Terrorists Attack Texas "Draw Mohammed" Event

So... This happened.

Basically, two murderous idiots decided to prove their enemies right.

I don't like Pamela Geller, but she definitely proved herself to be an incredible troll.

ISIS Claims Credit, unsurprisingly. Of course, if Geller gets her way and the US opens up internment camps, what does ISIS care? Proper Muslims shouldn't leave the Middle East!
 
Last edited:
When "avant-garde" created artwork using piss covered Christian icons, the universal response was that "it should jolt Christians into a new wave of enlightenment. Now artists draw pictures of Mohammed and there is actually a debate in the media as to whether or not its right to provoke Muslims. The doublethink boggles the mind.

I don't know when Islam became the pet faith for progressives to defend but it smacks of not knowing a damn thing about the world. Individually Muslims are just like anybody else but the countries where Islam is the dominant culture range from kind of miserable to outright dangerous. What does one say when they hear "I didn't give my wife permission to leave the house" is enough to nullify testimony in a Malaysian Sharia court? Or they learn that eating in front of Muslims during the fasting month is a prison sentence in Brunei.
 
When "avant-garde" created artwork using piss covered Christian icons, the universal response was that "it should jolt Christians into a new wave of enlightenment. Now artists draw pictures of Mohammed and there is actually a debate in the media as to whether or not its right to provoke Muslims. The doublethink boggles the mind.

It's atrocious and pathetic and shows a complete lack of principle.

I don't know when Islam became the pet faith for progressives to defend but it smacks of not knowing a damn thing about the world. Individually Muslims are just like anybody else but the countries where Islam is the dominant culture range from kind of miserable to outright dangerous. What does one say when they hear "I didn't give my wife permission to leave the house" is enough to nullify testimony in a Malaysian Sharia court? Or they learn that eating in front of Muslims during the fasting month is a prison sentence in Brunei.

I find it very difficult to take people seriously who claim that they are for women's rights in all kinds of minor things, and then completely ignore the systematic abuse, up to and including murder, torture and rape of women by a religious establishment that literally runs countries in a theocracy. The left certainly doesn't want a Christian theocracy in any Western countries, but will tolerate a religion that institutionally demands intolerably abusive conduct and place it above criticism.

I don't believe that things that are bad when they're done in the name of Christianity suddenly become good or immunized by being done in the name of a different nonexistent sky daddy (*tips fedora*).

I'll also note that the U.S. has nowhere near the problem that some European countries increasingly have with militant Islam, largely because they have been completely appeasing of utterly vile behavior from the worst of the worst. There, Muslims would have rioted in the face of similar provocation. Here, only two people who were apparently already absolutely insane showed up to cause violence. Every single other Muslim in the region ignored the provocation. The two who didn't are dead.

And there weren't even militant counter-demonstrations. They saw it for the shit show it was and stayed away.

Now, we have to put up with this kind of bullshit from our own citizens, to some extent, but we should never allow this Geert Wilders fuck in the country again.

We have no obligation to allow in foreigners who show up and deliberately intend to get Americans killed for their own political agenda.

That's exactly what Geller and Wilders wanted, to provoke an attack so they could then exploit it.
 
I'll also note that the U.S. has nowhere near the problem that some European countries increasingly have with militant Islam, largely because they have been completely appeasing of utterly vile behavior from the worst of the worst. There, Muslims would have rioted in the face of similar provocation. Here, only two people who were apparently already absolutely insane showed up to cause violence. Every single other Muslim in the region ignored the provocation. The two who didn't are dead.

The European Left seems to have a problem admitting it has a problem (Rotherham is fairly clear evidence of that). That being said, I don't see many leftists engaging in apologia for countries like Saudi Arabia (except Tony Blair, but Tony Blair is literally a lizardman)

Hell, when Sweden's FM Margot Wallstrom told Saudi Arabia to go fuck itself over its women's rights record, the criticism of that came from the business community that exports to Saudi Arabia, not the left.
 
