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.

Related Stories

NSA's "Google for Voice," And More 25 comments

The Intercept has released an article entitled, "The Computers Are Listening: How the NSA Converts Spoken Words Into Searchable Text":

Top-secret documents from the archive of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden show the National Security Agency can now automatically recognize the content within phone calls by creating rough transcripts and phonetic representations that can be easily searched and stored. The documents show NSA analysts celebrating the development of what they called "Google for Voice" nearly a decade ago.

Though perfect transcription of natural conversation apparently remains the Intelligence Community's "holy grail," the Snowden documents describe extensive use of keyword searching as well as computer programs designed to analyze and "extract" the content of voice conversations, and even use sophisticated algorithms to flag conversations of interest.

The documents include vivid examples of the use of speech recognition in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in Latin America. But they leave unclear exactly how widely the spy agency uses this ability, particularly in programs that pick up considerable amounts of conversations that include people who live in or are citizens of the United States.

Recently, Chancellor Angela Merkel defended German intelligence (BND) spying on behalf of the NSA. Former Director of the NSA Michael Hayden has taken the opportunity to use the failed Garland, TX attack to advocate preserving or extending NSA surveillance:

Public wishes about how to balance privacy and security will have to be evaluated in light of the shooting deaths of two men outside a "Draw Muhammad" free-speech event in Garland, Texas, on Sunday, former CIA and NSA director Gen. Michael Hayden tells Newsmax TV. "You've got this difficult decision to make: when does free thought and free speech cross the line into something that's actionable by American law enforcement?" Hayden said Monday on "Newsmax Prime," hosted by J.D. Hayworth. The "totality of circumstances" should determine where the line is drawn between privacy and security, Hayden said. "We may actually discover that we're drawing the line too conservatively and that we should be more forward-leaning with our action," he said. "We'll let the facts take us there if they will."

Despite criticism of NSA overreach from some quarters, the agency's former boss doesn't see anything wrong with how information is collected, he told Hayworth. He understands the concerns, Hayden said, but added: "Of all the times when we might want to make it more difficult or more cumbersome to find the terrorists in the United States, this is not that time because of the kind of things that happened in Texas yesterday."

ISIS just claimed responsibility for the Garland attack. What does this all mean for the USA FREEDOM Act, the bill that could place some small limits on the U.S. surveillance state? According to the New York Times, the NSA may be willing to sacrifice elements of domestic telephone spying in order to preserve "more vital" programs.

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, @06:51AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:51AM (#178341)

    Two words: Pam Geller.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:56AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:56AM (#178344)

      Hadn't heard of her. Are you a fan?

      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:11AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:11AM (#178347)

        There is this thing called "google", you might use it instead of displaying ignorance. That's what I would do!

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:27AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:27AM (#178354)

          There is this thing called "hyperlinks" [wikipedia.org], you might use it instead of displaying laziness. That's what I would do!

          • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:43AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:43AM (#178360)

            is this thing called "hyperlinks", you might use it instead of displaying laziness

            Dude, you just hyperlinked to the wikipedia entry on hyperlinks. Are you trying to destroy the world as we know it, like Pam Geller and her fascist followers? The world will end from the failure to comprehend the exponential function, or recursive linking, and Pam Geller and her hate-mongering friends.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2015, @04:54PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @04:54PM (#178607) Journal
            No, why should I waste my time with this mysterious "hyperlink" technology when you, Anonymous Coward can spoon feed me?
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 04 2015, @07:28AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @07:28AM (#178355) Journal

          The statement above is, "Hadn't heard of her." The question is "Are you a fan?" You failed to answer the question, instead focusing on the statement, and irrationally concluding that AC had not googled for Pam.

          As a matter of fact, I have heard of Pam, and I am a fan of hers. The woman cuts through all the stupid bullshit, and gets to the point. Islam is incompatible with any democratic society, incompatible with western civilization, incompatible with any society which values freedom.

          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:31AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:31AM (#178358)

            Freedom to be jailed for life if you marry or try to marry a young girl child.

            Freedom is only the freedoms women want in America.
            (All old religions allow child marriage of girls, if "freedom of religion" ment anything...)

            • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday May 04 2015, @07:53AM

              by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @07:53AM (#178365) Journal
              Hi MikeeUSA
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:59AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:59AM (#178368)

                Who's that?

                • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday May 04 2015, @08:27AM

                  by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @08:27AM (#178377) Journal
                  Sorry - must be a case of mistaken Identity.
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:39AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:39AM (#178385)

                    Nah, it really is MikeeUSA, he always posts when the FA is about Texas.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @03:16PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @03:16PM (#178536)

                      We all look the same to me.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @03:26PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @03:26PM (#178544)

              If you believe in your sick belief enough why don't you say it with your real name and address.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @07:41AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @07:41AM (#178977)

                So you could come arrest or kill me?

                No thanks shill.

                Hope you die before your time.

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday May 04 2015, @07:36AM

            by hemocyanin (186) on Monday May 04 2015, @07:36AM (#178359) Journal

            To be fair, so is a literal interpretation of the judeochristian bible. Sadly, even in America, there are those who are still shackled to the ancient text. I will grant that it appears that Muslims in the middle east appear even more so shackled, but my belief that that is so may just be the result of western propaganda. Anyway, what would have been better than a Muhammed cartoon day, would have been a day to make porn of Jesus and Muhammed fucking and sucking each other off.

            • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @11:36AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @11:36AM (#178425)

              > To be fair, so is a literal interpretation of the judeochristian bible.

              No it is not.
              What you meant to say is a selective reading of the judeochristian bible.
              Same for the quran.

              Anyone who reads the entirety of those books would never come away with such an understanding. It takes deliberate ignorance of most of each book to come to those sorts of extremist conclusions.

              • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @01:16PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @01:16PM (#178471)

                Anyone who ready the entirety of those books and tries to take everything literally will quite soon be tripped up by contradictions.

                This already starts in the first two chapters. The first chapter claims the animals were created earlier than the humans. The second chapter claims the humans (well, one of them) were created first.

                • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @01:34PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @01:34PM (#178480)

                  The first prototype is always thrown out.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:41PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:41PM (#178591)

                    Yeah, the prototype was thrown out — of paradise. However being God's pet project, he could not bring himself to terminate it. but instead he released it into the wild. Since he had programmed it to be self-replicating, it soon started to multiply and misbehave, and God had to use drastic measures to kill it off. But again, he couldn't bring himself to finally delete all instances, so it multiplied again and got us to the fucked-up world of today.

                    Meanwhile God has left this world in order to create a better one. We don't know if he succeeded.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:36PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:36PM (#178714)

                      ALL THESE WORLDS
                      ARE YOURS EXCEPT
                      EUROPA
                      ATTEMPT NO
                      LANDING THERE

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2015, @04:58PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @04:58PM (#178612) Journal

                Anyone who reads the entirety of those books would never come away with such an understanding.

                And anyone who has moved stars across the galaxy and completely understood the meaning of fpg54yu4oy5u in its eternal struggle with glglglglgl would never agree with that statement.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @05:05PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @05:05PM (#178621)

                  I'm sorry, I don't get your point.

                  All religious texts are written by men, not aliens. Nothing in them is particularly complicated or beyond the understanding of other men.

                  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by khallow on Monday May 04 2015, @11:20PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @11:20PM (#178840) Journal

                    All religious texts are written by men, not aliens.

                    Only someone who has actually met a large enough sample of sapient aliens can legitimately make that claim.

                    Nothing in them is particularly complicated or beyond the understanding of other men.

                    Only a human who actually has read all religious texts ever and understood them can make that claim.

              • (Score: 1) by dime on Monday May 04 2015, @08:50PM

                by dime (1163) on Monday May 04 2015, @08:50PM (#178752)

                It doesn't take deliberate ignorance, just unmovable faith..

                All that's required is faith to come to extremist conclusions when reading the instructions given to you by your infallible god..

                • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @09:11PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @09:11PM (#178775)

                  > It doesn't take deliberate ignorance, just unmovable faith..

                  Those are synonyms.

            • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday May 04 2015, @03:12PM

              by cafebabe (894) on Monday May 04 2015, @03:12PM (#178532) Journal

              what would have been better than a Muhammed cartoon day, would have been a day to make porn of Jesus and Muhammed fucking and sucking each other off.

              I presume it has been done already but the closest I could find was Jesus fellated on a cross by Mohammed [zombietime.com] via a larger archive [blogspot.co.uk]. In my search, special merit goes to TubMohammed [paheal.net] and a disturbing picture involving a pig [imgur.com] in sailor fuku [wikipedia.org].

              --
              1702845791×2
            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:50PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:50PM (#178601)

              Anyway, what would have been better than a Muhammed cartoon day, would have been a day to make porn of Jesus and Muhammed fucking and sucking each other off.

              Not to put too fine a point on this, but if you had put together such an event I am pretty sure that most, if not all, of the Christians of this country would not react violently; with disgust, yes, but not with violence. On the other hand, I am pretty sure that a fairly large fraction of the the Muslims of this country would try to excuse the inevitable violence by saying that such an event was blasphemous and provocative. Do you really not see the difference here?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @05:11PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @05:11PM (#178628)

                > I am pretty sure that
                > On the other hand, I am pretty sure that
                >
                > Do you really not see the difference here?

                The difference between two things you are pretty sure of?
                No, they both seem to be stories you made up to justify your prejudice.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @05:40PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @05:40PM (#178646)

                  The difference between two things you are pretty sure of?
                  No, they both seem to be stories you made up to justify your prejudice.

