It’s getting pretty difficult to distinguish between the people who actually want to start a war, and those standing up for what they believe in.
The fact that some people have feet in both camps is especially confusing.
4 Likes
How many millions of Muslims in this country did NOT shoot at the people at the exhibit?
Let’s put it this way: on average which group in the U.S. is is safer to be around, Muslims or police officers?
9 Likes
Holding an event like this, while legal, in my view is being obtusely provacative and shows a lack of class. The Christian among the organizers should ask themselves “WWJD?” Pretty sure Jesus would not host a contest with the sole purpose of mocking and antagonizing followers of a different religion. And even if they aren’t Christian… Well it’s still a dickish thing to do.
7 Likes
well, they got their 97 virgins, so…
I have little fondness for Wilders and friends; but it’s worth keeping in mind that the poster children of the First Amendment tend to be contrarian at best and overt dickheads at worst; because all the nice inoffensive people don’t need legal protection for their speech. Exactly who counts as ‘courageous speaker of unpopular truth’ and ‘overt dickhead’ can be a matter of some disagreement; but any attempt to curb the latter would sweep up the former, so we put up with them.
3 Likes
But this particular group isn’t just a terrible example of “free speech defenders” because they are willing to say unpopular things themselves, they’re a terrible example because they are actively working to end free speech for other people. It’s a bit like NAMBLA trying to tell other people what kinds of clubs they should be allowed to join.
4 Likes
I was going to say: Why an “anti-islam” event instead of a “pro-free-speech” event, until I got to this:
“Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician who famously called for the Koran to be banned, was the keynote speaker at the event, according to Reuters.”
For fucks sake, guys. I mean, really?
6 Likes
Who’s “they”?
But yeah, pushing the envelope of inciting violence is not a new tactic in human communities.
AFDI, the guys who’s holding the convention in the first place.
1 Like
Useful? In what way? I don’t think so. It’s a pain in the ass, billions wasted trying to change things and most people aren’t much better off if at all. It is why we tolerate dictators and monarchs of the area - they kept things peaceful and oil flowing consistently.
1 Like
Whatever the outcome… lol. Nice jihad, stupid motherfuckers. They took out a security guard’s ankle in exchange for their lives. Good trade! I hope you Texan infidels are cowering in fear. They might take a calf next!
2 Likes
Some people become murderous when we draw certain kinds of cartoons, therefore we have to draw those cartoons all the time so that the murderous people out themselves or eventually get used to it and get over themselves.
4 Likes
I have. The Sharia4Belgium guys used to operate around my neighbourhood. The same people would go on to recruit people to go join ISIS, some of whom have turned into to suicide bombers. They were quite vocal in their support of terrorism. They also held a party celebrating 9/11 with their dutch counterparts.
2 Likes
Did you really mean them or AFDI (American Freedom Defense Initiative )?
1 Like
You’re trying to extrapolate what I said to make me sound like a bigot, or you’ve misunderstood, but I’m not lumping every Muslim offended in with the two that did the shooting. When I said “The offended Muslims,” I meant only the two that were involved in this shooting, none others.
I don’t see what police have to do with anything. But as a white person, they’re probably both equally safe to be around.
1 Like
That security guard probably doesn’t find it that funny, and probably will have to deal with his ankle for the rest of his life. Not dead doesn’t mean not impacted.
I’m glad you’ve explained that “the offended Muslims” was not a general statement but meant to indicate only the two people who were killed while responding violently to the situation.
But you seem to have misunderstood my point (and that of many others on this thread) that every human group has a small percentage of members who will go batshit crazy when provoked. If we can’t talk about “all Christians” when someone who works in reproductive health is murdered, then we need to be equally careful to refer only to the individuals when the affinity group in question happens to be, say, Muslim.
This event was orchestrated specifically to rally the extremists who hate the U.S. Constitution for providing human and civil rights to “others”, and wave a red cape in front of that tiny minority of people in the offended group who are likely to react in a non-civilized way. They succeeded in their objective: proved that “Muslims” are crazy violent fanatics, and didn’t even lose a foot soldier in the battle.
And if you don’t understand the reference to the amount of violence and killing that police officers perpetrate against certain groups of people in the U.S., which is significantly more lethal than violence perpetrated by Islamic extremists (including 9/11), then you haven’t been paying attention.
5 Likes
Precisely, Two attackers got shot, not two hundred. We can’t pretend that successfully provoking this violent and particularly noisy minority indicates that the solution is to try to provoke them more. They’re already a minority. That minority will always exist. I’m not saying they should be tolerated, but let’s not pretend that the solution to their existence and their violence is to deliberately provoke them, then tar the majority with a broad brush. I can also absolutely see being Muslim and not wanting to say anything remotely in support of Pam Gellar, even if they condemn the gunmen. Just wait, that hesitance will be used against them in a way that wouldn’t be used in the context of, say, Black hesitance to condemn an attack on a KKK rally through Baltimore.
5 Likes
