "just to" or with "the sole purpose" or "only to" provoke. I've called this out so many times, but it never stops!
You've said that repeatedly, yes. Unlike you, however, we've actually backed up our arguments with the fact that it's not unreasonable to argue that a group that has spread anti-Muslim messages in the past would arrange this as a way to attack Muslims. We're not just making our minds up based on this single event, SIOA has a documented history of being awful to Muslims.
So please, before you call me a liar, back your arguments up with something.
Freedom of Speech trumps people's wish to not have their religious sensitivities offended.
Kind of surprising to see so many leaning towards "blame the victim". Whatever happened to, "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it." Does that sentiment get thrown out the window when sacred cows are involved?
These claims that provocation doesn't exist are getting pretty tiresome. .
please cite where that is a valid claim under law.
No one ever claimed it did. Hell, I went out of my way like, twice in my comment to say that this particular type of provocation doesn't justify a response. But can we stop pretending it wasn't provocation at all?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: Freedom of Speech trumps people's wish to not have their religious sensitivities offended.
Kind of surprising to see so many leaning towards "blame the victim". Whatever happened to, "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it." Does that sentiment get thrown out the window when sacred cows are involved?
You really should read more of the thread.
What's really being said is: "I may disagree with what you say, and I'll defend your right to say it, but I still think you're an donkey-cave."
jasper76 wrote: Freedom of Speech trumps people's wish to not have their religious sensitivities offended.
Kind of surprising to see so many leaning towards "blame the victim". Whatever happened to, "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it." Does that sentiment get thrown out the window when sacred cows are involved?
You really should read more of the thread.
What's really being said is: "I may disagree with what you say, and I'll defend your right to say it, but I still think you're an donkey-cave."
Why does this lie never stop? Not a single cartoon was drawn "just to" or with "the sole purpose" or "only to" provoke. I've called this out so many times, but it never stops!
Are you now presuming to know the artists intent? Are you the arbitrating judge of all artistic intent?
(Did I do that right?)
This was not counter-productive. It was desperately needed confrontation.
What necessitated the "need?" Because you said so?
Why does this lie never stop? Not a single cartoon was drawn "just to" or with "the sole purpose" or "only to" provoke. I've called this out so many times, but it never stops!
Are you now presuming to know the artists intent? Are you the arbitrating judge of all artistic intent?
Yeah I know the intent of the artists! You don't have to be a judge, you can simply listen to what the artists explicitly say are their purposes of their art and of their actions.
No need to repeatedly lie (as have been done in this thread) and say that an action which obviously has multiple purposes instead only has a single purpose (which is then used to back up your views).
If I had the view that drawing muhammad was douchbag behaviour, I would find it very helpfull to limit the purpose of such behaviour to being only one thing, and that thing being only negative.
In reality, drawing muhammad has plural purposes, many of which are only positive.
in America we say come at me bro. It is what we do. And we fight any one stupid enough to try. It doesn't matter if offended are republicans or rappers or police or Christians or whatever. I see no reason to treat Muslims any different.
Baxx wrote: It is a human right to be offended. By anything or anyone.
Being offended is a response, in some cases involuntary, but not a right. We'd have to amend our Constitution to make it a right (unless you're talking about the myth of "natural human rights")
Why does this lie never stop? Not a single cartoon was drawn "just to" or with "the sole purpose" or "only to" provoke. I've called this out so many times, but it never stops!
Are you now presuming to know the artists intent? Are you the arbitrating judge of all artistic intent?
Yeah I know the intent of the artists! You don't have to be a judge, you can simply listen to what the artists explicitly say are their purposes of their art and of their actions.
No need to fight ISIS then. After all, they just want worldwide peace for everyone, right?
Why does this lie never stop? Not a single cartoon was drawn "just to" or with "the sole purpose" or "only to" provoke. I've called this out so many times, but it never stops!
Are you now presuming to know the artists intent? Are you the arbitrating judge of all artistic intent?
Yeah I know the intent of the artists! You don't have to be a judge, you can simply listen to what the artists explicitly say are their purposes of their art and of their actions.
No need to fight ISIS then. After all, they just want worldwide peace for everyone, right?
You speak your mind to me because your society allows you to do it?
I speak my mind no matter what any societies choose to allow it or not.
That's all well and good to say, but if you lived in China, North Korea, or one of the many theocracies blighting this planet, and decided to speak your mind unfiltered, you'd learn quickly that there really is no natural right to speak your mind at all. You presumably have been raised in a society that defined that right for you at some point, and continues to value and protect it.
