2 Gunmen Killed Outside 'Draw the Prophet' Show

[KroLazuxy_87]

What threats of violence, specifically, are you referring to? Were there threats made against the community?

You know damn well that there is a general threat of violence against anyone who would dare draw or otherwise portray Muhammad. Otherwise how could the organizers of this event have predicted that something like this might happen?

Yes, I do damn well know that, I was just wanting some clarification. Specific threats would have changed the dynamics of the situation. If it's general knowledge, and this group's goal is to increase fear of the Muslim community, then they do something to incite the anger of the group, it's no surprise violence erupted.

It's about intent. AFDI purposefully proded extremists into violence. I can't support this morally. It was AFDI's right to do it, and I would never want that right taken away. If they wanted to have another identical event tomorrow, that's fine by me. Just don't tell me they didn't know what they were doing.

[biostem]

So serious question here - we are faced with 2 choices when dealing with these types of situations:

1. Not permit speech or events that may incite religious extremists to violence.

2. Not permit religious extremists to react to non-violent "stimuli" with violence.


If you are in favor of 1, then any sort of "hate speech" should be prohibited - including religious speech that speaks of "abominations" or killing infidels/apostates. Going along with 1 also basically means that you will allow theocratic mandates to dictate law.

[Gandalf]

If you are in favor of 1, then any sort of "hate speech" should be prohibited - including religious speech that speaks of "abominations" or killing infidels/apostates. Going along with 1 also basically means that you will allow theocratic mandates to dictate law.

Huh?

[biostem]

If you are in favor of 1, then any sort of "hate speech" should be prohibited - including religious speech that speaks of "abominations" or killing infidels/apostates. Going along with 1 also basically means that you will allow theocratic mandates to dictate law.

Huh?

If you are going to take the stance that violating one religion's taboos is sufficient to get a form of expression banned, then *any* form of expression, which may be construed as offensive/inflammatory by *any* group, should likewise be prohibited.

[Terralthra]

Or take the more reasonable third position that violence is not an appropriate response to speech, but also acknowledging that deliberately going out of your way to be offensive to people of faith is, while legal, kind of a dick thing to do. The gunmen can be fairly obviously condemned for responding to speech with violence. The people holding the event for the sole purpose of pissing Muslims off are acting entirely within their rights, but still assholes.

[mr friendly guy]

@Biostem

Or we could condemn both groups, one for being murderous Assholes and the other as trolling shit stirring Bigots. *

They certainly have a right to promote the cartoons, although I personally would not have done so, but that doesn't mean their argument is valid. The way I see it, if say someone accuses Mohammud of being a paedophile, that argument actually has a point because he did marry and had kids with an under age girl according to the Koran. Someone drawing the Prophet in an unflattering manner, when he supposedly did not want to be depicted for various reasons, or depicting him doing things he didn't do, doesn't actually raise a point of criticism against Mohammud. Unless the point was to stir shit up, get a reaction so you can continue the cycle.

* Yes they are Bigoted Douchebags. Even if you don't think the cartoon in and of itself displays bigotry, Geller's comments that all who found the cartoon offensive (not just those that feel its justified to kill over it) are Savages, just really says all you need to know about these people.

Edit - edited for clarity

[KroLazuxy_87]

Or take the more reasonable third position that violence is not an appropriate response to speech, but also acknowledging that deliberately going out of your way to be offensive to people of faith is, while legal, kind of a dick thing to do. The gunmen can be fairly obviously condemned for responding to speech with violence. The people holding the event for the sole purpose of pissing Muslims off are acting entirely within their rights, but still assholes.

THIS.

So serious question here - we are faced with 2 choices when dealing with these types of situations:

1. Not permit speech or events that may incite religious extremists to violence.

2. Not permit religious extremists to react to non-violent "stimuli" with violence.


If you are in favor of 1, then any sort of "hate speech" should be prohibited - including religious speech that speaks of "abominations" or killing infidels/apostates. Going along with 1 also basically means that you will allow theocratic mandates to dictate law.

I hope you weren't directing this at me. If you were, go back and read the fucking thread. Go ahead, I'll wait.

...

...

...

Did you count how many times I said I supported AFDI's right to hold this event?(3 times) Did you see the one where I said if they wanted to hold another one they could?(Immediately before your post)
Did you see how many times I said the gunmen were in the wrong?(5 times) Did you count how many times I said I was glad they were dead?(3 times)

If you were directing this at someone else or no one in particular, then please ignore the above.

If you were directing it at me...
FOR FUCK'S SAKE, CAN NO ONE READ WHAT I WRITE? AM I NOT MAKING MYSELF CLEAR? It's because my avatar is so damned pink isn't it? That must be it. It's the pink.

