Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Monday May 04 2015, @06:40AM   Printer-friendly
from the ineffectual-terrorism dept.

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.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @10:56AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @10:56AM (#178418)

    Whatever happened to tolerance?

    The Quran happened.

    3:28 Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying.

    The Muslim is not your friend.

    3:73 And believe not save in one who followeth your religion - Say (O Muhammad): Lo! the guidance is Allah's Guidance - that anyone is given the like of that which was given unto you or that they may argue with you in the presence of their Lord. Say (O Muhammad): Lo! the bounty is in Allah's hand. He bestoweth it on whom He will. Allah is All-Embracing, All-Knowing.

    The muslim doesn't trust a word you say.

    3:149 O ye who believe! if ye obey those who disbelieve, they will make you turn back on your heels, and ye turn back as losers.

    The muslim doesn't follow your laws.

    3:21 Lo! those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, and slay the prophets wrongfully, and slay those of mankind who enjoin equity: promise them a painful doom.

    The mulsim wants to kill you.

    Religion of peace my ass. More like the religion of abusing guilable ignorant oversensitive western morons.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Troll=1, Redundant=1, Informative=4, Disagree=2, Total=8
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Monday May 04 2015, @12:08PM

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @12:08PM (#178440) Journal

    I could easily pick similar texts from the Bible to counter your claims.

    The enemy isn't a specific religion, but a minority who have twisted the teachings of that religion to support their own extremist views. Until we can accept an individual's right to choose any religion whatsoever then we are no better than those that you seem to be accusing of being the cause of the problems.

    Of course, no one has ever distorted the Christian Bible to further their own ends or for personal gain, have they? Well, not if we ignore several monarchs who have had the Bible rewritten to ensure that their own position was safe within the church, crusaders who happily slaughtered thousands in the name of Christianity, and more modern churches which seem to condemn many people that their own 'God' has seen fit to allow to be born.

    Remember that most religions are based on documents whose origin is disputed, by individuals whose views were limited by the extent of their ignorance, and that they have been rewritten, translated, rephrased, and re-interpreted continuously by followers of that particular faith to support their current views every since.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @01:37PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @01:37PM (#178481)

      I could easily pick similar texts from the Bible to counter your claims.

      Not only is it a red herring, but it's also false. I dare you to try to find a passage in the bible which promotes unwarranted violence by it's followers, and is not repelled by the new testament.

      The enemy isn't a specific religion, but a minority who have twisted the teachings of that religion to support their own extremist views.

      This isn't about enemies, it's about a religion whose core tenets promote violence.

      Of course, no one has ever distorted the Christian Bible to further their own ends or for personal gain, have they?

      But you don't need to disort the Quran. Not unless your geal is the opposite at any rate.

      crusaders who happily slaughtered thousands in the name of Christianity

      Oh please, that meme has long been discredited. The crusades were the result of concious decisions by secular kings whose actual goals were entirely non-religious (primarily proffit and expansion). Sure, they cooperated with the pope to feed "gott mit uns" to the masses, just like every despot ever has abused "For $IDEOLOGY!".

      and more modern churches which seem to condemn many people that their own 'God' has seen fit to allow to be born

      The problem with Islam is not the existence of crazy. If something like the modern skeptic movement can attract crazies, then it's safe to assume that pretty much any ideology can. The problem with Islam is that it explicitly promotes violent crazy, which results in much greater concentration of violant crazies than other religions. Only one religion has contemporary militiant theocratic states, no points for guessing which one.

      Remember that most religions are based on documents whose origin is disputed, by individuals whose views were limited by the extent of their ignorance, and that they have been rewritten, translated, rephrased, and re-interpreted continuously by followers of that particular faith to support their current views every since.

      That is factually incorrect. The only mainstream modern religions based on an canonical holy books are Christianity, Islam and Judeism, and while the former two are the two largest groups, they are hardly "most" even if you only count Hidnu, Confucian and Budhism.

      Furthermore, out of the three, we have fairly complete pre-AD sources for the first two, where as the later was written to justify the actions of one cruel warlord. I'm not sure of the autenticity of the later.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:11PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:11PM (#178573)

        > try to find a passage in the bible which promotes unwarranted violence by it's followers, and is not repelled by the new testament.

        What is your definition of unwarranted?

        Jesus did not repeal the old testament:

        Matthew 5:17-18 --
        Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
        For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by maxwell demon on Monday May 04 2015, @06:16PM

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Monday May 04 2015, @06:16PM (#178667) Journal

        I dare you to try to find a passage in the bible which promotes unwarranted violence by it's followers, and is not repelled by the new testament.