You speak your mind to me because your society allows you to do it?
I speak my mind no matter what any societies choose to allow it or not.
That's all well and good to say, but if you lived in China, North Korea, or one of the many theocracies blighting this planey, and decided to speak your mind unfiltered, you'd learn quickly that there really is no natural right to speak your mind.. You presumably have been raised in a society that defined that right for you at some point, and continues to value and protect it.
Damn. I do not drink, am vegetarian, and saying I am a womanizer would be a great, great lie to an extend you could barely imagine.
That means I have to triple down on the blasphemy stuff to keep up with you!
timetowaste85 wrote: "I promise your honor, I didn't mean to offend any Muslims with my Muhammad drawings" *bats Bugs Bunny eye lashes*
Yeah fething right.
One of the Good Things about free speech is that you don't have to give a rats ass about who might be offended by what you say, otherwise artists, comedians and political commentators would all have to fear for their lives.
That’s how the Boston Phoenix explained its decision, back in 2006, not to run the Muhammad cartoons that had appeared the previous year in the Dutch newspaper Jyllands-Posten, only to spark riots months later — cartoonists in hiding with bounties on their heads, mercenaries throwing grenades at Dutch embassies and 200 deaths.
That violence came months after the cartoons had run, to little notice. Danish clerics then went to Gulf States with far more offensive counterfeit cartoons (for instance, of a dog mounting the prophet) to raise funds to foment “spontaneous” violent protests.
I was editor of the alt-weekly New York Press then, and we’d assembled a package with new reporting about that fundraising tour and several of the cartoons. As a weekly, we figured every other paper in America would have run the images by the time we went to print. After all, how could you report on worldwide violence inspired by drawings without showing those drawings?
But it turned out the Phoenix wasn’t alone in its fear . Almost no American outlets printed the fairly banal images, easily found online. Nothing at all happened to the handful of places that did print them, but the fear was contagious.
Violence worked, self-censorship held and, insult to injury, almost every outlet hemmed and hawed about sensitivity and such, rather than admit their fear.
At literally the eleventh hour, New York Press’ owner ordered us to pull the images, and news networks — which had booked me and my colleagues Tim Marchman, Jonathan Leaf and Azi Paybarah to explain why we were running the cartoons — had us on instead to explain why we’d all quit in response. Not one of those programs showed the images they had us on to discuss.
We wrote then: “As intended, a gullible Western press again portrayed Muslims as mindless savages to be feared and placated.”
Here we are again.
This time, the cartoons are more amateurish, and in line with that portrayal of Islam. The provocateur isn’t a journalist, but semi-pro Islamophobe Pamela Geller, who hosted a “draw Muhammad” event Monday in Texas, where she, cartoonists and other attendees were met by two surprise guests, in body armor and with automatic weapons. Thankfully, the pair was cut down by one of the many security guards the venue required Geller to provide.
Now ISIS, which claimed credit for that botched attack, has apparently put a bounty on Geller, and anyone willing to be near her.
She is an obsessed and all-but-willing martyr, caught up in the same hallucination of some apocalyptic war between Islam and the West as her would-be murderers.
But the assassin’s veto, as historian Timothy Garton Ash termed “the use of violence to impose your taboos,” is pointed at her neck. The nastiness of her words, about "the savages” trying to impose Sharia law here, is no longer the issue.
The threat to Geller’s life for speaking is.
Yet many among the literati, who typically fancy themselves truth tellers and idol smashers, spent the last week competing to disdain the obvious and explain why the murdered Charlie Hebdo cartoonists weren’t worthy recipients of an award from a group dedicated to “defend(ing) writers endangered because of their work.”
One such useful idiot — who admits he’s never even read Hebdo — wrote “it seemed to me that ‘Je suis Charlie’ was a way for (Americans) to re-pledge their commitment to the War on Terror.”
That slogan, of course, was a Rorschach test, and the writer found in it justification for the position he’d already taken — one that’s a given at many of the right cocktail parties, and a lot easier than admitting fear.
I suspect the Hebdo gang would’ve found a laugh in a black-tie affair with the lit world’s name brands (minus those who skipped the dinner in protest) fundraising off of martyred cartoonists who’d eked out livings taking the piss out of the powerful and the sacred.