[gizmojumpjet]

Pointing out that Islamic law or censorship isn't a problem in Garland, TX only serves to illustrate that these people being upset over it weren't motivated by a personal need for change in their daily lives.

You don't think two gunmen showing up to kill a bunch of cartoonists is indicative of an Islamic censorship problem?

Not in Garland, TX, no. As I posted already, the one shooter we know about is a Phoenix, AZ native.

The fact that a group from New York - labeled as a hate group, and ran by outspoken islamophobes considered an embarrassment by other islamophobes in Washington, D.C. - hosted an event in a town 1,400 miles away with an American-Muslim population building a new Islamic center should be evidence enough that this was more about starting some shit and less about promoting free-speech.

Can you help me understand why you seem to put so much emphasis on geography here? Here's my point: If gunmen are showing up to kill people at an event in Garland, Texas, it doesn't really matter where the gunmen or the event organizers hang their hats. Garland has an Islamic censorship problem, as it was there that the violence was intended to and did occur.

Allow me to add that "starting some shit" is often the purpose of free speech.

[Joun_Lord]

Or take the more reasonable third position that violence is not an appropriate response to speech, but also acknowledging that deliberately going out of your way to be offensive to people of faith is, while legal, kind of a dick thing to do. The gunmen can be fairly obviously condemned for responding to speech with violence. The people holding the event for the sole purpose of pissing Muslims off are acting entirely within their rights, but still assholes.

This is still pretty much an expansion of two, just acknowledging sometimes people are a pile of dicks to get extremists all irate.

Which is true but sometimes extremist full dummies get all RAR RAGE ISLAM IS ABOUT PEACE.......PIECES OF PEOPLE I MEAN RAR BLAH FLARGLE HARGLE without people being dicks. Sometimes people are drawing Mohammad getting sodimized by a Scud missile, other times people just have an image of Mohammad in a historical context. Sometimes People just happen not to be Muslims or happen not to be part of the groups crazy brand of Muslim.

Or sometimes owning pigeons apparently.

Being a damn dirty infidel, having Moohamhemad in your history text, or owning pigeons ain't being a dick. Except when you let your pigeons crap on my car. Thats dickish. And nasty. And smells none to nice either. My feet are probably worse though, I got some stank ass feet.

Anyway, acknowledging one being a dick is fine as long as it don't go into the territory of victim blaming.

People know drawing a picture of some bearded dude in a turban is known to trigger rather extreme responses from douchebag people, the victims should have known better, they should have changed their lives and restricted their own rights to not risk offend violent rejects.

That sounds a weeeeeeeee bit like the shit MRAs and misogynist cavemen spout about women being raped. "Well she should have known wearing a short skirt to a party would make some douchebag through no fault of his own rape her, she should have known better, she should have changed her life and restricted her rights to not risk getting effing raped."

Both cases sounds like blaming the victim. To paraphrase Dolly the Sheep thats baaaaaaaaaaaaadddddd. Sure the victims did things that might not be all that smart and yes, one can make the argument they should have known better.

But guess who should have known better betterer? The Rapists and Extremists. They are to blame completely, even if the victim may not have made the most sounds moves. They are the ones who took it upon themselves to commit most bogus acts.

These morons in Texas (no not Chucklefuck Norris or the Governor or the people who write textbooks or the idiots who scream secession every few years, the Islamaphobes......the ones who were attacked atleast) did stupid shit but ultimately they were freaking drawing probably rather poorly (I'm one to talk, write, type) while the attackers injured someone and tried to maim or murder others.

[KroLazuxy_87]

Can you help me understand why you seem to put so much emphasis on geography here? Here's my point: If gunmen are showing up to kill people at an event in Garland, Texas, it doesn't really matter where the gunmen or the event organizers hang their hats. Garland has an Islamic censorship problem, as it was there that the violence was intended to and did occur.

I'll do my best to explain why I emphasize the geography, but given my track record so far in this thread, I make no guarantee of success.

1. The gunmen only showed up in Garland, Texas because the event was being held there. The gunmen did not choose the location, AFDI did. Agree/Disagree?

2. This same event held in New York City would LIKELY not have resulted in these gunmen showing up. I'm not saying it's impossible - we're dealing with an extreme religious fringe here after all. I hope we can at least agree that it would have been less likely to have resulted in violence if held elsewhere. Agree/Disagree?

3. Disregarding the potential for violence, the fact remains (if you agree that 1. is fact) that AFDI choose to host this event in a city that was building a new Islamic Center. Their reason: "Muslim-Americans simply practicing their faith non-violently is part of this mass plot to eventually take over the institutions of the United States" I feel like i had something for this, but I don't know. My head hurts. I'll just go with: AFDI came to Garland, TX and instead of fostering compassion and understanding for the Islamic community, they promoted fear and distrust.

