Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32579396

Shots have been fired outside a conference on cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a suburb of the US city of Dallas, police say.
A Swat team member told the conference that one officer and two suspects were shot - but it is not clear if the shootings are related to the event.
Police have put the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland on lockdown and told participants in the event not to leave.
Dutch anti-Islamic politician Geert Wilders was attending the conference.
Mr Wilders tweeted that shots had been fired and he had now safely left the building.
One eyewitness told the Associated Press news agency that he heard about 20 shots, which appeared to come from a car driving past the conference centre, followed by two individual shots.
The American Freedom Defense Initiative had organised the event, which included a $10,000 award for a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad.
Such cartoons are offensive to many Muslims.
There were widespread protests in 2006 when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad.
In January this year, 12 people were murdered by two Islamist gunmen at the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, which had also published similar cartoons.

Interesting, and still developing story

I have to admit...I don't understand why this conference exists other than to be demeaning and hateful.....

Someone help me out here...

It does seem odd.

10K cash.....I give it a shot

 Jihadin wrote:
10K cash.....I give it a shot

Apparently some else already has!

 cincydooley wrote:
I have to admit...I don't understand why this conference exists other than to be demeaning and hateful.....

Someone help me out here...

How could God/Allah possibly be demeaned by anything a paltry human does, let alone a cartoon?

And you don't need to hate something to mock it..

And yes, an ideology so fractured that it is simultaneously called a religion of peace while millions of adherents call for violence is worthy of mockery. Doubly so if you claim the delivery method of said ideology is divinely revealed knowledge that cannot possibly be improved on or updated.

Horrible people doing things to horrible people.

Not surprised.

But the apparent anti Islamist will be loving this (since he survived). Publicity, more claim to his cause and so on.

According to the Dallas Morning News, two men pulled up in a vehicle and then shot an officer outside the Curtis Culwell center Sunday evening. They were then fatally shot by police officers.

Sounds like they specifically targeted the LEO

 Swastakowey wrote:
Horrible people doing things to horrible people.

Surely you're not equating the people drawing pictures as equally horrible to the people firing bullets?

 Kojiro wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Horrible people doing things to horrible people.

Surely you're not equating the people drawing pictures as equally horrible to the people firing bullets?

Calling two people horrible is not the same as equating their acts as equal. A man who spits on a baby is daily is horrible. A man who kills babies is also horrible.

I mean, sure drawing pictures designed to be offensive against people you dont like isnt the same as killing someone, but it sure does make the people drawing those pictures horrible people as well.

 Swastakowey wrote:

I mean, sure drawing pictures designed to be offensive against people you dont like isnt the same as killing someone, but it sure does make the people drawing those pictures horrible people as well.

Indeed.

This 'expo' was a contest with the apparent specific purpose of insulting people for the 'crime' of having different beliefs to those of the event's oganisers. And that is, quite frankly, appalling.

Whew. LEO look like a unit on deployment into the "Box"

Edit

They look more like soldiers than police in those pictures. Is is normal for them to use non-blue/black outfits?

Way to prove a fething point!

Wow!!!

 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?

Since we are now paying attention to them, I'd say yes, yes they did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:

According to the Dallas Morning News, two men pulled up in a vehicle and then shot an officer outside the Curtis Culwell center Sunday evening. They were then fatally shot by police officers.

Sounds like they specifically targeted the LEO

Did the officer survive?

The whole events was a giant "feth you" and "come at me bro" by the organizer, who apperantly is well known for that kind of stuff.

Too bad that it looks like some other idiots took the bait, and even worse that the victim was a security guard that was stuck there.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Did the officer survive?

CNN said the security officer was treated and released.

 d-usa wrote:
The whole events was a giant "feth you" and "come at me bro" by the organizer, who apperantly is well known for that kind of stuff.

Too bad that it looks like some other idiots took the bait, and even worse that the victim was a security guard that was stuck there.

In the land of the free... We're allowed to have "feth you" events.

Just say'n.

 whembly wrote:

In the land of the free... We're allowed to have "feth you" events.

That doesn't make it a good idea.

'Free Speech' doesn't absolve you of any responsibility for your behaviour. If you set out to deliberately insult someone, screaming '...but my Free Speeches!' isn't going to stop them from kicking you in the fork.



The right to Free Speech was supposed to keep people free of oppression. Not to serve as a vehicle to promote hatred and demean those with different beliefs to your own.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The whole events was a giant "feth you" and "come at me bro" by the organizer, who apperantly is well known for that kind of stuff.

Too bad that it looks like some other idiots took the bait, and even worse that the victim was a security guard that was stuck there.

In the land of the free... We're allowed to have "feth you" events.

Just say'n.

We certainly are, as we should be. That doesn't mean that they are always a good idea though.

 cincydooley wrote:
I have to admit...I don't understand why this conference exists other than to be demeaning and hateful.....

Someone help me out here...

Yeah, pretty much.

That's always been the complex thing about all this nonsense about images of the prophet - people absolutely must have a right to create whatever they want, including images that are blasphemous to a religion. However, while people must have that legal right, that doesn't mean there isn't a personal obligation to consider the sensibilities of other people when but simply claiming that right isn't enough. People should also be expected to behave with some kind of decency and respect to others, including sometimes deciding that the point you want to make isn't worth the offence it might cause to others.