“We vomit on all these people who suddenly say they are our friends,” said Hebdo cartoonist Bernard "Willem" Holtrop, after millions rallied in solidarity after the attack he survived only because he hated meetings. “A few years ago, thousands of people took to the streets in Pakistan to demonstrate against Charlie Hebdo. They didn’t know what it was. Now it’s the opposite.”
Flemming Rose, the editor who commissioned the 2006 Danish cartoons with little idea what he was getting into, and who a decade later still needs an armed guard (he and three colleagues are on an Al Qaeda-published hit list that also included Hebdo staffers), having survived several attempts on his life, explained why his paper didn’t run the French cartoons after those cartoonists were slaughtered: “Violence works. And sometimes the sword is mightier than the pen.”
He elaborated: “We caved in to intimidation. And I don’t think that we will get less intimidation because of that. Because we are telling the extremists that it works.”
Someone is always threatening someone else. Eventually, we all die. The question is what — other than fear — guides us until then.
Great article...
Also: I noticed that it was the venue, not Geller's group, that requested the security. Kinda puts the kibosh on the idea that Geller's group were actively anticipating this... no?
In other news, some kids and their teacher in Egypt got slammed into the pokie and are looking at some serious time for a 32 second video mocking ISIS.
Relapse wrote: In other news, some kids and their teacher in Egypt got slammed into the pokie and are looking at some serious time for a 32 second video mocking ISIS.
Guess we can cross the Egyptians off of that list of moderate Muslims who disagree with the practice of expanding Islam through rape, murder, and torture.
d-usa wrote: Or we can add them to a list where mocking religion is against the law, even if that religion is mocked while making fun of ISIS.
But hey, facts are for pansies.
well, the fact is that they mocked ISIS, not islam....
that mocking ISIS is *interpreted* as blasphemy by some is just an arbitrary opinion, and one based more in extremism then actual facts.
from the article
Thabet said the 32-second clip fails to support the rumors about the boys having allegedly insulted Islam. Instead, it shows them mocking ISIS by imitating a beheading – a form of execution that has become one of the terror group’s multiple signature atrocities.
“They use some words that are used in Muslim prayers, but they are in no way being disrespectful to Islam,” said Thabet.
It's pretty easy to realize that the article is pretty full of it by simply following the argument in the article:
- They weren't making fun of Islam, they were making fun of Isis.
- Okay, they were using Muslim prayers in a mocking video, but that's not mocking Islam.
- Okay, there are laws against what they did, but surely they didn't mean to protect Isis when they made these laws.
When an article that could get away with mistruth that is already existing in the headline decides to defeat it's own argument by going down the "they didn't do it, okay they did, but it's okay because..." route, then you know that you are reading bull crap.
I imagine that there is a reason this was shopped exclusively to FoxNews...
Lone Cat wrote: Does this conference considered as Hate Speech?
No it does not.
There are reports starting to claim that the FBI were aware that the attackers were intending to travel to this event, that the information was passed on the LEOs, but the police on the ground were not briefed.
Lone Cat wrote: Does this conference considered as Hate Speech?
No it does not.
There are reports starting to claim that the FBI were aware that the attackers were intending to travel to this event, that the information was passed on the LEOs, but the police on the ground were not briefed.
Relapse wrote: I wonder how much the laws in the Middle East are more related to tribalism than religion.
I do not even!
Seriously, I have no idea what you mean. Tribalism? I guess maybe they still have “tribes” in the Arabian peninsula. But, to speak about the only country from the Middle East that I kind of know, never heard of “tribes” in Iran.
Afghanistan has tribal regions. Though Farsi, Dari, Tajik can be seen as a "tribal" thing in Iraq, Iran and surrounding areas. Those who speak the same language you can bet they are in a "tribal area".
Relapse wrote: I wonder how much the laws in the Middle East are more related to tribalism than religion.
I do not even!
Seriously, I have no idea what you mean. Tribalism? I guess maybe they still have “tribes” in the Arabian peninsula. But, to speak about the only country from the Middle East that I kind of know, never heard of “tribes” in Iran.
I was thinking along the lines of how laws in the U.S. came to be written, Bill of Rights, and all that and was curious about the factors in the formation of laws in a lot of the countries over there. I was wondering, based on my admittadly small base of knowledge, about how laws over there were formed.
I hadn't heard that the information was only shared three hours prior. You would like to think that something concerning a possible terror attack would be shared as a matter of priority.