Garland, TX does not have an Islamic censorship problem. I know you disagree with this statement at a fundamental level, so I won't try to change anyone's mind about it. Here's why I personally don't believe they have an Islamic censorship problem. The event happened. The community knew it was coming for months and it wasn't stopped. That would have been Islamic censorship. The problem I see in Garland, TX: They have a problem with bigots coming into their city and attracting a violent radical religious fringe to their city. For there to be censorship, there needs to be censorship. Right now we just have two very dead objectors.

If group X came into my town and pissed off group Y enough that group Y decided to get violent, then group Y deserves every bullet that finds their blood-thirsty hides. Once the dust settles, I'd be giving group X a glare and wondering what their motives were.

If a child keeps pulling the tail of a cat despite knowing that it will result in the cat turning around to scratch/bite him, do you then call the child a victim?

If a woman out at a bar ends up getting raped at the end of the night, that is NOT in ANY way her fault. Her intent was to enjoy herself and not promote physical violence.

AFDI was poking radical Islam - hard. I have no intention of taking their stick away, but their intentions were clearly not helpful. AFDI barely qualifies as victims (I still acknowledge they are victims, but certainly not sympathetic ones) when it's clear they intended for violence to occur. If they were working with Islamic and other religious leaders to address the issue of radicalization within the Islamic community and how to turn those individuals away from violence when the gunmen showed up, that's a much clearer picture of victimization.

[biostem]

I'll put it as simply as I can:

Is there ever any excuse for responding to non-violent behavior with violence? If your answer is "no", then stop making excuses.

[Darth Tanner]

Not my debate but I had a few points...

The gunmen did not choose the location, AFDI did. Agree/Disagree?

No the gunmen chose the location of the incident, if they hadn't took the decision to go out and try and murder a load of people there would have been no incident, just a hall full of idiot bigots drawing stupid cartoons of a fictional being.

This same event held in New York City would LIKELY not have resulted in these gunmen showing up.

Are you basing this on New York being too far away for the gunmen to travel to? If so should Islamic murderers declare their preferred travel distances on a database so that free speech exclusion zones can be drawn up? Glad to hear New York is free from Islamic mass murderers these days though...

I'll just go with: AFDI came to Garland, TX and instead of fostering compassion and understanding for the Islamic community, they promoted fear and distrust.

Yes they are a bunch of bigoted idiots... but do you really think their little Klan comic-con meeting did more community damage than two men plotting to kill them all for their cartoon drawing? I'd hope the vast majority of the Muslim population were pissed off at the idiots and maybe wrote them an angry letter or something... they didn't become attempted murderers.

then group Y deserves every bullet that finds their blood-thirsty hides.

You sir are a shit. You try and back-pedal away from this statement later in your post by accepting them as 'unsympathetic victims' but your still accepting people are deserving of violence and death because their speech is offensive.

I also like your comparison of Muslims to animals with no social controls or respect for law and order. Who is the bigot now?

[AniThyng]

I'm pretty sure the prophet Muhammad was not an " imaginary being" regardless of your feelings on Allah's status.

[Darth Tanner]

I'm pretty sure the prophet Muhammad was not an " imaginary being" regardless of your feelings on Allah's status.

Point conceded!

[jwl]

Okay firstly: can we agree that the security guards are entirely innocent victims here? Presumably they didn't organise the event, they were just doing their job.

Also, these gunmen are really stupid. They've just gone and given the organisation the ammunition and publicity it wanted. Without them, nobody would have heard of this organisation.

[Terralthra]

then group Y deserves every bullet that finds their blood-thirsty hides.

You sir are a shit. You try and back-pedal away from this statement later in your post by accepting them as 'unsympathetic victims' but your still accepting people are deserving of violence and death because their speech is offensive.

Please learn to read. X is not Y.

[Tanasinn]

For those who are curious, apparently this was the one chosen by attendees as the winner.

[Darth Tanner]

Please learn to read. X is not Y.

Well that's embarrassing, apologies to KroLazuxy for my illiteracy and overreaction then apparently!

For those who are curious

A monkey man... not quite as racist as I was expecting but still...

[FaxModem1]

Interestingly enough, I grew up in Garland, and it is my hometown. It's a little over an hour's drive away. Some things to note. We actually have a sizable Muslim population there, as Garland is a rather ethnically diverse town, full of all walks of life. Garland is mostly known as a pillow town. It's where a sizable population of the Dallas workforce live, sleep, and enjoy their days off, while they commute to the city. In all actuality, it's really just a suburb of Dallas, same as Plano or Richardson. Dallas is a major ghost town on weekends and nights. The total population is less than 250,000. Garland has suffered economically in the past few years due to white flight, as the money has moved to Richardson and Plano, making Garland a more disreputable area. Garland is currently trying to do some gentrification, but as mentioned above, the money is fleeing away from it to richer areas.