One big difference between American and Canadian Muslims and European Muslims is that it's a lot harder for most Muslims to get to the Western Hemisphere than to just take the shorter route heading to a closer continent which still has a lot of money and lower corruption levels. This means that the Muslims who come over to the US and Canada are generally better educated and more culturally sophisticated, while the ones who come to Europe are generally the European equivalent of Mexican migrants crossed with Appalachians.*

Unfortunately, despite what certain liberals will tell you, those in the proletariat aren't necessarily noble. Hell, many in the proletariat are hateful, ignorant, retarded hillbillies, and no amount of bitterness towards the West excuses this. Colonialism and imperialism were indeed horrible, but they were still better than the nativism and regressivism that pollutes the Third World. It's also possible to oppose and fight against both.

* Well, except for all those liberal views the Bible Belters have.
 
Because they want to bully people.
This shit doesn't have anything to do with religious taboo. The taboo's only on Muslims themselves displaying an image of a Prophet or a holy figure. If it were the obligation of Muslims to prevent the showing of such things under all circumstances, everyone who carries a Crucifix'd be burnt at the stake, seeing as how Jesus is also a Prophet who'll return at the Second Coming to kick Satan's ass and bring the world under Islam.

There are plenty of Muslims who'd like to do such things, but none attempt such things in the West since there's too many Christians who do such things to bully without repercussions. Instead, they settle for bullying Westerners on things that're uncommon enough to ensure they only have to target a small number of people, and save the really nasty persecution for the religious minorities that live in their own countries.

Saudi Arabia, for instance, has more Christians in the country as a percentage of the population than there are Jews and Muslims combined in the US. They just lack any claim to citizenship no matter how long they live there, and lack any human rights altogether when they're from a less fortunate country like the Philippines. Saudi Arabia gets away with this because it's a more powerful and wealthier country than the Philippines.

The core aim of Islamofascism, as is the core aim of all totalitarians, is to bully in whatever way you can get away with. It's the duty of those with the power to fight back against totalitarians to recognize this and fight it to the death.

Inconsistency doesn't mean it has nothing to do with taboos. You're using a deductive argument to analyse an emotional position, and that's not going to work. Catholics use condoms, yet Catholics they remain. There's no arguing that images of Mohammed are a flashpoint for some people, some of whom will commit violent acts to avenge their prophet. Most will find a way to deal with the cognitive dissonance that allows them to function in settings where less accommodating belief would make it impossible to function. Look at the wonderful workarounds Jews have used over the centuries to trick God in to not realising they're violating his rules. Look at the interfaith interactions we see between people of entirely incompatible religious beliefs that are individually blasphemy to the other religions.

Religious belief is emotional, and emotion isn't necessarily logical. This isn't to say that religious people are any more irrational than anybody else. It's more about recognising the nature of religious belief, and I find it difficult to accept that bullying soft targets is the reason why these guys went on what would almost certainly be a suicide mission. If someone claims to be killing for their god then I'm inclined to take them at their word unless there's a very good reason to do otherwise.
 
I'll also note that the U.S. has nowhere near the problem that some European countries increasingly have with militant Islam, largely because they have been completely appeasing of utterly vile behavior from the worst of the worst. There, Muslims would have rioted in the face of similar provocation. Here, only two people who were apparently already absolutely insane showed up to cause violence. Every single other Muslim in the region ignored the provocation. The two who didn't are dead.

More likely is that the US doesn't really have that many Muslims living within its borders. Under 1% of the US population is Muslim and the majority of the community is concentrated in a few urban zones. Its quite possible for an American to go their entire life without ever seeing a Muslim in person. Americans simply don't have an objective understanding of Islamic culture.