                  OK, maybe we should have a little experiment. Let us have two public events. At one of these events we will have a draw Mohammed contest. At the other event, we will have a draw Jesus event. Care to place any bets on which one will need the enhanced security detail? Is my ability to predict the outcome prejudice or prescience?

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @05:43PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @05:43PM (#178649)

                    > Care to place any bets on which one will need the enhanced security detail?
                    > Is my ability to predict the outcome prejudice or prescience?

                    How do you define "need?" [vox.com]

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2015, @11:43PM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @11:43PM (#178851) Journal
                      I suppose we also need to consider the visibility of the respective events.
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @11:53PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @11:53PM (#178857)

                        > I suppose we also need to consider the visibility of the respective events

                        Only someone who has actually met a large enough sample of sapient aliens can legitimately make that consideration.

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 05 2015, @12:07AM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 05 2015, @12:07AM (#178866) Journal

                          Only someone who has actually met a large enough sample of sapient aliens can legitimately make that consideration.

                          Fortunately, I've met humans so I have met a large enough sample of sapient aliens. So you are new to the idea of debate?

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @12:13AM

                            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @12:13AM (#178867)

                            > So you are new to the idea of debate?

                            I am old to the idea of someone posting random nonsensical bullshit and thinking themselves insightful for it.
                            Stroke yourself somewhere else.

                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 05 2015, @12:48AM

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 05 2015, @12:48AM (#178881) Journal

                              I am old to the idea of someone posting random nonsensical bullshit and thinking themselves insightful for it.

                              Let's look at the rhetorical fallacy that kicked this off:

                              Anyone who reads the entirety of those books would never come away with such an understanding.

                              It's a combination of the No True Scotsman and argument from authority fallacies. Only people who have read every single page in the highly subjective approved way can be considered to have the authority to have "understanding" and of course, that "understanding" exactly mirrors some irrelevant AC's opinion. I note also the AC poster emphasized (with italics) "selective reading". That's another setup for the No True Scotsman fallacy since clearly any disagree with the poster is now due to selective reading rather than the fact that the Bible actually contains verses, sometimes quite extensive to support the claim that the Bible is not entirely pro-freedom (such as endless Old Testament bragging about laying low the foes of God and the terrible things that come to them).

            • (Score: 4, Funny) by M. Baranczak on Monday May 04 2015, @05:02PM

              by M. Baranczak (1673) on Monday May 04 2015, @05:02PM (#178617)

              Moslem fanatics are like ebola. They don't just kill you, they kill you in the most spectacularly gruesome way possible.

              Christian fanatics are like herpes. They don't kill you, they just ruin your sex life.

              And if you go to Texas, then your chance of catching ebola, while not zero, is still a lot lower than catching herpes, so protect yourself accordingly.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @11:06PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @11:06PM (#178835)

                I see someone hasn't read the Song of Solomon [biblegateway.com]...

          • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:49AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:49AM (#178362)

            Earlier you claimed, Runaway, that people didn't really know you. But you are not helping yourself here. Provocation to draw people in so you can have security kill them is a bit beyond free speech. Let's see them do the "draw Mohammed" think without the armed guards next time, and not in Texas. Cause you know, Texas is a well know supporter of sharia law, only the Perry version.

            • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 04 2015, @08:24AM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @08:24AM (#178375) Journal

              How can you fail so badly? Read Hemomyacin's post. Mohammed and Jesus sucking each other off. Your post seems to support the idea that I should hunt the man down, and kill him for insulting Jesus.

              Hemomyacin - when is the last time a Christian stalked you for having made an irreverant post about Jesus? How many times have you narrowly escaped an assassination attempt, because of your irreverance for all things Christian?

              AC is a hopeless idiot.

              Every single Muslim in the US - as well as outside the US - who takes offense at this Muhammed cartoon thing can just drop dead. And, I'll be happy to assist in the dropping.

              The Christian God doesn't demand blind, idiotic, mindless obedience, like Islam's Allah does. Or, to be more accurate, the Christian God doesn't require the blind idiotic mindless obedience that many Muslim imams demand.

              "Here, boy, strap this vest on, and walk over toward those infidels. Tonight, you'll sleep with 70 virgins, Allahu ackbar!"

              "Only senventy virgins, imam?"

              "Well, yes, of course only 70 virgins. I'm your commander, so you'll reserve the others for me!"

              http://image.spreadshirtmedia.com/image-server/v1/products/103623031/views/1,width=378,height=378,appearanceId=196/I-d-Fly-10,000-Miles-to-Smoke-a-Camel.png [spreadshirtmedia.com]

              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:44AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:44AM (#178387)

                Obviously Runaway is not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy! And not much of a Christian. If I had to guess, and I don't but I will just for the sake of keeping the hatemongering red-hot, Lutheran? Missouri Synod? Unreformed? The Christian God and the Muslim God (and the Jewish one, but let's keep him out of this) are the SAME God, if obedience is required in one of these religions, and not in the others, somebody is getting something wrong. Or, there is no god, and Runaway is his accuser.

                • (Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 04 2015, @09:33AM

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @09:33AM (#178399) Journal

                  Sorry, but you have it wrong. Only at a glance is Islam related to Christianity and Judaism. When you begin to examine Islam more closely, you will realize that Islam is a death worshipping cult. Christianity and Judaism worship life.

                  • (Score: 0, Troll) by FatPhil on Monday May 04 2015, @10:16AM

                    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday May 04 2015, @10:16AM (#178409) Homepage
                    > Judaism worship[s] life

                    Though Zionistic interpreters of their scriptures seem to more worship the regular termination of it, for Palestinians.

                    Having said that, the religious christain right in the US has spread its love of live via the mechanisms of creating phoney wars and bombing people back to the stone age on the international scale, and by fire-bombing abortion clinics on the local scale.

                    The three are from the same production line. Version 3 just hasn't got round to fixing the bugs that plagued the previous 2 versions for many centuries.
                    --
                    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @11:58AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @11:58AM (#178434)

                    > When you begin to examine Islam more closely, you will realize that Islam is a death worshipping cult. Christianity and Judaism worship life.

                    We can trace the accusation "death worshipping cult" back to Ayaan Hirsi Ali who said islam is a "destructive, nihilistic cult of death." [alternet.org] However, when pressed on the issue by Jon Stewart [cc.com] she admitted that what he means is that just like every other religion with an afterlife it is concerned with living a good life so that they will end up in their equivalent of heaven rather than their equivalent of hell.

                    So, phrasing. And not in the clever, kinky Archeresque way. [youtube.com]

              • (Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @09:21AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @09:21AM (#178395)

                Due to increased number of Muslims martyring themselves, virgins are in short supply. Please note that, in future, the number of virgins shall be reduced to meet the increased demand. Please adjust your expectations accordingly.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:33PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:33PM (#178454)

                  Please note that, in future, the number of virgins shall be reduced to meet the increased demand. Please adjust your expectations accordingly.

                  Unbelievable as it sounds, Uwe Boll had the best take on this problem.
                  My wife is from a muslim family and she about pissed herself laughing at this:
                  What if there are only ten virgins? And we have to split them between us? [youtube.com]

              • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:54PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:54PM (#178606)

                Every single Muslim in the US - as well as outside the US - who takes offense at this Muhammed cartoon thing can just drop dead. And, I'll be happy to assist in the dropping.

                In that case you're not the slightest bit better than those radical Muslims. It's just that the offense you're willing to kill for is different.

          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @11:42AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @11:42AM (#178428)

            I have heard of Pam, and I am a fan of hers. The woman cuts through all the stupid bullshit, and gets to the point. Islam is incompatible with any democratic society, incompatible with western civilization, incompatible with any society which values freedom.

            In other words, she tells you exactly what you want to hear. No surprise that makes you a fan.
            The same tactic is deployed by millions of smooth talking men to get women into bed too.

  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 04 2015, @07:14AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @07:14AM (#178348) Journal

    I talked to him shortly after this happened. He hadn't heard about it yet. When I told him, he said he was going to write his reps, to introduce a bill that the remains of these swine be disposed of in pig farm ponds. He says it's better than they deserve, but what else are you going to do? Let the scum laying around to stink up the neighborhoods? Just like baby pigs that are stillborn, flush them down the sewer to decompose in the pond.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:16AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:16AM (#178349)

      why dignify dead and deaderer with a pointless revenge fantasy?

      • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 04 2015, @07:23AM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @07:23AM (#178351) Journal

        Dignify? You don't know diddly about Islam, do you? To them, pigs are unclean, unholy, and a whole lot more. I say, dump the filth with the filth. I see little difference between a jihadist, and a pig. The pig may be cleaner.

        • (Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:31AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:31AM (#178357)

          Advocating torture or desecrating remains = ego stroking revenge mindset. The vivid detail is a nice touch and hints at a sexual frustration. Could you hear your son rubbing one off during the phone call?

          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:47AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:47AM (#178361)

            Ah say that's flamebait, son.

            Flamebait if ah evah seen it.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:52AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:52AM (#178364)

            Awesome.

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday May 04 2015, @03:25PM

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday May 04 2015, @03:25PM (#178541) Journal

            Why do I have the feeling that these very same Free-Speech-Warriors would throw a complete shit-fit if they ever saw a penis on TV?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @03:48PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @03:48PM (#178559)

              Why do I have the feeling that these very same Free-Speech-Warriors would throw a complete shit-fit if they ever saw a penis on TV?

              While some of them would. there is distinct strain of atheism [salon.com] that thinks islam is especially deserving of being shat on.

            • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:46PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:46PM (#178599)

              I also wouldn't like to see a penis on my TV. To start with, if I see it, then obviously no one is standing in front of it, or else he would block the view. But on the side or behind my TV, there's not enough space for someone to stand. Therefore I have to conclude that any penis lying on my TV would have to be cut off. And who wants to see a cut-off penis lying on his TV (or anywhere else)? I certainly don't.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:58AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:58AM (#178367)

      Wait, are you talking about pigs, as in actual pigs, or the cops that got shot? I am confused by your irrational hatred. Could you please explain in more detail exactly what you would do to the corpses of your enemies? Are you now, or have you ever been, a necrophiliac?

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 04 2015, @08:41AM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @08:41AM (#178386) Journal

        No police were shot. At all. One security guard was wounded in the leg. So, you can stop fanasizing about dead cops.

        • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday May 04 2015, @01:32PM

          by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Monday May 04 2015, @01:32PM (#178479) Homepage

          What they should do is have government-sponsored contests in drawing God, Allah, Muhammad, and YHVH throughout the country; all guarded heavily with snipers. That way, the Islamic savages can't claim "Muh discrinimation" and we get to drop a few more terrorist scum.

          A former coworker of mine is Catholic and he wished repeatedly for more crusades. He also said that we should forcibly administer IV's of pig blood to all captured Muslim combatants.

          Of course I've always had a fantasy of loading up the aircraft of the entire US Air Force Materiel Command with pig shit and dropping the payload all over Mecca. Not necessarily because I am anti-Muslim, but because Muslims are generally the most easily-trolled so you know the reaction's gonna be good.

          " Durka-Durka! Allah Muhammad Jihad! "

        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday May 04 2015, @03:30PM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday May 04 2015, @03:30PM (#178547) Journal

          So, you can stop fanasizing about dead cops.
           
          Revenge fantasies appear to be your thing. You can stop projecting now.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 04 2015, @03:48PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @03:48PM (#178560) Journal

            So - throwing the garbage into a garbage can is somehow "revenge"?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @03:55PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @03:55PM (#178564)

              > So - I'm right because I'm right?

              FTFY

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by janrinok on Monday May 04 2015, @08:23AM

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @08:23AM (#178374) Journal

      I don't think that is the solution, but I do thing that you might be part of the problem. My sincere condolences go to all those who have lost a loved one in this event.

      Whatever happened to tolerance? If a country is free - then people are free to chose whatever religion they wish to follow - including none. But they should not be forced to follow any particular religion. So your son's 'threat' to write to his rep (yeah - like that's going to happen) saying that those responsible should be 'disposed of in pig farms' is nothing more than a (poor) attempt to intimidate people who do not have the same views as yourselves to do as you would wish. Is that the 'freedom' you wish to export around the world? How is it different in intent from when others attempt to intimidate you to follow their religion? If you cannot lead by example, then you don't deserve to lead at all.

      This event could only have had one outcome. If you attempt to insult many millions of people then you shouldn't be surprised when a very small number of them object. And this event will be reported back to the terrorists whom you claim to despise to provide them with yet more evidence of US intolerance and the lack of freedom that America claims to be founded upon, providing yet more propaganda to help with their recruiting drive. I'm not asking you to curtail free speech - merely hoping that whichever idiots organised this use their brains a damn sight more and their mouths a damn sight less in the future.

      'In God We Trust' doesn't specify any particular God. As another commenter has already asked - is there another competition next week to draw cartoons of Christ, Buddha, or some other deity? No, I thought not. Why did this event focus on Allah? Wouldn't it have been more fair to let the artists choose whom they wished to draw?

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 04 2015, @08:34AM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @08:34AM (#178381) Journal

        "Whatever happened to tolerance?"

        Real men and women, real Americans, don't whine that drivel about "tolerance". The treasonous left chants it routinely, trying to make everyone else feel guilty for failing to support evil.

        Try some of this tolerance on for size. The man states clearly that evil must be vanguished, wherever it is found. That is the tolerance that I respect.

        Salutes, Lieutenant.

        https://www.dvidshub.net/video/395572/jerry-yellin-world-war-ii-veteran-interview#.VUZkU_lVikp [dvidshub.net]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:50AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:50AM (#178389)

          real Americans, don't whine that drivel about "tolerance". The treasonous left chants it routinely, trying to make everyone else feel guilty for failing to support evil.

          Um, yes we real Americans do, even us Republicans and libertarians (outside of Indiana). So what does that make you? Shlomo? That you?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:48PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:48PM (#178750)

          Real men and women, real Americans, don't whine that drivel about "tolerance".

          There's definitely no true scottsmen here. Not a one.

        • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday May 04 2015, @11:22PM

          by cafebabe (894) on Monday May 04 2015, @11:22PM (#178842) Journal

          vanguished

          Is that a portmanteau of vanquished and extinguished?

          --
          1702845791×2
      • (Score: 5, Disagree) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @09:19AM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday May 04 2015, @09:19AM (#178394)

        This event could only have had one outcome. If you attempt to insult many millions of people then you shouldn't be surprised when a very small number of them object.

        I'm not surprised, but if you're offended, you have absolutely zero right to resort to violence simply because someone expressed themselves in a way that you don't like. People should be free to insult any religion, person, or government.

        providing yet more propaganda to help with their recruiting drive.

        If someone is so touchy about their fairy tales, then chances are they are insane and ripe for recruitment anyway. A person who would become a terrorist to combat freedom of expression isn't a person who cared about freedom of expression to begin with.

        'In God We Trust' doesn't specify any particular God.

        No, but it shows a preference for religion/theism, which is intolerable.

        is there another competition next week to draw cartoons of Christ, Buddha, or some other deity?

        How much censorship is there in regards to those things? TV shows and other things have been censored (usually by companies cowering at threats) at the request of offended religious people, and for any religion where that applies, we should stand up for freedom of expression. Offend anyone you want.

        I do see a lot of Christian morons trying to violate the separation of church and state (at least in the US), and that is where they need to be stopped.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Monday May 04 2015, @11:46AM

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @11:46AM (#178431) Journal

          you have absolutely zero right to resort to violence simply because someone expressed themselves in a way

          I agree 100%, but to mount an event where the sole aim is to offend a specific group of people is stupid. People will take offence and, as I pointed out, a very small minority will respond. I suggested that perhaps they ought to have left it to individuals to decide which God to depict, rather than stage something where the most likely outcome is exactly what we have seen. I am not condoning it, merely pointing out that it didn't take much intelligence to foresee the outcome.

          If someone is so touchy about their fairy tales

          Very true. But why Christians feel so touchy as to deem it necessary to mount an event to mock others' beliefs is beyond me. ....Or isn't that what you meant? Nevertheless, to organise an event in which the most likely outcome would provide aid for one's enemy is still not a very bright move.

          but it shows a preference for religion/theism, which is intolerable.

          Again, I agree. But I haven't claimed anything different in my previous comment.

          Offend anyone you want.

          But that is not what they did - the contest was designed to mock only one religion, almost as though they were trying to bait someone into reacting. The organisers must take some of the responsibility for the events that have unfolded.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:25PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:25PM (#178449)

            I agree 100%, but to mount an event where the sole aim is to offend a specific group of people is stupid. People will take offence and, as I pointed out, a very small minority will respond.

            You have to understand Geller's goals. [nydailynews.com] This shooting is her wet dream. The only thing that could have made her happier is if some of the people attending had been killed too. It will give her an immense out of cover to continue promoting her bigotry and she hopes it will raise her profile so that she gets her message out to many more people (and brings in some big dollar 'donations.') We can only hope it backfires.

            I would be unsurprised to learn that she had directly targeted the two men who were killed - sending them mailers advertising the event in order to provoke them.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Monday May 04 2015, @05:00PM

              by cubancigar11 (330) on Monday May 04 2015, @05:00PM (#178613) Homepage Journal
              As Christopher Hitchens said [youtube.com]: (emphasis mine) "...I find repulsive about especially Monotheistic, Messianic religion, with a large part of itself it quite clearly wants us all to die, it wants this world to come to an end you can tell the yearning for things to be over, whenever you read any of its real texts, or listen to any of its real authentic spokesman... The eschatological element that is inseparable from Christianity, if you don't believe that there is going to be an Apocalypse, there is going to be an end, a separation of the sheep and the goats, a condemnation, a final one, then you're not really a Believer and the contempt for the things of this world shows through all of them. ... You can tell it when you see the extreme Muslims talk, they cannot wait for death and destruction to overtake and overwhelm the World, they can't wait for what I would call without ambiguity a Final Solution. When you look at the Israeli settlers, paid for often by American tax dollars, deciding if they can steal enough land from other people and get all the Jews into the promised land and all the non-Jews out of it then finally the Jewish people will be worthy of the return of the Messiah, and there are Christians in this country who consider it their job to help this happen so that Armageddon can occur, so that the painful business of living as humans, and studying civilization, and trying to acquire learning, and knowledge, and health, and medicine, and to push back the frontiers can all be scrapped and the cult of death can take over. That to me is a hideous thing in eschatological terms, in End Times terms. On its own a hateful idea, a hateful practice, and a hateful theory but very much to be opposed in our daily lives where there are people who sincerely mean it, who want to ruin the good relations that could exist between different peoples, nations, races, countries, tribes, ethnicities; who openly say they love death more than we love life and who are betting that with God on their side that they're right about that."
              • (Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Monday May 04 2015, @09:06PM

                by pnkwarhall (4558) on Monday May 04 2015, @09:06PM (#178770)

                I don't know about Christopher Hitchens, but I do know that Jesus said he came to bring **life**, not death. Is this a significant misunderstanding or is it just semantics?

                Obviously this comment (and the preceding one) is quite ridiculously OT. Please feel free to down-mod.