People freak out and claim that's self-censorship, and it is, but they miss the point that we all self-censor all the time. For instance, a guy giving a eulogy might accidentally dropped a really good double entendre, but no-one will shout out 'that's what she said' in the middle of the church... because we're not completely awful man-children. This doesn't mean that people shouldn't ever draw an image of Mohammed, it just means that they should spend a bit of time figuring out if the point they're trying to make is worth the offense it will cause.

Fairly obviously, 'because I can' is not a good enough reason. That's the kind of thinking that ends up with stupid conferences like this nonsense.

 insaniak wrote:
That doesn't make it a good idea.

'Free Speech' doesn't absolve you of any responsibility for your behaviour. If you set out to deliberately insult someone, screaming '...but my Free Speeches!' isn't going to stop them from kicking you in the fork.

Nor does it make you immune to criticism. The organizer has a right to have their event, and we have the right to call them a and express a lack of surprise that someone took the bait.

The right to Free Speech was supposed to keep people free of oppression. Not to serve as a vehicle to promote hatred and demean those with different beliefs to your own.

But they're the same thing really. If you don't have the ability to promote hatred then you aren't really free of oppression.

 Peregrine wrote:
But they're the same thing really. If you don't have the ability to promote hatred then you aren't really free of oppression.

Having the ability doesn't mean you have to exercise it.

Self-control is more or less the hallmark of being an adult.

 Jihadin wrote:
Whew. LEO look like a unit on deployment into the "Box"

Edit

Operation Jade Helm is already happening! Spec Ops has seamlessly infiltrated Texan culture with their tacticool disguises.

Seriously though do they just hang out dressed like that? Ready to deploy...

Edit: Not one damn boot is bloused too. Bunch of soup sandwiches.

 insaniak wrote:
Having the ability doesn't mean you have to exercise it.

Self-control is more or less the hallmark of being an adult.

And I agree with that. I'm just disputing your claim that the right to free speech wasn't intended to support things like this.

It's a shame that some people feel the need to offend and provoke another religion that they'd hold a conference like this. It's much, much worse that two people would take the bait and attack the conference, seemingly intending to kill people.

But given that both of those groups of turd like people exist, and capturing these idiots would have been way to dangerous for the police involved, we probably ended up with the best possible result - two dead murderous idiots, and what seems like only a minor injury to one of the security team. Full credit to the police for an effective security operation.

 whembly wrote:
In the land of the free... We're allowed to have "feth you" events.

Just say'n.

Of course you are. People absolutely have a right to create whatever they want, including images that are blasphemous to a religion. They even have a right to hold conferences about creating images that are blasphemous. However, simply having a right to do something doesn't mean you are automatically justified in doing it. Decent behaviour isn't just legal, but it also considers whether the point being made is important enough to offset any potential offense.

People freak out and claim that's self-censorship, and it is, but they miss the point that we all self-censor all the time. Consider you're at a funeral, and in the middle of the eulogy the speaker accidentally dropped a really good double entendre. Only the worst kind of man-children would even consider calling out 'that's what she said' in the middle of the church. Almost all of us are mature enough to realise that offending bereaved people isn't actually worth making that joke.

Now, there will be times when an image of Mohammed will be justified. But the reason has to be a lot more substantial than 'because I can'. Because if that's all you've got then you're basically being as obnoxious as the guy cracking jokes in a funeral.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
But they're the same thing really. If you don't have the ability to promote hatred then you aren't really free of oppression.

Having the ability doesn't mean you have to exercise it.

Self-control is more or less the hallmark of being an adult.

F that man...

Free speech means just that. There is no "but".

You can counter protest if you'd like... But attempting to murder folks for having this event is pants on crazy.
EDIT: @sebster

"because I can" is exactly the thing we need to defend with regards to freedom expression.

 whembly wrote:
F that man...

Free speech means just that. There is no "but".

Well, no, 'Free Speech', at least in the US context, means having the right to say what you want without interference by your government.

It doesn't mean that if you act like a dick, people will just grin and bear it.

But attempting to murder folks for having this event is pants on crazy.

Sure. Although you could slap the same label on 'Running an event designed specifically to insult a religion in a way that is known to have resulted in people being murdered not so long ago'...


The issue here is far less about 'freedom of speech' and more about the fact that if you insult people, there's a good chance that you'll piss them off.

That doesn't mean that the reaction in this case was the right one... just that it's not exactly an unexpected one, and I would agree with those who suggest that it was likely exactly what the organisers were fishing for, so that they could then point the finger at those nasty muslims trying to impinge on their freedoms.

If you poke the bear, you can't claim to be the victim when it bites you.

 whembly wrote:
EDIT: @sebster

"because I can" is exactly the thing we need to defend with regards to freedom expression.

To repeat my analogy, consider in the middle of a funeral the speaker uses some poorly chosen words that opens up a double entendre and someone yells out 'that's what she said'.

When that nitwit defended his joke with 'because I can' you'd call him the worst kind of donkey-cave you wouldn't spend a second pointing out that he was legally allowed to tell that joke. You'd call him the worst kind of donkey-cave who got poor old Aunt Mavis crying all over again.

This is no different. People can draw Mohammed if they want. But if they do so for no reason other than 'because they can' then they're being donkey-caves.