Its easy to latch on to a girl in a hijab holding a sign saying "I am not a terrorist" because it plucks a lot of the right activist chords. Whats ironic is that the Muslims in the US represent an insignificant portion of the global community. To find a representative example of a Muslim you would have to look at countries like Saudi Arabia or Indonesia and those are the places where non-muslims don't enjoy the same courtesies.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Ron Paul 2024
Unfortunately, despite what certain liberals will tell you, those in the proletariat aren't necessarily noble.

'Proletariat' isn't exactly a liberal term.

To find a representative example of a Muslim you would have to look at countries like Saudi Arabia or Indonesia and those are the places where non-muslims don't enjoy the same courtesies.

That's disingenuous. What exactly makes Saudi Arabia and Indonesia more 'representative' of Muslims than Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey or India (all of which are decidedly secular)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trombonista
Texan here. Both parties are assholes. Muslims here get treated like shit, and endangering people's lives just to "prove" that Muslims are violent is just shitty as hell. Of course the people who were shooting up the place are terrible and nobody, no matter how much of a dick they're being within their rights, they don't deserve to die. I just don't understand why people feel the need to bait people like this.

Everyone just needs to stop being a dick about someone else's religion. God I hate this state.
 
Texan here. Both parties are assholes. Muslims here get treated like shit, and endangering people's lives just to "prove" that Muslims are violent is just shitty as hell. Of course the people who were shooting up the place are terrible and nobody, no matter how much of a dick they're being within their rights, they don't deserve to die. I just don't understand why people feel the need to bait people like this.

Everyone just needs to stop being a dick about someone else's religion. God I hate this state.

Can we please stop with the "she was asking for it" defense?
 
I find it very difficult to take people seriously who claim that they are for women's rights in all kinds of minor things, and then completely ignore the systematic abuse, up to and including murder, torture and rape of women by a religious establishment that literally runs countries in a theocracy. The left certainly doesn't want a Christian theocracy in any Western countries, but will tolerate a religion that institutionally demands intolerably abusive conduct and place it above criticism.

A few rapists in a culture that universally condemns rape? We have a rape culture.
A culture where they regularly condone killing rape victims for honor? WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE THEM YOU RACIST SHITLORD?
 
Can we please stop with the "she was asking for it" defense?

Geller is not a victim of this, but a beneficiary who deliberately caused it with the specific intent of causing what actually resulted.
 
Can we please stop with the "she was asking for it" defense?

Nobody's claiming she was asking to get shot (nor is anyone claiming she deserved to), but you cannot in good faith claim that event had any purpose beyond pissing Muslims off.

Geller is not a victim of this, but a beneficiary who deliberately caused it with the specific intent of causing what actually resulted.

I really don't think she's enough of an extremist herself that she banked on being attacked.

She was probably just expecting some death threats. maybe a counter-protest that she could use to show off those Angry Angry Arabs, and a fatwa or three from a mullah in Iran.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Marvin
I really don't think she's enough of an extremist herself that she banked on being attacked.

How much do you know about Pamela Geller? She has called for the literal eradication of Islam.

I'm not exactly sure how someone could be more of an extremist than Geller.

ETA: Edited to change statement to one I can support.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: DuskEngine
I don't doubt for one second that Geller got exactly what she wanted. But I cannot condone anyone who believes they have the right to use violence to get what they want.

Did Geller delibertlly egg on the fanatics? Yes

Was she wrong to do so? No

Is Geller a colossal dick for risk people's lives for her own selfish reasons? Of course.

Are the fanatics morally correct using death threats to get there way? No.

Are they colossalv dicks for killing people who disagree with thier views? Of course.

And that's what it comes down too really, you never have the moral right to using violence to attack someone regardles of the ideals involved. Force is only morally right when used to defend against aggression by another party.
 
I don't doubt for one second that Geller got exactly what she wanted. But I cannot condone anyone who believes they have the right to use violence to get what they want.

Did Geller delibertlly egg on the fanatics? Yes

Was she wrong to do so? No.