                --
                Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @10:41PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @10:41PM (#178825)

                  As with all extremists, those so-called christians who are big into things like the rapture pick and chose the parts of the bible that validate their own biases. Hitchens is talking about extremists, but you are not alone in thinking he's talking about mainstream religionists. Some of the more obnoxious atheists find that it validates their own beliefs and goals to encourage that confusion.

                • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Tuesday May 05 2015, @01:54PM

                  by cubancigar11 (330) on Tuesday May 05 2015, @01:54PM (#179094) Homepage Journal

                  I specifically quoted the sentences where Christianity is mentioned, because A) Hitchens is replying to a chrisitan and B) I wanted to show the similarity between Muslims and Christians - something that Hitchens is actually talking about. It is same with all the religions, otherwise they won't be popular. (You should see the video.)

                  But make no mistake - all Messianic Monotheistic religions are, at the core, about celebrating death. Jesus died. Final judgement will come only after every one is dead. There is heaven and hell - after death. You behave as per christian values or you will get punished - after death. Jesus brought life - and saved everyone from death for the last time! Everything about Christianity literally revolves around death.

                  Islam, when it was introduced, had more things to say about life than what bible says. But Europe has been through so many phases and revolutions, and due to a very complicated history Islamic world is just not there yet. There is a Islamic problem in the world. But one cannot argue away the fact that everyone knew some people are going to die that day. It was premeditated. If not on the ground then someplace else. And it were the christian fools who participated in that event who are to be held responsible because they thought the government will provide them security. The government provided security all right - to the organizers. They were the real enemy. But they got a bunch of people to focus on Muslims and get mileage from it too.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @01:31PM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday May 04 2015, @01:31PM (#178478)

            I am not condoning it, merely pointing out that it didn't take much intelligence to foresee the outcome.

            I'm not surprised, but if people react in this way, then that's all the more reason to continue with these types of events. Freedom of expression must be defended.

            Very true. But why Christians feel so touchy as to deem it necessary to mount an event to mock others' beliefs is beyond me

            It's not just Christians who draw Muhammed like this, but some of them are.

            Nevertheless, to organise an event in which the most likely outcome would provide aid for one's enemy is still not a very bright move.

            As I said, I seriously doubt that this will actually provide any aid. Someone's actions are their own, and these people were clearly insane to begin with.

            But that is not what they did - the contest was designed to mock only one religion

            This contest, yes. But I was speaking generally.

            The organisers must take some of the responsibility for the events that have unfolded.

            That's absolutely insane. Someone's actions are their own. No one forced these people to go insane and try to use violence to stop the event. The responsibility is solely on the people who took harmful actions.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @02:03PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @02:03PM (#178497)

              I'm not surprised, but if people react in this way, then that's all the more reason to continue with these types of events. Freedom of expression must be defended.

              Rights come with responsibilities.
              It is entirely compatible with the concept of freedom of speech to condemn Geller for her speech.

              Lets look at it another way.
              It is entirely within the rights of the KKK to walk through inner-city black neighborhoods and make vicious racist comments to everyone they meet. If one particularly unstable person kills one of them in response, does that make it even more important to double-down and do it even more?

              The way we defend freedom of speech is to punish those who react violently, not by encouraging even more people to be assholes.

              • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @02:25PM

                by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday May 04 2015, @02:25PM (#178509)

                It is entirely compatible with the concept of freedom of speech to condemn Geller for her speech.

                I didn't say otherwise.

                The way we defend freedom of speech is to punish those who react violently, not by encouraging even more people to be assholes.

                I don't really think it's an asshole move to draw Muhammed, regardless of how offensive it is to some people.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @02:28PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @02:28PM (#178512)

                  > I don't really think it's an asshole move to draw Muhammed, regardless of how offensive it is to some people.

                  That is exactly what the KKK think about making racist insults.

                  I hope you will reconsider.

                  • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @03:21PM

                    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday May 04 2015, @03:21PM (#178538)

                    You could use that same exact logic to 'prove' that anything is an asshole move. You think doing X doesn't make you a mean person? Well, that's what the KKK would say, too!

                    And I should have said that it was not objectively mean-spirited, because it is a subjective matter. People who are offended will of course not think highly of the people who are offending them.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @03:36PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @03:36PM (#178552)

                      You could use that same exact logic to 'prove' that anything is an asshole move. You think doing X doesn't make you a mean person? Well, that's what the KKK would say, too!

                      No. Do not muddy the waters. We are talking about two specific things:

                      (1) KKK making statements they know will insult and provoke black people
                      (2) Islamaphoes making pictures they know will insult and provoke muslims.

                      This is not about "anything" this is about two sorts of expressions made with the exact same intent.

                      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @04:51PM

                        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday May 04 2015, @04:51PM (#178602)

                        This is not about "anything" this is about two sorts of expressions made with the exact same intent.

                        Absolutely anything you say could be offensive to anyone, yet you continue communicating knowing at least some people will be offended. And it matters that the situations are different. Were there people demanding that content be censored? Are there people who go insane when someone draws a certain something? Are you doing this for the purposes of freedom of expression? I don't know about this specific event; I'm thinking more along the lines of draw Muhammad day.

                        But I will say that all superstitious religious nonsense should be mocked, not just Islam.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @05:00PM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @05:00PM (#178614)

                          > Absolutely anything you say could be offensive to anyone,

                          It isn't about "could be offensive" it is about "intended to be offensive."

                          • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @05:06PM

                            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday May 04 2015, @05:06PM (#178623)

                            The effect is the same. You know what you say will be offensive to someone, and yet you persist. If people choose to take offense at such things, that's their problem.

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @05:17PM

                              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @05:17PM (#178635)

                              The effect is the same. You know what you say will be offensive to someone, and yet you persist. If people choose to take offense at such things, that's their problem.

                              ALL-Righty Then!
                              Now we are getting somewhere.
                              That is what I wanted to hear from you!

                              To bring this back around you are now supporting the idea that if some KKK go to black neighborhoods and deliberately insult people with racist speech and one unstable person is provoked to kill them that is all the more reason for the KKK to continue doing it.

                              At least you are consistent in your support for being shitty to the weak.

                              • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Monday May 04 2015, @05:51PM

                                by Geotti (1146) on Monday May 04 2015, @05:51PM (#178655) Journal

                                At least you are consistent in your support for being shitty to the weak.

                                You're welcome to reference this thread [soylentnews.org]

                                • (Score: 2) by fleg on Tuesday May 05 2015, @02:35AM

                                  by fleg (128) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 05 2015, @02:35AM (#178907)

                                  thanks for posting that link. a shame he didnt respond to your last post in that thread. especially the last couple of paragraphs.

                              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:47PM

                                by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:47PM (#178686)

                                The KKK analogy is shit. That is harassment which is a different situation.
                                The KKK should double-down on white power conferences with racist drawing competitions if they wanted to show that they will not be intimidated by violence.

                                Basically everyone hates the Westboro Baptist Church and many people would be happy if they all died, but their speech is protected.

                                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:51PM

                                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:51PM (#178689)

                                  > The KKK analogy is shit. That is harassment which is a different situation.

                                  Since when? As long as you don't keep talking to someone who has told you to stop talking to them it isn't harassment.

                                  > Basically everyone hates the Westboro Baptist Church and many people would be happy if they all died, but their speech is protected.

                                  Again there is a difference between being protected and it being a good idea to do more of it because an unbalanced person over-reacted.

                                • (Score: 5, Insightful) by cafebabe on Monday May 04 2015, @11:08PM

                                  by cafebabe (894) on Monday May 04 2015, @11:08PM (#178837) Journal

                                  everyone hates the Westboro Baptist Church

                                  The Ku Klux Klan and the Westboro Baptist Church are gratuitously offensive and make the world a worse place. However, I defend their right to exist in the spirit of Voltaire. The reason for this is quite simple. If they cease to exist then we've either fixed a large number of social issues, such as racism and religious indoctrination or we've got a larger problem where people cannot express dissent or alternative views.

                                  I'd prefer that people weren't dicks. However, I'd also prefer that root causes were addressed because the alternative is tyranny.

                                  --
                                  1702845791×2
                              • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @06:57PM

                                by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday May 04 2015, @06:57PM (#178695)

                                To me, it all depends on the reason it is being done, not just that it is offensive. What is it in reaction to? The KKK's speech is just nonsense, like the WBC's protests are. We know there are some people who are highly oversensitive to drawings of Muhammed and some people who will issue death threats or take action, so I feel there is good work to be done here, regardless of the individual person's intentions when making these drawings.

                                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:24PM

                                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:24PM (#178708)

                                  >The KKK's speech is just nonsense, like the WBC's protests are.

                                  And so is drawing insulting pictures of mo.

                                  > We know there are some people who are highly oversensitive to racial insults and some people who will issue death threats or take action, so I feel there is good work to be done here.

                                  FTFY.

                                  • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @07:39PM

                                    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday May 04 2015, @07:39PM (#178715)

                                    And so is drawing insulting pictures of mo.

                                    No, it isn't. Your analogies are awful. Drawing pictures of Muhammed can be a way of celebrating freedom of expression, showing opposition to censorship, and showing that you will not back down in the face of threats that some people issue. The fairy tales (whether they are Christian, Islam, or some other brand of fairy tale) deserve to be insulted, as they are pure nonsense. Racism itself is nonsense, so the situation is also different in that sense. It makes sense to criticize religion and theism and those who take it too seriously, but saying that's on equal rational ground with the KKK's nonsense is pure garbage.

                                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:50PM

                                      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:50PM (#178725)

                                      > Drawing making racial insults can be a way of celebrating freedom of expression, showing opposition to censorship, and showing that you will not back down in the face of threats that some people issue

                                      FTFY

                                      What you are having a hard time grasping is that everyone who is a dick thinks they have good, principled reasons to be a dick. You are no different.