Wow, so the organizers were given a heads up that terrorists were definitely on their way (by the FBI),and didn't warn security? They've gone from asshats to full on gaks. "Free speech" doesn't even begin to reason out why that information was withheld from their security. I hope all you people defending these pieces of gak are feeling a bit squirmy as to the trash you're defending.
And I use the term "people" loosely in this case.*
*I still continue to denounce the terrorist actions in this case as well.
**I also continue to wonder why the particularly pigheaded fools in this thread continue to think that not siding with the organizers means you automatically side with the terrorists. Stupidity of the highest order.
timetowaste85 wrote: "Free speech" doesn't even begin to reason out why that information was withheld from their security. I hope all you people defending these pieces of gak are feeling a bit squirmy as to the trash you're defending.
I don't believe that passing along warning of a possible terrorist attack would be hindered by "Free speech"
My point was that the other side has been using "free speech" to stand up for the people who put on this conference. I wanted them to try to justify their point now as to defending this scum.
Where do you see that the Event Organizers where given notice by the FBI?
It says that the local Law Enforcement Agency was given advance notice of like 3 hours. No one said gak to the Event Organizers about it.
timetowaste85 wrote: My point was that the other side has been using "free speech" to stand up for the people who put on this conference. I wanted them to try to justify their point now as to defending this scum.
Apologies if I am misreading your post, but the event organizers still have free speech. They still have the right to put on this convention. You do not lose your right to free speech because a threat is known to Federal agents and not effectively communicated to LEOs on the ground. That is beyond the control of the event organizers.
You are indeed missing my point. They have free speech. But they never made any attempt to alert the security about the information from the FBI that a terrorist group was indeed on their way to attack. They withheld information that did cause an injury. So all the people rallying around "free speech" should be feeling pretty ashamed for backing a group that quite frankly didn't give a crap about the people they were hiring to protect them. If they did, they would have warned the security. So regardless of whether or not you feel they had a right to be jerks (I agree they had the right), but they were PoS's for not alerting security.
timetowaste85 wrote: You are indeed missing my point. They have free speech. But they never made any attempt to alert the security about the information from the FBI that a terrorist group was indeed on their way to attack. They withheld information that did cause an injury. So all the people rallying around "free speech" should be feeling pretty ashamed for backing a group that quite frankly didn't give a crap about the people they were hiring to protect them. If they did, they would have warned the security. So regardless of whether or not you feel they had a right to be jerks (I agree they had the right), but they were PoS's for not alerting security.
Did you not read the part where the FBI NOTIFIED LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, NOT THE EVENT ORGANIZERS? You know, the people that you are condemning for not notifying security. The ones that didn't have any clue that there was a credible threat on it's way there?
Or are you just interpreting that to mean whatever you want it to mean?
timetowaste85 wrote: You are indeed missing my point. They have free speech. But they never made any attempt to alert the security about the information from the FBI that a terrorist group was indeed on their way to attack. They withheld information that did cause an injury. So all the people rallying around "free speech" should be feeling pretty ashamed for backing a group that quite frankly didn't give a crap about the people they were hiring to protect them. If they did, they would have warned the security. So regardless of whether or not you feel they had a right to be jerks (I agree they had the right), but they were PoS's for not alerting security.
The organizers were not aware of the threat as the FBI did not inform them. The FBI informed higher ranking LEOs, who in turn failed to pass the information along to the LEOs who were on duty. That is beyond the control of the event organizers as at no time were they given that information, by the FBI or anyone else preceding the attack.
Misread. Apologies on that end then, as my ire should extend to the local law inforcement in the area for dropping a serious fething ball. The local law enforcement better be paying that security guard's damn medical bills then.
timetowaste85 wrote: Misread. Apologies on that end then, as my ire should extend to the local law inforcement in the area for dropping a serious fething ball. The local law enforcement better be paying that security guard's damn medical bills then.
Also, keep in mind that the venue operators requested this group for more security.
I do, find it curious that the local law enforcement didn't communicate that warning... I wonder if it's because the communication policy/infrastructure isn't well defined?
whembly wrote: Also, keep in mind that the venue operators requested this group for more security.
I do, find it curious that the local law enforcement didn't communicate that warning... I wonder if it's because the communication policy/infrastructure isn't well defined?
Wasn't the point of Homeland Security to address this deficit after 9/11?
whembly wrote: Also, keep in mind that the venue operators requested this group for more security.
