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:
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.

That's what the Supreme Court thinks, with the criteria laid out in Brandenburg v. Ohio. Essentially, speech has to be both intended to and actually likely to cause imminent lawless action to be unprotected on that basis.
 
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.

Anti hate-speech laws tend to end up like anti-blasphemy laws. As you noted with the former, they are never applied evenly. Both types of laws tend to favour the noisy crowd, and that's just bizarre that the decision to consider something an offence comes down to a popularity competition - often with a noisy minority receiving greater consideration. If some Imam wants to claim that Jews are pigs, then all power to him. That's his opinion, and the only way to freedom ofexpression is to accept that we will sometimes be offended. If he wants to call for the murder of Jews then that's when the incitement provisions of the Serious Crime Act 2007 should come in to play. Non-inciteful hate speech is just an opinion. It's often a very dumb opinion, but even an idiot should have the right to speak their brains. Of course there will still be a grey area where the incitement isn't so clear. Given the number of idiots out here, and the way leaders can hold some sway over them, I'd rather have have properly enforced laws that come down hard when they tell their followers to go kill whitey.

And on people holding seemingly conflicting positions: this is the source of the left. Look at George Galloway as a great example. To the Muslims he's the great white hope, and he'll defend damn near anything they do. To the gays and women, he's the same. He manages this by saying the right things to the right crowd, and must hope he never double-books these groups when he's out giving speeches.
 
Didn't work for him this time out, though.

Oh fuck yeah! I hadn't realized that Galloway lost. I doubt anyone in the Commons is yet to notice. The average tourist has spent more time there than Galloway ever did. Absolute shitbag of a man, and any ward that re-elect him should be immediately granted independence from the union.
 
Can we please stop with the "she was asking for it" defense?
I never made that connection and for the record I hate that defense in cases of rape.

My brother told me an anaology I really liked in regards to conparing this situation to rape with the whole "asking for it" business. This situation is like if someone was on a street corner holding up a sign that said "I bet you don't have the GUTS to rape me!" and shouted to people who walk by similar things. Does this person deserved to get raped? God no, that's ridiculous. The perpetrator is still the only one at fault. But you just see this person and think "what the fuck are you doing?"

I don't wish violence on these people at all. They're still assholes, though because it's obvious they want to bait people to prove whatever the fuck they're trying to prove.
 
I never made that connection and for the record I hate that defense in cases of rape.

My brother told me an anaology I really liked in regards to conparing this situation to rape with the whole "asking for it" business. This situation is like if someone was on a street corner holding up a sign that said "I bet you don't have the GUTS to rape me!" and shouted to people who walk by similar things. Does this person deserved to get raped? God no, that's ridiculous. The perpetrator is still the only one at fault. But you just see this person and think "what the fuck are you doing?"

I don't wish violence on these people at all. They're still assholes, though because it's obvious they want to bait people to prove whatever the fuck they're trying to prove.

It doesn't matter if they're trying to bait people. Unless they use violence or genuine harassment first, you don't fight back.

Look at the Westboro Baptist Church? You don't think there are lots of people in the country who'd love to kill them? Hell, I'd love to fire at them during one of their protests with an AK and take out a few of the fuckers myself, but I don't do that because they're not acting violently and they aren't genuinely harassing anybody.* People's id, including my own, should not be a justification for murder.

Your analogy is also fucking appalling.

* Child services still should absolutely take those kids away. But that's not because of the views of the members. Certain WBC children are actually being physically abused by their parents.
 
It doesn't matter if they're trying to bait people. Unless they use violence or genuine harassment first, you don't fight back.

Look at the Westboro Baptist Church? You don't think there are lots of people in the country who'd love to kill them? Hell, I'd love to fire at them during one of their protests with an AK and take out a few of the fuckers myself, but I don't do that because they're not acting violently and they aren't genuinely harassing anybody.* People's id, including my own, should not be a justification for murder.

Your analogy is also fucking appalling.

* Child services still should absolutely take those kids away. But that's not because of the views of the members. Certain WBC children are actually being physically abused by their parents.
Do you not see where I said that murdering someone for being an asshole is wrong?

Also I'm a rape and sexual assault victim myself. To be honest, I think it's stupid to even try to justify actions of people being assholes by comparing them to people doing nothing wrong in the first place. I thought the analogy my brother gave me was funny because people were trying to paint the people who organized that dumb shit in the first place as completely harmless and as if they never did anything wrong.

And stop ignoring the parts where I have explicitly said that the people who tried to murder them were wrong. I never even said that they were justified in their actions because they absolutely weren't. Commiting murder is worse than just being a general asshole. Is that explicit enough for you? Jfc.