                                      The one common theme is being a dick. No matter how much you want to distance your principles from those of all the other dicks, you are all still being dicks because you think something else justifies it.

                                      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @08:18PM

                                        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday May 04 2015, @08:18PM (#178735)

                                        FTFY

                                        You're not fixing anything; you're just using the same debunked KKK analogy over and over again.

                                        What you are having a hard time grasping is that everyone who is a dick thinks they have good, principled reasons to be a dick.

                                        What about people who realize the error of their ways? Therefore, it's not everyone and your statement is incorrect. Furthermore, it is possible to think you are good and principled and be right about it, especially since "good", "principled", and what constitutes being a"dick" are completely subjective, contrary to you seemingly pretending it's an objective matter.

                                        Also, I don't think this is an example of being a dick for reasons I've stated.

                                        No matter how much you want to distance your principles from those of all the other dicks

                                        And no matter how much you try to reuse the same illogical KKK analogy, it will be debunked and thrown aside like the trash it is. That tends to happen when you fail to use logic to justify your point and instead rely on extremely superficial similarities to shoe-horn an analogy in.

                                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:30PM

                                          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:30PM (#178739)

                                          > You're not fixing anything; you're just using the same KKK analogy over and over again.

                                          Yes, because the point is that your argument is interchangeable with the KKK's argument.

                                          > Furthermore, it is possible to think you are good and principled and be right about it

                                          No it is not. Being a dick nullifies being good.

                                          > Also, I don't think this is an example of being a dick for reasons I've stated.

                                          Yes, that is what it comes down to. You think your principles are more important than being kind and treating other people with dignity and consideration. That is practically the definition of dickhood. It is not subjective.

                                          • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @08:45PM

                                            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday May 04 2015, @08:45PM (#178748)

                                            Yes, because the point is that your argument is interchangeable with the KKK's argument.

                                            No, it isn't, for the reasons I've already explained. You could do the same thing to *any* argument about *any* form of expression. Just shoe-horn in the KKK.

                                            No it is not. Being a dick nullifies being good.

                                            Who said anything about being a dick? You don't believe it's possible to be good and principled? And remember: What is good, principled, or being a dick is subjective.

                                            You think your principles are more important than being kind and treating other people with dignity and consideration.

                                            I do not think irrational fairy tales that people actually believe should be given dignity or consideration. Maybe that seems 'unkind' to you, but I feel it is important for people to be rational, and believing in magical sky daddies without evidence is not rational. Islam is but one of many religions that needs to be criticized out of existence.

                                            It is not subjective.

                                            Please provide scientific evidence for the existence of the magical opinion fairy who has decided that your opinion about a subjective matter is objectively correct. I could pick out subjective and arbitrary terms from just about any definition you can give.

                                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:59PM

                                              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:59PM (#178763)

                                              > You could do the same thing to *any* argument about *any* form of expression. Just shoe-horn in the KKK.

                                              We are not talking about *any* argument.
                                              We are talking about the KKK doing the same thing you want to do.

                                              > You don't believe it's possible to be good and principled?

                                              Please do not play stupid. You keep trying to hide in generalizations rather than deal with the two specific examples that have been the central topic of this thread.

                                              > I do not think irrational fairy tales that people actually believe should be given dignity or consideration.

                                              Those irrational fairy tales are not hurting you. Leave those people to believe what they want.

                                              You want to stand up for freedom of expression? How about taking on people stronger than you who are criminals. [theguardian.com] Go ahead, dig up their names and start publishing them.

                                              > Please provide scientific evidence

                                              "Scientific evidence" is not necessary for word definitions. Choosing to deliberately insult regular people who have not done anything to you is being a dick. If you think otherwise then you are the one living in a fantasy world.

                                              • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @09:13PM

                                                by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday May 04 2015, @09:13PM (#178776)

                                                We are talking about the KKK doing the same thing you want to do.

                                                With the superficial similarity being that they intend to offend. When does the KKK stand up for any freedom of expression but their own? When do they stand against censorship and threats demanding censorship when it is speech they don't agree with? The KKK doesn't strike me as an organization that wants to respect people's liberrties.

                                                Please do not play stupid. You keep trying to hide in generalizations rather than deal with the two specific examples that have been the central topic of this thread.

                                                Limiting it to two specific examples (that I feel have been debunked) is silly when I am trying to demonstrate that your silly logic can be applied to anything.

                                                Those irrational fairy tales are not hurting you. Leave those people to believe what they want.

                                                Irrational beliefs can affect your tendency to believe other irrational things, and can even cause you to vote for people who believe the same irrational things you do. So yes, they *can* affect others. Maybe someone who believes in magical sky daddies isn't necessarily all-around irrational, but their irrational beliefs can beget other irrational beliefs and affect their decision-making in ways that aren't necessarily obvious, especially when the matter is directly related to their most sacred irrational beliefs.

                                                And in this case, the irrational beliefs are causing certain people to threaten others and be offended when someone draws a picture. You think they amount to nothing, but this doesn't seem to be the case. The best way to stamp these things out is with education and criticism.

                                                You want to stand up for freedom of expression? How about taking on people stronger than you who are criminals. Go ahead, dig up their names and start publishing them.

                                                You should stand up to everyone who opposes freedom of speech.

                                                "Scientific evidence" is not necessary for word definitions.

                                                Then I hope you realize that your word definitions aren't nearly as objective as you think they are.

                                                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @09:22PM

                                                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @09:22PM (#178782)

                                                  > With the superficial similarity being that they intend to offend. When does the KKK stand up for any freedom of expression but their own?

                                                  If you listen to them they will tell you they are standing up for the rights of all white people.
                                                  They'll tell you that is even more important than freedom of speech.
                                                  This is all about perspective, you think you are better than them and they think the same about you.
                                                  The fact is you are both exactly the same self-centered myopic dicks.

                                                  > and can even cause you to vote for people who believe the same irrational things you do.

                                                  Wow. Just wow. Because someone might vote in ways you don't like that means you should be shitty to them.
                                                  Wow.

                                                  > And in this case, the irrational beliefs are causing certain people to threaten others and be offended when someone draws a picture.

                                                  So, 2 unstable people out of 3,000,000+ react poorly and that justifies you being shitty to the remaining 2,999,998 people.
                                                  I'm pretty sure that is 100x more irrational than believing in fairy tales.

                                                  > You should stand up to everyone who opposes freedom of speech.

                                                  Then start with the strong, worry about the weak later.

                                                  • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday May 05 2015, @07:53AM

                                                    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday May 05 2015, @07:53AM (#178983)

                                                    If you listen to them they will tell you they are standing up for the rights of all white people.

                                                    Exactly. They don't care about freedom in general; they care about their own freedom.

                                                    You're really stretching this KKK analogy.

                                                    The fact is you are both exactly the same self-centered myopic dicks.

                                                    Anyone who sticks up for freedom of expression is clearly just like the KKK. I heard Hitler liked puppies, too!

                                                    Wow. Just wow. Because someone might vote in ways you don't like that means you should be shitty to them.
                                                    Wow.

                                                    Must I tell you what you yourself said? Here: "Those irrational fairy tales are not hurting you. Leave those people to believe what they want."

                                                    That is patently false. Irrational beliefs can lead to irrational actions, sometimes in very subtle ways. So in general, I support advocating that people discard these beliefs. I may not participate in draw Muhammed day and the like, but some people find that important.

                                                    So, 2 unstable people out of 3,000,000+ react poorly and that justifies you being shitty to the remaining 2,999,998 people.

                                                    It's more than 2 people. And again, I don't consider drawing a picture of some guy as "being shitty"; that some people do is truly pathetic. And can you present your scientific evidence that all 2,999,998 people find these drawings offensive? I'm pretty sure there are many muslims who simply do not care.

                                                    Then start with the strong, worry about the weak later.

                                                    False dichotomy. Both can be tackled.

                                                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @10:02PM

                                                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @10:02PM (#178810)

                                                  Irrational beliefs can affect your tendency to believe other irrational things, and can even cause you to vote for people who believe the same irrational things you do.

                                                  You know what is really irrational?

                                                  Thinking that if you insult people that will cause them to start agreeing with you on anything. Never once in the history of the world has that tactic ever worked.

                                                  • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday May 05 2015, @07:47AM

                                                    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday May 05 2015, @07:47AM (#178980)

                                                    Presenting a set of beliefs as being nonsensical can make some people question their own beliefs. It's quite an extraordinary claim to say that no one has ever reevaluated their own belief system due to someone mocking it, being that billions of people exist and many more people have existed; only a single person would have had to do such a thing to prove you wrong.

                                                    Furthermore, if drawing a picture of someone is considered insulting, then that's rather pathetic.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:51PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:51PM (#178604)

                    Your incessant desire to continue to draw breath is an insult to my own personal religion, population one. I must therefore insist that you immediately cease and desist with this willful act of intolerance.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:56PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:56PM (#178609)

                      > Your incessant desire to continue to draw breath is an insult

                      I'm pretty sure that if you had disease where you would die unless you drew an insulting picture of Mo, few muslims would feel put out if you chose life.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @01:53AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @01:53AM (#178900)

            ...almost as though they were trying to bait someone into reacting. The organisers must take some of the responsibility for the events that have unfolded.

            So do you also believe the Freedom Riders must take responsibility for being beaten with baseball bats and tire irons?

            Since you seem to be of the opinion that people should not exercise unpopular freedoms perhaps you should look into moving to a country which bans offensive speech. (Assuming you aren't already a proud, loyal subject of such a nation.)