I do, find it curious that the local law enforcement didn't communicate that warning... I wonder if it's because the communication policy/infrastructure isn't well defined?
Wasn't the point of Homeland Security to address this deficit after 9/11?
whembly wrote: Also, keep in mind that the venue operators requested this group for more security.
I do, find it curious that the local law enforcement didn't communicate that warning... I wonder if it's because the communication policy/infrastructure isn't well defined?
Wasn't the point of Homeland Security to address this deficit after 9/11?
They love to share their success stories whenever they stop a new terrorist plot, but when you actually read the stories it is (almost) always a case of "we successfully stopped a guy who wanted to blow up X. We spend the last few years recruiting him, talking him into doing it, provided him with the training, provided him with the materials, and after he pushed the button and realized that the bomb didn't blow up we arrested him! Yeah us for stopping another plot that we created!".
d-usa wrote: They love to share their success stories whenever they stop a new terrorist plot, but when you actually read the stories it is (almost) always a case of "we successfully stopped a guy who wanted to blow up X. We spend the last few years recruiting him, talking him into doing it, provided him with the training, provided him with the materials, and after he pushed the button and realized that the bomb didn't blow up we arrested him! Yeah us for stopping another plot that we created!".
timetowaste85 wrote: You are indeed missing my point. They have free speech. But they never made any attempt to alert the security about the information from the FBI that a terrorist group was indeed on their way to attack. They withheld information that did cause an injury. So all the people rallying around "free speech" should be feeling pretty ashamed for backing a group that quite frankly didn't give a crap about the people they were hiring to protect them. If they did, they would have warned the security. So regardless of whether or not you feel they had a right to be jerks (I agree they had the right), but they were PoS's for not alerting security.
Did you not read the part where the FBI NOTIFIED LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, NOT THE EVENT ORGANIZERS? You know, the people that you are condemning for not notifying security. The ones that didn't have any clue that there was a credible threat on it's way there?
Or are you just interpreting that to mean whatever you want it to mean?
timetowaste85 wrote: You are indeed missing my point. They have free speech. But they never made any attempt to alert the security about the information from the FBI that a terrorist group was indeed on their way to attack. They withheld information that did cause an injury. So all the people rallying around "free speech" should be feeling pretty ashamed for backing a group that quite frankly didn't give a crap about the people they were hiring to protect them. If they did, they would have warned the security. So regardless of whether or not you feel they had a right to be jerks (I agree they had the right), but they were PoS's for not alerting security.
Did you not read the part where the FBI NOTIFIED LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, NOT THE EVENT ORGANIZERS? You know, the people that you are condemning for not notifying security. The ones that didn't have any clue that there was a credible threat on it's way there?
Or are you just interpreting that to mean whatever you want it to mean?
Facts =/= proof of position.
Discard facts, make up new 'facts'.
Win!
Just because that worked the first all of the times it's been used doesn't mean it'll keep always working.
timetowaste85 wrote: My point was that the other side has been using "free speech" to stand up for the people who put on this conference. I wanted them to try to justify their point now as to defending this scum.
I support any mockery of authorities who's ideologies inspire torture and murder for more than a millennia. The freedom we experience today is a direct result of such criticism of what some claim is "holy". Freedom depends of criticism.
Relapse wrote: I was thinking along the lines of how laws in the U.S. came to be written, Bill of Rights, and all that and was curious about the factors in the formation of laws in a lot of the countries over there.
The constitution in Iran were written after the revolution, so just after the dictator that the U.S. had set up there was ousted from power. It was really not based on “tribalism” any more than the U.S. bill of right was. The things that were hot into people's mind at that time were mostly dictatorship, islamism, communism and U.S. imperialism, not tribal whatever.
Referred to as "Faux News Syndrome" by scholars. The important distinction is the poster actually admitted they were wrong, as such this term does not apply to him.
Lone Cat wrote: Does this conference considered as Hate Speech?
No it does not.
There are reports starting to claim that the FBI were aware that the attackers were intending to travel to this event, that the information was passed on the LEOs, but the police on the ground were not briefed.
Cops assigned to this event not being briefed on the likelyhood of the incident??? How come?
Relapse wrote: I was thinking along the lines of how laws in the U.S. came to be written, Bill of Rights, and all that and was curious about the factors in the formation of laws in a lot of the countries over there.
