SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Guardian is reporting that...
Two gunmen have been killed and a security guard injured during what appeared to be an attack on a contest for cartoon depictions of the prophet Muhammad in a Dallas suburb.
The gunmen drove up to the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland shortly before 7pm on Sunday where the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) were hosting the exhibition and contest.
According to city authorities an unarmed guard at the event was shot at before the men were engaged and killed by police.
Further...
A bomb squad was called in after reports of a possible incendiary device at the scene of the incident. Police said a "bomb container trailer" had also been deployed in which to place any suspect device.
A police spokesman said two males had been killed and their bodies were still lying outside their car hours later.
"Because of the situation of what was going on today and the history of what we've been told has happened at other events like this, we are considering their car (is) possibly containing a bomb," Officer Joe Harn, a spokesman for the Garland Police Department, said.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mth on Monday May 04 2015, @09:23AM
I'm from the Netherlands, so while I'm not familiar with Pam Geller, I've seen quite a bit of Geert Wilders, who was the main speaker there according to other news sources. From a PR perspective, this is a win for him: he is comfortable in the role of the victim and he gets to call Islam violent and uncivilized again (*). So it's possible he did use this brain and decided this event was a good idea for his agenda.
I feel sorry for the guards and the police, since they don't have a stake in this risky game but do get hurt.
(*) I haven't read anything about the background of the gunners yet, so while them being Islamic extremists is a likely theory, it is just an assumption at this point.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday May 04 2015, @01:10PM
Technically, the police do, as that's the job they agreed to do - to preserve law and order. There job is to ensure that mentally-ill murderous arseholes with neolithic beliefs and no respect for human life or freedom are not roaming the street.
Someone else set the honeypot this time, but they know it was such; if the outcome was so predictable, there should have been more of them, and they should have been better prepared. I hope they are next time. I hope the guard fully recovers.
There are 5 million Mormons in the US. Therefore Parker and Stone, both within and without South Park, have insulted many millions of people quite successfully without even so much as a clenched fist as a response. So yes, you should be able to insult millions of people. That's called freedom of expression and freedom of speech. I think all hindus, jews, christians, muslims, and all other followers of deistic and theistic religions either have a mental illness or are stupid (depending on whether they have reached a moderate level of scientific compentence or not). The day I don't have the freedom to insult them by telling people my beliefs is the day that the mentally ill and the stupid have won. Sometimes I don't think that day is that far away. Dark ages, take N+1...
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @01:30PM
Freedom of expression means that it is not illegal to insult others. It does not mean that it is OK to insult others.
If you have ever wondered why countries tend to become more authoritarian: One reason is that people have trouble to distinguish between legal and OK, thinking that everything that s legal also is OK. With the result that there's a drive to make everything that's not OK also illegal. Which is bad because things which normally are not OK are often not only OK, but actually required under special conditions. But those special conditions are impossible to codify in law because you never can foresee all of them.
That's why it is important for people to understand that just because something is legal does not mean it is OK. All it means is that you cannot be punished for it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:25PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:32PM
> "Legal" is a much more objective measure than "OK." "OK" is completely subjective.
Yes it is. But people are not robots, we are fuzzy, analog creatures.
The law defines the boundaries for worst cases, expecting anything more of it is to fundamentally misunderstand the roll of law in society.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2015, @11:58PM
If you have ever wondered why countries tend to become more authoritarian: One reason is that people have trouble to distinguish between legal and OK, thinking that everything that s legal also is OK.
No, I don't buy that at all. Instead, it's a standard mindset of anything that isn't subjectively OK should be made illegal. It is the duty of the authorities to enforce a particular moral order.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:01AM
There's no such thing as absolute morality, or at least, no one has been able to scientifically demonstrate that such a thing exists.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:03AM
So, if people have such a mindset, then they are being rather illogical.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 06 2015, @03:38AM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 05 2015, @12:04AM
With the result that there's a drive to make everything that's not OK also illegal.
[...]
That's why it is important for people to understand that just because something is legal does not mean it is OK.
That will not happen. It's important to understand here that a direct consequence of freedom are both the freedom to do something wrong or stupid and the statistical fact that with a large enough population someone will eventually do that wrong or stupid thing. If your freedom depends on others always doing the right and smart thing, then you will not remain free.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @02:22PM
There job is to ensure that mentally-ill murderous arseholes with neolithic beliefs and no respect for human life or freedom are not roaming the street.
Does that mean murderous arseholes with modern beliefs and no respect for human life or freedom should be allowed to roam the street?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @05:47PM
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2012/12/mormon-women-receive-death-threats-for-wanting-to-wear-pants-to-church/ [patheos.com]
http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/onbehalfofall/canned-food-mama-and-me/ [ancientfaith.com]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2528650/The-super-hoarders-Utah-Inside-huge-warehouses-used-feed-states-insatiable-desire-disaster-preparation.html [dailymail.co.uk]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Prophecy [wikipedia.org]
They are bottling up their anger and saving it for the end times. Once enough of them believe that the end times are happening, they will become extremely dangerous. I can't wait to see their reaction to a cure for aging.