        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday May 04 2015, @03:33PM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday May 04 2015, @03:33PM (#178549) Journal

          TV shows and other things have been censored (usually by companies cowering at threats) at the request of offended religious people, and for any religion where that applies, we should stand up for freedom of expression. Offend anyone you want.

           
          Agreed. Which is why the Christian based censorship of TV and other media in this country should be ended immediately.

          • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @05:09PM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday May 04 2015, @05:09PM (#178625)

            Yes. And that is especially bad because it is the government forcing the censorship on people, all while ignoring the constitution.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by mth on Monday May 04 2015, @09:23AM

        by mth (2848) on Monday May 04 2015, @09:23AM (#178396) Homepage

        This event could only have had one outcome. If you attempt to insult many millions of people then you shouldn't be surprised when a very small number of them object. And this event will be reported back to the terrorists whom you claim to despise to provide them with yet more evidence of US intolerance and the lack of freedom that America claims to be founded upon, providing yet more propaganda to help with their recruiting drive. I'm not asking you to curtail free speech - merely hoping that whichever idiots organised this use their brains a damn sight more and their mouths a damn sight less in the future.

        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

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday May 04 2015, @01:10PM (#178466) Homepage
          > I feel sorry for the guards and the police, since they don't have a stake in this risky game but do get hurt.

          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

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @01:30PM (#178477)

            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

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:25PM (#178671)
              "Legal" is a much more objective measure than "OK." "OK" is completely subjective.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:32PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:32PM (#178678)

                > "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

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @11:58PM (#178859) Journal

              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

                by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:01AM (#178986)

                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

                  by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:03AM (#178988)

                  So, if people have such a mindset, then they are being rather illogical.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 06 2015, @03:38AM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 06 2015, @03:38AM (#179372) Journal
                    Wait, so there are illogical people in my reality? Who knew?
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 05 2015, @12:04AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 05 2015, @12:04AM (#178863) Journal

              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

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @02:22PM (#178506)

            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

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @05:47PM (#178653)

            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.

      • (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.

        • (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>

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @11:13AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @11:13AM (#178423)

        is there another competition next week to draw cartoons of Christ, Buddha, or some other deity?

        Christians are taught forgiveness and tolerance. Their god in Christ let himself be tortured to death instead of laying a hand on his false accusers.

        Buddhists, seriously? The most violent thing proper Buddhists have ever done to anyone else was light themselves on fire in order to show that they disagree in their presence. The second most violent thing is choosing to smile a little less.

        Compare to some Muslims, quick to murder over lines on paper that they have never seen all in conformance with their religion just as forgiveness and passivity are with respect to your other examples.

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @11:54AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @11:54AM (#178433)

          Just for the LOLs, complete this sentence... ;-)

          The most violent thing proper Christians have ever done was...

        • (Score: 2) by t-3 on Monday May 04 2015, @12:16PM

          by t-3 (4907) on Monday May 04 2015, @12:16PM (#178444)

          Actually, Buddhists are commiting genocide all over Asia, mostly against Muslims. All religions have assholes and extremists.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @01:54PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @01:54PM (#178489)

            Hell of a claim. Where is the missing race? Where are the millions dead? Where is the link to Buddhist monks with AK's gunning down fleeing children through 2/3rds of the planet's land mass?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @02:25PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @02:25PM (#178510)

              > Where is the link to Buddhist monks with AK's gunning down fleeing children

              https://www.hrw.org/reports/2013/04/22/all-you-can-do-pray-0 [hrw.org]

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @03:13PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @03:13PM (#178533)

                That shows nor implies either.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:47PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:47PM (#178456)

          Buddhists, seriously? The most violent thing proper Buddhists have ever done to anyone else was light themselves on fire in order to show that they disagree in their presence.

          Which is why the Dalai Lama endorsed killing Osama bin Laden. [theguardian.com]

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @01:50PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @01:50PM (#178488)

            Saying "if something is serious … you have to take counter-measures" (taken right from that link), is not at all like murder, or killing, or even any sort of violence at all. In fact what I am doing right now is more violent in that I am directly refuting an action instead of condoning someone else doing something in response.

        • (Score: 1) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday May 04 2015, @09:08PM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday May 04 2015, @09:08PM (#178771) Journal

          Horseshit, pal. Christianity is all about "Wait till My Father gets home. He'll torture you all FOREVER."

          Just because individual Christians, plural, are told not to be violent, doesn't mean the religion isn't itself hideously violent and evil. At this point, I don't know who to be more afraid of, Muslims an ocean away or Christians here in the US.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @02:00PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @02:00PM (#178495)
        Refreshing to see that sensible discussion is still possible on Soylent (instead of the hate fueled drivel going all over this thread)
      • (Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Monday May 04 2015, @05:09PM

        by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Monday May 04 2015, @05:09PM (#178624)

        Allah is the Arabic word meaning "God". The same God that Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Paul and all the rest worshiped,

        Muhammad was just one of God's prophets, like Moses and Jesus.

        I totally agree with the rest of your comment and your last point is dead on otherwise. There are not going to be any "Draw Moses" contests.

        --
        "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
        • (Score: 2) by BK on Tuesday May 05 2015, @02:32AM

          by BK (4868) on Tuesday May 05 2015, @02:32AM (#178906)

          "There are not going to be any "Draw Moses" contests."

          Because nobody would care...

          --
          ...but you HAVE heard of me.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:14PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:14PM (#178666)

        My sincere condolences go to all those who have lost a loved one in this event.

        The only ones who lost loved ones are the next of kin of the would-be jihadis.

        Whatever happened to tolerance? If a country is free - then people are free to chose whatever religion they wish to follow - including none. But they should not be forced to follow any particular religion.

        Yes, and that freedom includes the right to not observe another religion's proscriptions against blasphemy. Or were you under the mistaken impression that your views on religion (or the views of a certain religious minority) were somehow binding on the rest of us?

        This event could only have had one outcome.

        I disagree with this. While the outcome was foreseeable, it was not at all inevitable. The Muslims of the world could have merely grumbled about feeling insulted and peacefully gone on about their business. Or they could have taken out a full page ad in the local paper the next day to decry this mean-spirited insult. I could at least respect that.

        If you attempt to insult many millions of people then you shouldn't be surprised when a very small number of them object.

        I have no problem with Muslims objecting to the insult. I have a big problem with the violence.

        As another commenter has already asked - is there another competition next week to draw cartoons of Christ, Buddha, or some other deity? No, I thought not. Why did this event focus on Allah? Wouldn't it have been more fair to let the artists choose whom they wished to draw?

        I am pretty sure that the reason they have singled out Allah for this drawing competition is precisely because they know it will get a strong reaction. This is an itch which just desperately needs to be scratched. It will continue to get scratched at least as long as the violent reactions continue.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:17PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:17PM (#178668)

          The Muslims of the world could have merely grumbled about feeling insulted and peacefully gone on about their business.

          Out of the 3+ million muslims in the US alone, at least 2,999,998 of them did just that.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:01PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:01PM (#178436)

      > When I told him, he said he was going to write his reps, to introduce a bill that the remains of these swine be disposed of in pig farm ponds.

      Why should we care what your son thinks?
      Is he some sort of credentialed historian or anthropologist?
      Or is he just another christian extremist from Texas?

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:35AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:35AM (#178382)

    is hate speech and intolerance considered a "right." These racists were baiting other racists and the result is a mess. Duh!

    • (Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Monday May 04 2015, @08:52AM

      by wantkitteh (3362) on Monday May 04 2015, @08:52AM (#178390) Homepage Journal

      I may not live in America, but the right to free expression is probably the only example of a right they have I consider worth following. Shame some Americans aren't so good at figuring out whether something they're expressing is inflammatory (as opposed to merely controversial), but then that's not purely an American problem.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @09:24AM

      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday May 04 2015, @09:24AM (#178397)

      It sounds like America has it right in this instance, then. You, however, sound like you would enjoy North Korea, given that you hate freedom of speech so much. Idiotic and intolerant speech should result in criticism, not government thugs stopping people from saying things you or others don't like.

      Though, America does have free speech zones, obscenity laws, laws that criminalize 'terrorist' speech (like making obvious bomb jokes about airports), and FCC censorship, among other things. Those need to be gotten rid of, or else we don't have freedom of speech either.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @09:41AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @09:41AM (#178400)

      >hate speech and intolerance
      >racists were baiting other racists

      >not knowing the difference between race and religion

      You speak as if you're uneducated, even though you probably have some college education.
      Oh, that's right, you're probably one of those SJW types that wish to censor all "intolerant speech" based on moral grounds.

      While I'm at it, the concept of racism was a product of Marxism, which you should be very familiar with. Not only that, but only the Western world views racism as something which should be eliminated.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @09:42AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @09:42AM (#178401)

      2 down. Hope the security guard recovers.

      Don't mess with Texas, as they say.

      Europe should take a lesson. How many cartoonists have been murdered by these lunatics for drawing Mohammed over there?

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:56PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:56PM (#178459)

      Only in America is hate speech and intolerance considered a "right."
      These racists were baiting other racists and the result is a mess. Duh!

      It is only a right in that the alternative is worse.

      BTW, as far as I'm concerned, writing the first half of your post in the subject line is a shooting offense too.

  • (Score: 5, Funny) by CirclesInSand on Monday May 04 2015, @10:11AM

    by CirclesInSand (2899) on Monday May 04 2015, @10:11AM (#178405)

    According to city authorities an unarmed guard at the event

    They called a taxi to take him to the hospital, but the taxi driver didn't have a car. So then they called a medic to help him, but the medic didn't have any bandages. A local musician, feeling bad for him, decided to play him some music to feel better. But the musician didn't have an instrument. So the poor guard went to a restaurant to eat...but the chefs work without food. So the hungry guard finally went home. Except his home didn't have any walls, or roofs, or a floor.