The constitution in Iran were written after the revolution, so just after the dictator that the U.S. had set up there was ousted from power. It was really not based on “tribalism” any more than the U.S. bill of right was. The things that were hot into people's mind at that time were mostly dictatorship, islamism, communism and U.S. imperialism, not tribal whatever.
I should make myself clear that I don't think the Bill of Rights was based on tribalism. but it reflected the nature of the love for freedom the United States was based on. I was trying to understand how the culture is reflected in the laws of a country, and should have made myself more clear.
What you said, though makes sense about Iran. It wouldn't surprise me to find out you were right. On the other hand, each country has screwy laws, as in Iran, people were arrested for dancing and posting it to youtube. They were facing some serious punishment for that, but I believe it was a more religion based case.
timetowaste85 wrote: My point was that the other side has been using "free speech" to stand up for the people who put on this conference. I wanted them to try to justify their point now as to defending this scum.
I support any mockery of authorities who's ideologies inspire torture and murder for more than a millennia. The freedom we experience today is a direct result of such criticism of what some claim is "holy". Freedom depends of criticism.
Oh, this again.
"Why?" he asked, not expecting an answer.
Further, mockery and criticism are two distinct concepts. Conflating them is usually not a good idea.
Referred to as "Faux News Syndrome" by scholars. The important distinction is the poster actually admitted they were wrong, as such this term does not apply to him.
Please quote the post he admitted he was wrong. I went back as far as his post I quoted and did not see that.
If I missed it (and I well may have) I would like the chance to admit I was wrong.
Pamela Geller, who law enforcement sources say was the target of a beheading plot, told CNN it's the latest volley in a "showdown for American freedom."
"They targeted me for violating Sharia blasphemy laws. They mean to kill everyone who doesn't do their bidding and abide by their law voluntarily," Geller told CNN's Erin Burnett on Wednesday.
"This is a showdown for American freedom. Will we stand against this savagery or bow down to them and silence ourselves?"
Geller said she's had an "army of security" since an attack last month at her organization's contest for Prophet Mohammed drawings in Garland, Texas.
"This is what is required just to show a cartoon in America, 2015," she said. "It's striking. It's devastating, and people need to understand what's at stake. I mean, if we surrender on this point, what will we surrender next?"
[Original story, posted at 7:16 p.m. ET]
Usaamah Rahim, who was fatally shot after waving a military knife at law enforcement officers, was originally plotting to behead Pamela Geller, an activist and conservative blogger, law enforcement sources told CNN on Wednesday.
But Rahim, a 26-year-old security guard who officials believe was radicalized by ISIS and other extremists, decided instead to target the "boys in blue," a reference to police, according to court documents. "I can't wait that long," he said of the original beheading plan, according to an FBI affidavit filed in federal court in Boston on Wednesday.
Geller drew national attention last month after police thwarted an attack on an event her organization was sponsoring in Garland, Texas. She's president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, which includes subsidiary programs Stop Islamization of America and Stop Islamization of Nations.
About two hours before Rahim's confrontation with officers on a Boston Street, he allegedly told an associate he was "going to ... go after them, those boys in blue. 'Cause ... it's the easiest target," the documents say.
Rahim's associate, David Wright, 25, appeared in U.S. District Court in Boston Wednesday to face a charge of obstructing a federal investigation by destroying electronic evidence on Rahim's smartphone. A detention hearing was scheduled for June 19 after prosecutors said he was a flight risk.
Wright allegedly attempted to destroy co-conspirator Rahim's cell phone and conceal evidence of their plans, according to the documents. Wright faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison if convicted.
Rahim purchased three military fighting knives with blades longer than 8 inches on Amazon.com, the court documents said.
"I just got myself a nice little tool," Rahim allegedly told his associate, according to the court documents. "You know it's good for carving wood and ... carving sculptures."
In the recorded conversation, the two men are then heard laughing.
Shooting video
Rahim was not on the phone at the time of the shooting and was not shot in the back, as had been reported by a relative, according to clergy and civic leaders who met with authorities earlier Wednesday.
Authorities showed surveillance video of the incident during an unusual meeting with religious and civil rights leaders in an attempt to allay community concerns about the shooting.
"What the video does reveal to us very clearly is that the individual was not on the cellphone, the individual was not shot in the back and that the information reported by others that that was the case was inaccurate," Darnell Williams, president and chief executive of the Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts, said at a news conference with the police commissioner and others.
Rahim's brother has posted on social media that the suspect was on the phone with their father Tuesday and was shot three times in the back during the confrontation with police.
