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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (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