    • (Score: 1) by skater on Monday May 04 2015, @11:39AM

      by skater (4342) on Monday May 04 2015, @11:39AM (#178426) Journal

      Funny, but kind of sad that in the USA "guard" is equated with "needs a gun".

      • (Score: 2) by tibman on Monday May 04 2015, @01:46PM

        by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @01:46PM (#178487)

        A guard without armor or weapons is just a person in costume who is performing security theater. That doesn't mean they are useless. They just aren't actually useful in guarding anything against threats of violence. They can still help maintain order and assist people.

        --
        SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @05:01PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @05:01PM (#178615)

          Do you have any indication that he was meant to guard against violence (as opposed to, e.g. guard the people to the correct place where they can present their cartoons)?

          • (Score: 2) by tibman on Monday May 04 2015, @06:42PM

            by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @06:42PM (#178682)

            I would have to see what his uniform looked like. If it had epaulets, cargo pockets, a police-like badge, and stuff like that. Did he look like a police officer or did he look like a concierge. I think the old term "watchman" applies better to these situations than guard. If someone says they are a guard i expect them to be able to perform that duty without requiring another person/organization to do it for them. A watchman is supposed to maintain order but has no authority or equipment to force compliance.

            --
            SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:46PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:46PM (#178685)

              Great.
              Hurray for meaningless pedantry!

              • (Score: 2) by tibman on Monday May 04 2015, @08:12PM

                by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @08:12PM (#178731)

                I doubt you'd find it meaningless the next time you get shot in the leg by a crazy man because you were dressed like law enforcement.

                --
                SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:21PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:21PM (#178737)

                  > I doubt you'd find it meaningless the next time you get shot in the leg by a crazy man because you were dressed like law enforcement.

                  Because a crazy man is really going to take time to ponder the deep significances of minor variations in a uniform.

                  • (Score: 2) by tibman on Monday May 04 2015, @08:59PM

                    by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @08:59PM (#178764)

                    That was exactly the point, yes.

                    --
                    SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
        • (Score: 1) by skater on Monday May 04 2015, @06:31PM

          by skater (4342) on Monday May 04 2015, @06:31PM (#178677) Journal

          Uh, I get that...hence my comment. I'm not sure why you and the AC are responding to me, instead of to the GP.

          • (Score: 2) by tibman on Monday May 04 2015, @06:38PM

            by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @06:38PM (#178681)

            I misunderstood then, sorry : ) I thought you were saying that guards shouldn't need guns. I'd say that a guard without a gun is just an imitation of real authority that has a gun. Sort of like how some non-venomous snakes imitate very poisonous snakes.

            --
            SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
            • (Score: 1) by skater on Monday May 04 2015, @08:35PM

              by skater (4342) on Monday May 04 2015, @08:35PM (#178744) Journal

              See, now, this seems opposite of what you said above. I know it's Monday and I'm kind of tired, so I may be misreading it.

              The OP was implying that guards had to have guns, by comparing it to things like a taxi driver without a car. I was saying that it was sad that guards seem to need guns - a commentary on the USA in general. I suspect many Western countries have mostly unarmed guards.

              • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday May 05 2015, @09:23AM

                by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday May 05 2015, @09:23AM (#179019) Homepage
                > I suspect many Western countries have mostly unarmed guards.

                I can confirm that that is true for all civilised countries.
                --
                Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
                • (Score: 1) by skater on Tuesday May 05 2015, @11:27AM

                  by skater (4342) on Tuesday May 05 2015, @11:27AM (#179043) Journal

                  Let's not get nasty.

                  Actually I'd guess that most guards in the US are unarmed, too. Where I work, some guards are armed (the ones on gate duty mostly), but most of them aren't. Heck, we just learned recently that the guards didn't even have radios, an oversight that caused some issues during a recent incident and is being rectified.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:57PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:57PM (#178460)

      This is made even more incredulous by the fact that this incident happened in Texas!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @05:50PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @05:50PM (#178654)

        He was probably the only one without a gun.

        • (Score: 1) by redneckmother on Monday May 04 2015, @06:28PM

          by redneckmother (3597) on Monday May 04 2015, @06:28PM (#178673)

          He was probably the only one without a gun.

          Prolly so, prolly so.
          On the other hand, he may have been familiar with Texas Parks and Wildlife rules and regulations.
          While there is no closed season or bag limit on religious nutters, there are penalties for shooting them in a baited area.

          --
          Mas cerveza por favor.
    • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Monday May 04 2015, @02:19PM

      by TheGratefulNet (659) on Monday May 04 2015, @02:19PM (#178504)

      steven wright humor time:

      I bought a new phone though. I didn't have much money so I had to buy an irregular phone -- it had no number 5 on it. I saw a close friend of mine the other day... He said, "Steven, why haven't you called me?" I said, "I can't call everyone I want. My new phone has no five on it." He said, "How long have you had it?" I said, "I don't know... My calendar has no sevens on it."

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @10:22AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @10:22AM (#178412)
    Freedom of speech has its limitation in any given country. I don't see why it's necessary for people to do things that a particular section of population will not appreciate?

    Would the comments here have the same sentiment if it was a couple of americans shot down in middle east for attacking a 'piss on jesus' contest?

    Stop being so goddamned stupid.
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @10:29AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @10:29AM (#178414)

      Wouldn't a "draw Jesus" contest be a more applicable comparison?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:01PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:01PM (#178435)

        No, it would not. A more comparable option would be 'Defaecate on the Bible" or "Step on/Burn the Flag". Both of those would offend the more extreme people and provoke a violent result. The people organizing were deliberately inciting violence.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:19PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:19PM (#178446)

          It's their insanity that equates drawing a cartoon to defecating on or burning things.

          Islam needs to get with the program if they intend to live in civilized societies. Americans wont bend over backwards for their lunacy like the Europeans do.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @01:00PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @01:00PM (#178461)

            > It's their insanity that equates drawing a cartoon to defecating on or burning things.

            You appear to be arguing that shitting on the bible and burning the flag are offenses deserving of execution.

            I'm going to have a hard time taking anything you say seriously after that.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @01:10PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @01:10PM (#178468)

              The only ones attempting to execute people here are the two ISIS-wannabe chuclefucks who showed up to a cartoon drawing contest with intent to kill.

              And sent straight to their 70 virgins for their trouble. Thank you Texas. Europe, Middle East, take note on how to deal with these nutters.

        • (Score: 2) by tibman on Monday May 04 2015, @01:57PM

          by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @01:57PM (#178494)

          I've stepped on the US Flag, in front of a mosque, in Iraq, while taking a selfie. Shitting on bibles does not sound like something that would a good group event. Does everyone get their own bible or take turns with just one?

          The KKK still exists and their convention/rally brings more protesters against KKK than it does actual KKK members. Freedom is great!

          --
          SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @10:39AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @10:39AM (#178416)

      Poking the bear translates to living in fear.

      Freedom of speech is a core tenet in America. If crazy people cant handle it, they're welcome to come and get shot.

      God bless Texas.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @10:46PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @10:46PM (#178828)

        Freedom of speech is a core tenet in America

        God bless Texas

        Good. Lets have a PRIDE parade in Texas. Lets see freedom of speech in action.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @10:58PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @10:58PM (#178833)

          > Lets have a PRIDE parade in Texas. Lets see freedom of speech in action.

          Here you go [northtexaspride.com]
          That area where this anti-muslim thing was held - the suburbs north of Dallas - is relatively liberal and cosmopolitan. Not Austin level, but still pretty good.. It helps that it is "telecom corridor" so there are a lot of upper-middle class people from all over the world living there. Including plenty of muslims from India and Pakistan.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 04 2015, @10:44AM

      I don't see why it's necessary for people to do things that a particular section of population will not appreciate?

      That would be because you're an idiot. Freedom of speech means nothing unless it means the freedom to say that which someone else does not want to hear.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by jimshatt on Monday May 04 2015, @12:25PM

        by jimshatt (978) on Monday May 04 2015, @12:25PM (#178451) Journal
        Doesn't make it "necessary", which seems to be the current standard. If I have a good reason to draw a Mohammed cartoon or a Mighty Buzzard cartoon, I'll do so. But in my book, explicitly provoking the anger of another isn't a very good reason.
        I really really wish people wouldn't get offended so easily, though.
        • (Score: 2) by tibman on Monday May 04 2015, @02:04PM

          by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @02:04PM (#178498)

          You are saying that motives matter? Why hold any contest then? Contests are completely frivolous and their reason for existence is practically circular. We want to know who can do $X the best. Why? Because some people are better at frivolous things than others.

          --
          SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @02:18PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @02:18PM (#178503)

            > Why hold any contest then? Contests are completely frivolous and their reason for existence is practically circular.

            This contest had one primary goal - be shitty to muslims.
            Just because it was dressed up as a contest doesn't make that the primary goal.

            Just like requiring some people to count the number of jelly beans in a jar [nbcnews.com] in order to register to vote was not about making sure only accurate bean counters could vote.

            • (Score: 2) by tibman on Monday May 04 2015, @06:29PM

              by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @06:29PM (#178674)

              I'm arguing that it is slippery slope. Someone could argue that a shooting contest is just practicing murder or something. There are zero "necessary" reasons to hold any contest.

              --
              SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:44PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:44PM (#178683)

                > I'm arguing that it is slippery slope.

                What do you mean by "it?"
                Are you seriously arguing that judging people by their intentions is wrong?
                Because we do it all the time. It is the difference between murder and manslaughter for one.