Williams said prosecutors want Rahim's family to see the video before showing to the public.
The religious and civic leaders said Rahim appeared to be shot three times -- in the shoulder, abdomen and chest. Police had earlier reported that he was struck two times.
Imam Abdullah Faaruuq, speaking for the Muslim community, said the video was inconclusive.
"I don't think that he was shot in the back. ... However we couldn't see clearly at all," he said, adding that the distance preventing from seeing whether the Rahim was brandishing a knife. "It was very far away. We can't be clear as to what transpired."
He added, "We can't say what happened. We weren't there. We do see a very vague video that is not clear as to what transpired. It wasn't at a bus stop. He wasn't shot in the back and there is not detail enough on the video to tell us exactly what happened."
24-hour surveillance
Boston Police Commissioner William Evans said the surveillance video shows four or five officers approach the suspect without their weapons drawn. The officers backtrack as Rahim comes after them and gets "close enough to cause imminent harm." They eventually draw their weapons and open fire.
"We never anticipated what his reaction would be and that he would pull out ... a military knife and approach the officers," Evans said.
Evans said authorities met with local leaders in order to "calm down the emotions" caused by misinformation about the shooting.
Anti-terrorism authorities had Rahim under 24-hour surveillance, said Vincent B. Lisi, FBI special agent in charge, on Tuesday.
Later Tuesday, authorities arrested Wright in connection with the case.
"As of right now, we don't think there is any concern for public safety," Lisi said.
Rahim was a subject of a terror investigation involving suspected Islamist extremists, law enforcement sources said.
"We believe he was a threat," Boston Police Commissioner William Evans said. "He was someone we were watching for quite some time."
Prayers for brother
Rahim had been under surveillance by the U.S. Joint Terrorism Task Force, officials said.
Ibrahim Rahim, an imam at the Lighthouse Mosque in Oakland, California, posted about his brother's death on social media.
Ibrahim Rahim wrote on Facebook that his brother was shot while at a bus stop on his way to work. He asked for prayers for his brother.
In a 2013 interview with CNN, Ibrahim Rahim voiced his objection to presiding over the funeral of Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev.
"We don't want people looking at us as though we are empathetic in any way to what has happened at the hands of this man and his brother," he said at the time, referring also to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, later convicted in the bombings.
Ibrahim Rahim said his brother was on the phone with their father Tuesday and was shot three times in the back during the confrontation with police.
In a statement, the Islamic Society of Boston said police have invited Muslim leaders Wednesday to watch surveillance video of the shooting.
"As religious institutions serving the Boston Muslim community, the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB) and Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center (ISBCC) leadership are saddened to hear of the shooting of Usaamah Rahim," the statement said. "This tragedy has yielded many important questions that merit additional attention, and while we cannot expect all questions to be answered ... our hope is that greater clarity and transparency will bring some peace to our congregation and the Boston community at large."
The Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center said that it had had a limited relationship with Usaamah Rahim. A security firm it uses at the center hired him as a guard for a month in 2013. Rahim did not regularly pray at the center or volunteer or serve in any leadership position, the center said.
A third associate
The FBI-led task force had been watching Rahim and two associates also believed to be radicalized, according to a law enforcement official. Rahim had been monitored for at least a couple of years. Investigators were talking to the associates, and various locations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island were being searched, officials said.
The Rhode Island raid was connected to a third person believed to be associated with David Wright and Usaamah Rasim, according to two federal law enforcement sources. The third person was connected by more than just an "Internet relationship," one law enforcement source said. The sources did not provide a name for the individual they were investigating.
The FBI is still investigating whether more people are connected with the three.
The FBI noted a recent change in Rahim's behavior, including social media threats against police, which prompted agents to try to approach him Tuesday, according to the official.
Evans, the police commissioner, said the shooting occurred about 7 a.m. Tuesday after officers and FBI agents confronted Rahim, who suddenly turned around with a large black knife and lunged at officers and federal agents. The officers had not drawn their weapons at that point.
The officers retreated and ordered the man to put down the weapon before they opened fire, Evans said. The shooting was captured by surveillance video and observed by witnesses.
"Unfortunately, he came at the officers and, you know, they do what they were trained to do and, unfortunately, they had to take a life," Evans said.
A Boston police officer and a federal agent opened fire on the suspect, Evans said.
The shooting is under investigation.
Hoping that the authorities find the other man in this cell...
.