        This one is right from the new testament: Matthew 10, 34-39 [biblegateway.com]

        34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:29PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:29PM (#178675)

          Like every quote the islamafoes pull from the quran, context completely changes the meaning of that quote. He's not talking about violence, he is referring to youth picking up christianity versus the judiasm of their parents.

          But I'm not going to make the effort to track that one down again in order to back up my claim.
          Christians have a couple orders of magnitude more people to defend them on the english web than muslims do, I'm sure at least one them will step up.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:35AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:35AM (#178997)

          How is this inciting violence in any way?

          The book talks about how the divisive nature of Christ's prophecy will set parent against child, and that children should follow him (to salvation) over their parents. In context, it implies a civil that will occur after his coming, and the reasons for it are (undefined) sins committed by the residents. We don't know the reasons behind it, which I assume is purposely done to let the reader "fill the blanks" so that the reason of the conflict if always justified in their head, but that's just my personal baseless opinion.

          The "wielder" of the sword is stated quite clearly earlier:

          10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.

          So yes, the coming of Christ will promote violence, but it's hardly worded as code of conduct like "The Family of Imran" and it's position on unbelievers (spoiler: converted or dead).

        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday May 05 2015, @12:55PM

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday May 05 2015, @12:55PM (#179075) Homepage
          But only a naive interpretation of that actually promotes violence. You must remember that most of the bible is metaphors. If you're going to take an ultra-literal interpretation, then how is the single solitary sword to be shared between all of the people who need to kill their parents - how long does each one have it? And where is it - has it been lost? If so, does that mean the killings are now to stop?
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @01:46PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @01:46PM (#178486)

      The enemy isn't a specific religion, but a minority who have twisted the teachings of that religion

      Again and again. It is not a minority. Even in western countries the majority of Muslims support Sharia including the nasty stuff like beheading infidels and stoning rape victims to death. We are just lucky that they are a minority. In every country where Islam has become the majority, these things happen more, not less.

      Until we can accept an individual's right to choose any religion whatsoever then we are no better than those that you seem to be accusing of being the cause of the problems.

      We do. They don't. The problem is not their religion, but their actions in service to their religion.

      And I am sick of this one sided nonsense. If you want citations from me, you will have to back up your claims first. No more of this null hypothesis being peace. The null hypothesis is right there in the news story.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by curunir_wolf on Monday May 04 2015, @02:29PM

      by curunir_wolf (4772) on Monday May 04 2015, @02:29PM (#178514)

      crusaders who happily slaughtered thousands in the name of Christianity

      Actually, the Crusades were a reaction to the preceding violent expansion of Islam [islam-watch.org].

      --
      I am a crackpot
      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @02:38PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @02:38PM (#178520)

        > Actually, the Crusades were a reaction to the preceding violent expansion of Islam.

        If you think anything that happens on such a massive scale is the reaction to a single thing, then you haven't been paying attention to world you live in.

        That's like saying the invasion of Iraq was a reaction to 9/11.
        Yes it was. But it would never have happened were it not for the trillions of dollars that defense contractors stood to make, among other reasons.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:42PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:42PM (#178717)

          To be fair, with that attitude, soylent would never have the disk space to handle just one discussion about any geopolitical move.

          The causational chain is as long and as broad as all of the universe. All we can do is choose a context to limit the scope and at this point we are no longer arguing about a single event but how broad we want to go in interpreting cause. While interesting it is also not an effective way to understand anything at a human level.

      • (Score: 2, Touché) by janrinok on Monday May 04 2015, @05:04PM

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @05:04PM (#178619) Journal
        So, they didn't kill anybody in their attempts to gain access to religious sites in the Middle East?
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:18PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:18PM (#178580)

    Well, the rotten apple doesn't fall far from the tree. [youtube.com]

    Religions are simply another form of tribalism or nationalism that can be used as a justification of violence against the "other". They have no place in a civilised society.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @09:11PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @09:11PM (#178774)
    Whatever country you are in you're surrounded by millions if moslims and completely unafraid of your safety. Take a look outside, the picture you are painting is completly wrong.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:43AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:43AM (#179003)

      Time for everyone's favorite bullshit check - the Godwin substitution:

      Whatever country you are in you're surrounded by millions of moslims muslims neo-nazis and completely unafraid of your safety. Take a look outside, the picture you are painting is completly completely wrong.

      <sarcasm>So there is your proof: nazis don't really mean to hurt anyone! The small number of nazis who hurt people are just extremists and don't represent the average non-violent nazi.</sarcasm>