The pop-culture image of the town, as a devastated wasteland portrayed in the film, Zombieland, is mostly correct in the majority of the town.

The shooters, both of them, came from Phoenix, Arizona. That is at least a two day drive if they're really gunning it, meaning that these are not people who lived there locally, got offended, and decided to take up arms, but people who went out of their way to gun people in a gallery down. If the event was hosted somewhere else, they would have gone there as well. True, Garland did host this event, but if it had been anywhere else, the shooters would have traveled there.

The organizers, as noted, also came from New York City. Meaning that it is possible, however unlikely, that the shooters would have traveled to NYC from Phoenix in order to commit their violence there.

And that's my perspective as a local.

[Grumman]

For those who are curious, apparently this was the one chosen by attendees as the winner.

Quite nice. You can't argue with the message, not when two men literally tried to murder the artist for drawing it.

The organizers, as noted, also came from New York City. Meaning that it is possible, however unlikely, that the shooters would have traveled to NYC from Phoenix in order to commit their violence there.

Dallas was also the site of that one cinema which tried to give a free screening of Team America: World Police as a substitute for The Interview, before Paramount denied them the screening rights to that as well. I wonder whether that influenced their choice of location for this event.

[Terralthra]

The thing that always strikes me whenever the topic of depictions of the prophet come up is that the original intent behind proscribing depictions of Mohammad was to ensure that he would not be venerated as a religious icon. He wanted all worship and veneration for Allah, not for himself. It is therefore ironic that the proscription resulted in exactly the sort of religious obsession on depictions of him that he wished to avoid by banning them.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You don't think two gunmen showing up to kill a bunch of cartoonists is indicative of an Islamic censorship problem?

No. It does not. It indicates that two gunmen were willing to kill over a point of religious doctrine.

An Islamic Censorship Problem would be a systematic pattern of religious censorship or censorship attempts generally, or concerted group action to prevent the cartoon event specifically. None of which materialized.

Instead, an event that was very clearly trying to bait a muslim community that has in the past been the victim\ of numerous hate crimes and hatefull KKKesque demonstrations*--there was a nice spontaneous one just after the Garland shooting that one one paid any attention to by the way ** (Garland, and in fact the greater Dallas metro area has a HUGE muslim population courtesy of the local universities which all have for the past few decades welcomed large numbers of students from the middle east, north africa, and SE Asia, to the point that they are a very large minority of the student bodies. Many of them stay and start families and businesses), could not actually find a muslim in the DFW metroplex that would take the bait. No. Instead, whackjobs from Arizona were required to meet Pamella Gellar's "OMG The Terrorists" quotient.

That does not indicate a "problem". The only problem I see is that the muslims in this particular community have to apologize for events beyond their control. That they now will be held collectively accountable for the actions of two nutjobs they want nothing to do with, who dont belong to their community or congregation, and on who's account they will now face legal, social, and in some cases physical reprisal.



*

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/01/watch-p ... americans/

http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/2015/02/ ... /23394983/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... s-on-edge/

**

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/texas-m ... d-contest/

[ArmorPierce]

Why is it okay for a majority group to bait and bully a minority group? We all know that the only reason they did this event was to disrespect a minority group.

Let's be honest, Christian group doesn't care for actual freedom of speech, they care about their freedom of speech.

[TronPaul]

Why is it okay for a majority group to bait and bully a minority group? We all know that the only reason they did this event was to disrespect a minority group.

Let's be honest, Christian group doesn't care for actual freedom of speech, they care about their freedom of speech.

You might not think it's moral, but it is lawful. There seems to be a growing movement that desires the guarantee of never being offended over liberty, which frankly terrifies me.

The majority of Christians these days don't go around murdering people for not being Christian or for insulting Christianity. The same goes for Muslims, but with worse percentages.

[gizmojumpjet]

Why is it okay for a majority group to bait and bully a minority group? We all know that the only reason they did this event was to disrespect a minority group.

Let's be honest, Christian group doesn't care for actual freedom of speech, they care about their freedom of speech.

Group A doing something that Group B disapproves of is hardly bullying. Bullying is members of group B showing up at Group A's event with murderous intent. Perhaps you're not aware that it's legally permissible to "disrespect" people, groups, religions, ideologies, and opinions. This concept is one of the bedrocks of American society. It's so important it's one of the first changes made to the Constitution. So far as your claim of "baiting" is concerned, free speech is often provocative. Being provocative should not result in a death sentence.

By the way, what's the difference between "actual" freedom of speech and "their" freedom of speech?