I was trying to point out that as a Texan I've seen too much of this Muslim hate to completely defend the ones who organized this event as of they were complete angels just using their freedom of speech. This isn't a black and white issue.
 
I never said they were angels. Truth is, I despise the people who only oppose Islamist Nativism so they can institute their own brand of Nativism on the homefront. I still completely defend those who want to organize a Muhammad cartoon contest regardless of their motivations.

That's what makes this black and white. Regardless of the motivations for wanting a Muhammad cartoon contest, the fact that there are people who want to kill those who throw them is exactly the reason why we should both continue to throw them and defend those who do. None of us will be close to free as long as we can't.

Your problem is that you think a defense of their needing to be a contest extends to defending the entirety of everything those who throw the contest have done. It's blatant misdirection and apology for the hateful, retarded hillbillies who want to take away as much of our freedom as they can.

All that aside, I'm horrified to know that you've experienced such a grave assault on yourself. I'm still disappointed that you're using this as a way to shield against your apology for these thugs.
 
Your problem is that you think a defense of their needing to be a contest extends to defending the entirety of everything those who throw the contest have done. It's blatant misdirection and apology for the hateful, retarded hillbillies who want to take away as much of our freedom as they can.


AFDI wanted to be martyred in the name of free speech, just as the attackers wanted to be martyred in the name of Islam. The problem with that is that martyrdom is a retarded way to advance your political goals.

We can recognize the attack as a categorically more heinous act without needing to defend the event which provoked it. The aegis of free speech under which the event took place is separate from the event itself, and only one of them is worth defending.

Basically every post in this thread has condemned the attack pretty unequivocally. Nobody here is apologising for or defending it. Accusing people of doing so does not accomplish anything.
 
I never said they were angels. Truth is, I despise the people who only oppose Islamist Nativism so they can institute their own brand of Nativism on the homefront. I still completely defend those who want to organize a Muhammad cartoon contest regardless of their motivations.

That's what makes this black and white. Regardless of the motivations for wanting a Muhammad cartoon contest, the fact that there are people who want to kill those who throw them is exactly the reason why we should both continue to throw them and defend those who do. None of us will be close to free as long as we can't.

Your problem is that you think a defense of their needing to be a contest extends to defending the entirety of everything those who throw the contest have done. It's blatant misdirection and apology for the hateful, retarded hillbillies who want to take away as much of our freedom as they can.

All that aside, I'm horrified to know that you've experienced such a grave assault on yourself. I'm still disappointed that you're using this as a way to shield against your apology for these thugs.
Holy shit, your last paragraph is so shitty. I wasn't looking for sympathy points, I was obviously expressing that you using experiences from people like myself to just be right is horrible. You seriously keep ignoring how I said nobody, even shitty people, deserve any kind of violence against them. How much more obvious can I possibly get? Am I crazy? Am I seriously being unreasonable? Good lord.

A "contest"? Are you fucking kidding me? You put words in my mouth and you are continuing to do it while also trying to make yourself look genuinely concerned for my experiences despite the fact that you attempted to exploit those experiences to make yourself look like you were on the moral highground.

As I have expressed God knows how many times before, I don't condone violence toward anybody no matter how shitty they may be. I'm just saying that I have too much experience with people that make this state fucking unbearable. Obviously murder is never justified. Can I not express how shitty these people were being without being accused of siding with rapists? Because you made that assumption first and we both know it, especially since you tried to describe your feelings about my situation in a way that you seemed more sympathetic despite the fact that I was the victim.

I apologize to the mods and admins if I am getting off topic. I'll stop if so. I kust can't stand people putting words in my mouth.
 
nobody should ever be killed for a fucking cartoon. doesn't matter how intentionally offensive it is. if you think otherwise you're a fucking feels-fascist.
This is the main reason draw Mohammed day exists. Entirely to point out how silly it is people want to kill each other over illustrations of guys that lived 1500 years ago
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Clown Doll
Nowhere in the Quran does it say you can't draw Mohammed.

That's actually a hadith, the legitimacy of which varies widely from Muslim to Muslim. If you're a spastic, it warrants death. If you're average joe, nobody gives a shit.

Medieval_Persian_manuscript_Muhammad_leads_Abraham_Moses_Jesus.jpg


Maome.jpg


http://sneed.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/embedded_full/public/2015/01/09/0109islamart02.jpg?itok=RC3MpO-0

Aniconism is cool, though. Mostly because it has fuck all to do with censorship.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Clown Doll
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)?

India - Secular by a very different definition than western nations. Its not a good example because Hindi+Sikh/Muslim relations are terrible. India has native terrorists of all stripes including a collection of radical islamist mujadeen groups.