Agreed with everything in this post except I'd say "yes" to this. It's a fine line, but it's two different things to know that one's actions or speech might, or even will, result in a violent response from a fanatic, and to go ahead anyway. That's courageous. It's entirely another to do it with the actual intention and hope that it will result in an attack so that you can then exploit it for your own political purposes.

The first is what Charlie Hebdo did, and that's admirable. That's why I can go with Je Suis Charlie.

I believe that Geller actually intended the result she got, or worse. She's an utterly terrible person with the worst of intentions, up to and including genocide.
 
I completely agree about Geller, she's human garbage, but I believe she's still in the right here.

My view of free speech is pretty simplistic. You can say whatever you want but I don't have to listen and you can't force me to listen to you.

If you want to stand on the street corner and rant and rave about the evils of Islam you should be free too. People don't have to listen to you, if they choose to listen and agree then it's thier own choice.

The big issue with my approach is that it relies on people being able to think critically about what they are hearing and I'm sure everyone can agree that critical thinking is seriously lacking in our culture today. In fact I think it's beening delibertlly downplayed for various reasons but that's another topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuskEngine
It's good to see that there are people out there who actually understand what went on and where to stand on the Muhammad Cartoon thing. After spending time on places like Something Awful, I didn't believe there were still places out there with sensible people.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Ron Paul 2024
I completely agree about Geller, she's human garbage, but I believe she's still in the right here.

My view of free speech is pretty simplistic. You can say whatever you want but I don't have to listen and you can't force me to listen to you.

If you want to stand on the street corner and rant and rave about the evils of Islam you should be free too. People don't have to listen to you, if they choose to listen and agree then it's thier own choice.

The big issue with my approach is that it relies on people being able to think critically about what they are hearing and I'm sure everyone can agree that critical thinking is seriously lacking in our culture today. In fact I think it's beening delibertlly downplayed for various reasons but that's another topic.

The problem I have with the whole free speech debate is that the left wing of the Democratic party seems to want to apply restrictions to free speech selectively to people they dislike, ie conservative white people. Radical Muslims will be able to rant about hating Jews and the Black Panthers will be able to yell about killing whitey all day long without any consequences. That's not how rights work, either freedom of speech is a sacred right that we as a society respect or its not.
 
The problem I have with the whole free speech debate is that the left wing of the Democratic party seems to want to apply restrictions to free speech selectively to people they dislike, ie conservative white people. Radical Muslims will be able to rant about hating Jews and the Black Panthers will be able to yell about killing whitey all day long without any consequences. That's not how rights work, either freedom of speech is a sacred right that we as a society respect or its not.

This is exactly why I feel hate speech laws are invariably a bad idea. They are never applied evenly, and are generally applied only against those whose politics are currently out of favor. The UK has fairly stringent hate speech laws in comparison to the US, and yet, "Islamophobia" (which ranges from actual hate speech to accurate criticism of behavior) is singled out as particularly pernicious.

Meanwhile, the UK's radical imams openly do things like call for the extermination of Jews, deny the Holocaust, etc. Since they're special snowflakes, it's okay.

It's not that I think they should be stopped. Let the crazies rant about the Holocaust. Let the Black Israelites (a supremacist cult prominent in NYC) rant in the subways about killing whitey. But hey, if someone wants to draw Mohammed fucking a pig, that's fine with me, too. And if some terrorist doesn't like it, they can fuck right back off to their theocracy. . .or peacefully protest about it.
 
id4866a8082678926cb368a0af5f8b29b_-569597.jpeg


Huh. Looks like AFDI was behind those NYC subway ads too.

This is exactly why I feel hate speech laws are invariably a bad idea. They are never applied evenly, and are generally applied only against those whose politics are currently out of favor.

There's decent cause to ban specific incitement to violence, I'd say. But that's iffy too, as the whole antisemitism/anti-Zionism problem demonstrates.

On a side note-Antisemitism is weird, because it exists on both the left and the right, and both the left and the right are against it, and both the left and the right accuse each other of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron Paul 2024
Back