Egypt - Secular until given a chance to vote then became Islamic before the military took over. Priceless artifacts destroyed. Copts persecuted after the so called arab spring. Still not exactly a stable safe place to live.

Tunisia - Like Malaysia. Secular...except Islam is the state religions, the president has to be a muslim, you can't covert from islam or proselytize to muslims, and forced islamic education in primary school.

Turkey - The one exception and a country I am pretty heavily invested in. Once the bastion of civil rights in the muslim world. Now its slowly becoming more islamic as the government plays on religious sensibilities.

If you were to reach into a hypothetical bag of muslims, you have more than 60% chance of pulling out a SEA(My home) or SA muslim. The only developed country in these regions is Brunei, who has now completely implemented Sharia for all of its residents. Saudi is one of the few developed nations in the middle east and its also a place where they behead so many people that the executioners are overworked. There simply isn't a developed muslim nation that westerners would consider secular by international definitions. There are incredibly few muslim countries where a non-muslim would find to be a pleasant, much less safe place to live.

And that was my original point. Progressives in the US really don't have any substantial knowledge of Islamic culture and its current place in the world but will speak with absolute moral authority on the issue. My observation is that muslims are portrayed as some poor marginalized group when the truth is they are thriving in the world at large.
 
And that was my original point. Progressives in the US really don't have any substantial knowledge of Islamic culture and its current place in the world but will speak with absolute moral authority on the issue. My observation is that muslims are portrayed as some poor marginalized group when the truth is they are thriving in the world at large.

Absolutely, yeah. I was mostly addressing the issue of implementation of sharia, and pointing out that while religious law is regressive nonsense, secularism isn't a magic bullet.

I'll address this country by country when I get the chance.

EDIT:
India - Secular by a very different definition than western nations. Its not a good example because Hindi+Sikh/Muslim relations are terrible. India has native terrorists of all stripes including a collection of radical islamist mujadeen groups.

Religious relations in India are far from ideal, but by relative standards it's a pretty successful pluralistic society. There are a lot of antagonistic and communalist elements in society (of all stripes, as you said), but civil society remains functional.

Egypt - Secular until given a chance to vote then became Islamic before the military took over. Priceless artifacts destroyed. Copts persecuted after the so called arab spring. Still not exactly a stable safe place to live.

The main reason I brought up Egypt is because it's a solid example of a place that had shit rulers before the Islamists came to power, had shit rulers while the Islamists were in power, and has shit rulers now that the Islamists have been booted out.

Tunisia - Like Malaysia. Secular...except Islam is the state religions, the president has to be a muslim, you can't covert from islam or proselytize to muslims, and forced islamic education in primary school.

But still a stable, functioning democracy, the most significant one to come out of the Arab Spring. Most of the gains the country has made are ones that the secular opposition has managed to wring out of the Islamists, though.

I know proselytizing to Muslims is illegal, but I was under the impression that converting away from Islam was legal. I understand the constitution guarantees freedom of conscience, which is what that usually implies, right?

Turkey - The one exception and a country I am pretty heavily invested in. Once the bastion of civil rights in the muslim world. Now its slowly becoming more islamic as the government plays on religious sensibilities.

Erdogan is an idiot Islamist who's trying to roll back Ataturk's secularism, which was very forward-looking. I understand that Kemalism is mostly favoured by the armed forces, though.


We both agree about the Muslim world generally being not great to live in, I think. I'm just pointing out that plenty of Muslim countries manage to be shit while still being nominally secular.
 
Last edited:
I am honestly not sure about the rules Tunisia has regarding apostates. You are probably better informed than me on that front. What I do know is that they are very similar to Malaysia in that their constitution technically guarantees a great degree of religious freedoms but the country is set up to compel one to convert to Islam. Its almost like these countries are only paying lip service to certain aspects of civil society to fit into the rest of the world while deep down they believe in a few generations non-Muslims will simply cease to be an issue.

I will say in defense of deposed despots like Murabak, Christians fared a lot better before Muslim rule. Now the only country in the middle east with a growing christian population is Israel. Unfortunately Israel is also a pariah to modern progressives.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: DuskEngine
This is the main reason draw Mohammed day exists. Entirely to point out how silly it is people want to kill each other over illustrations of guys that lived 1500 years ago
This. Also, because appeasement never works. As soon as you give in to one ridiculous demand, the extremists will only push even harder for more extreme demands. The point is to get them to where most other religions are, where if someone says deliberately offensive stuff, they'll just facepalm for a couple seconds, then go on with their lives.
 
Back