                • (Score: 2) by tibman on Monday May 04 2015, @08:10PM

                  by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @08:10PM (#178729)

                  Okay then, let's play. Can you have a legit "best drawing of Mohammed contest"? Would someone still be offended? Someone is ALWAYS offended, no matter what you do. By giving authority to judge intent to one party that party will literally decide if you are allowed to have a contest about anything. If they decide your art is too risque then there will simply never be an organized event about it. Good luck ever seeing anything actually interesting. That is what freedom is about. You can have a best bondage picture contest. You can have naked mud wrestling. You can have flag burnings. If you don't like it, stay away from it. As long as your rights aren't trampled by another's freedom, then it's fair game.

                  --
                  SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:18PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:18PM (#178736)

                    > Can you have a legit "best drawing of Mohammed contest"?

                    Can you have a best use of the word nigger by white guys contest?

                    > Someone is ALWAYS offended, no matter what you do.

                    That is a cop-out. Context matters.

                    > You can have a best bondage picture contest. You can have naked mud wrestling. You can have flag burnings

                    In all of those cases it is reasonable to believe that some of the people participating are doing so because they genuinely care about the topic, even flag burners do it because they are protesting their own government, not using it as a pretext to attack "the other."

                    • (Score: 2) by tibman on Monday May 04 2015, @08:55PM

                      by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @08:55PM (#178755)

                      I usually hear "attack on family values" as an excuse to censor. Context matters, i agree. But that only changes the degree of how many are offended. Nude art offends some people, should it be banned? Even in private but open to the public settings? It's a slippery slope, like i said earlier. As soon as you start classifying what is allowed and what isn't, people's freedoms start becoming restricted. The easiest place to draw the line is where your freedom ends and mine begins. So yes, that allows people to publicly do and say completely socially unacceptable things. But that is their freedom. Just like yours is to protest them, denounce them, ignore them, or whatever you prefer.

                      --
                      SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @09:08PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @09:08PM (#178773)

                        > an excuse to censor.

                        This thread is about what is necessary, not what is censored.

                        This contest was nothing more than a pretext to demean people who had done nothing to the 'exhibitors.' We aren't talking about censoring, we are talking about condemning them.

                        • (Score: 2) by tibman on Monday May 04 2015, @09:28PM

                          by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @09:28PM (#178788)

                          Condemn all you want as long as you acknowledge that citizens can hold demeaning contests if they wish to. Condemning them is great!

                          --
                          SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:51PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:51PM (#178603)

          > I really really wish people wouldn't get offended so easily, though.

          When the intent is to be offensive, they offenders can't really complain when they succeed.

          If you meant to say you wish people wouldn't go on murder sprees because they've been offended. Sure, I will agree with that.

          With the caveat that 99.999+% of offended people don't do that. We've got somewhere on the order of 3 to 7 million muslims in the US and only 2 of them got offended enough to try to kill people for drawing pictures of Mo. So it is not really a representative sample.

    • (Score: 2) by Dunbal on Monday May 04 2015, @12:03PM

      by Dunbal (3515) on Monday May 04 2015, @12:03PM (#178437)

      Insulting the prophet of Islam (or the King, or any other popular figure real or fantasy) is a valid test of free speech. In a society where this is not allowed you do not have free speech.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:32PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:32PM (#178585)

        You don't really think they did this to test whether the police would arrest them for it, do you?

        • (Score: 2) by Dunbal on Monday May 04 2015, @06:51PM

          by Dunbal (3515) on Monday May 04 2015, @06:51PM (#178688)

          A man who abides by the law needs not give anyone any explanation of anything.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:53PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:53PM (#178691)

            > A man who abides by the law is not legally required to give anyone any explanation of anything.

            FTFY.
            Now stop ducking the question.

      • (Score: 2) by jimshatt on Monday May 04 2015, @06:54PM

        by jimshatt (978) on Monday May 04 2015, @06:54PM (#178693) Journal

        I'm not saying it shouldn't be allowed. I was just arguing that you don't need to go out of your way to offend people. The sole purpose of this contest, if you ask me. Wilders wouldn't be there if it wasn't. You don't need to self-censor either, mind you.

        Free speech is really important to me. I'm a big fan of Jesus and Mo [jesusandmo.net], but I feel that serves a valid purpose. This contest, probably not. Still they're free to hold whatever contest they like, including a Mo-drawing-contest, if they insist on being dicks.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:20PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:20PM (#178705)
        Maybe in another country. It is, however, not protected by the first amendment [cornell.edu] so I am not sure what it is that you're claiming to validate
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @11:04AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @11:04AM (#178420)

    I'm sick and tired of these "death to anyone who calls me an idiot" idiots, which I'm assuming the late attackers were. If my assumption is wrong, my regrets for the carnage. But if so, this sounds like a brilliant plan to draw out the nuts, get them to threaten violence at a non-violent event, and then have every Texan for miles around pull out their concealed carry and let fly in self defense.

    Do it again!

    And again. Until the world runs out of these flaming morons.

    And yeah, draw Jesus and all the other "gods" too. Even draw something to offend the atheists. I'm still betting only the ragheads come out prepared to kill in support of their insanity. Good riddance.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:52PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:52PM (#178458)

      And yeah, draw Jesus and all the other "gods" too. Even draw something to offend the atheists. I'm still betting only the ragheads come out prepared to kill in support of their insanity. Good riddance.

      How about publishing classified documents? [washingtontimes.com]

    • (Score: 1) by Anne Nonymous on Monday May 04 2015, @01:41PM

      by Anne Nonymous (712) on Monday May 04 2015, @01:41PM (#178484)

      Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
      Filter error: Missing Comment.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:58PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:58PM (#178611)

        A cartoon of the prophet Dawkins?

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by M. Baranczak on Monday May 04 2015, @05:27PM

      by M. Baranczak (1673) on Monday May 04 2015, @05:27PM (#178639)

      Even draw something to offend the atheists.

      I drove through the Deep South recently, and saw about a hundred billboards telling me I'm going to burn in hell for not worshiping some ancient Palestinian rabbi. So we already got that covered.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday May 05 2015, @09:36AM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday May 05 2015, @09:36AM (#179023) Homepage
        Yeah but the ironic thing is that isn't even particularly offensive. It's no more offensive than a poster for a movie about an impending zombie/virus apocalypse, or attack by aliens, or the sun blinking out.

        10 commandments statues on the courthouse lawn, however, and you'll start to get a reaction. I might even write a letter - woh! (Disclaimer: not US citizen or resident, so this post is mostly subjunctive.)
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday May 05 2015, @01:34PM

          by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday May 05 2015, @01:34PM (#179086) Journal

          10 commandments statues on the courthouse lawn, however, and you'll start to get a reaction. I might even write a letter - woh! (Disclaimer: not US citizen or resident, so this post is mostly subjunctive.)

          Around here they just go to court to win the right to erect their own statue (As the state can't legally endorse a specific religion)...and then put up a statue of Satan, usually just *slightly* bigger than whatever the Christians have. :)

    • (Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday May 05 2015, @07:44PM

      by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 05 2015, @07:44PM (#179223) Journal

      I see what you mean, but...

      Recently I read a few books on science (evolution) and religion because at my increasingly ripe old age, I didn't know enough about either, although I've been an atheist most of my life (since I could think for myself).

      The trouble with Islamofacist fanatics is that they really, honestly, truly, unquestioningly believe what they believe and their religion, which they believe they must follow to the letter, dictates to them that they must kill the non-believer, and that in doing so they are in Holy War and go straight to Heaven where they will be rewarded for their trouble. Humanity doesn't enter into it one little bit: only god matters. They are brainwashed killing machines.

      If it were so simple that drawing them out by baiting them with silly things like cartoons for them to attack and be killed, them the problem would solve itself pretty quickly.

      The problem is that there is a conveyor belt of these mindless killing drones being created to replace the ones that are expended in battle. Potential recruits don't seem to be put off.

      The problem is circular because these people (the ones who turn into religiously-inspired murderers) exist is a system where they are brainwashed from birth to believe unquestioningly, not to doubt, not to discuss, not to entertain the idea that what they are taught might possibly not be 100% objective truth. Those who question, those who don't believe and those who try to escape the religion are sub-human and offensive to god, and it is the duty of the true believers to eliminate them.

      These people are, to a certain extent, victims of their own circumstances. That's not to condone what they do, it's just an explanation.

      As most people know, it's often very difficult to leave any sort of religion (not just Islam) if there is a strong family tradition and societal pressures. Both types of pressure are very prevalent outside the secular West. Islam has its own particular challenges in this respect. Just read the world news to hear about the apostates jailed or murdered for renouncing Islam. Certain parts of Africa are pretty bad for it at the moment, as well as places like Pakistan (recently free-thinkers have been murdered in broad daylight there).

      I respect everybody's right to believe and to Belief, if they so chose of their own free will. I also think that freedom from belief or religion is very important both to support athiests and agnostics, but also to allow all peaceful religions to co-exist fairly.

      I have started to read a book called Why I am not a Muslim [amazon.com] by Ibn Warraq (a pen name since he doesn't want to be murdered for apostasy or blasphemy) and it is very interesting indeed. (I previously read God is not Great [amazon.com] by Christopher Hitchens). It appears that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), as well as having a mental illness, was originally taught by Jewish Rabbis and that's where he got most of Islam from. He also stole a lot of Catholic rituals and Arabic pagan superstitions and rituals to put into his own religion. In fact, the origin of Islam has a lot of similarities with the origin of Mormonism in that they were both recycled from existing ones....

      No wonder these people get angry when the flaws in their allegedly perfect religion get pointed out. Imagine having your whole life obsessively dedicated to superstition and ritual that's just another hotch-potch of Middle-Eastern superstition and plagiarised texts from other fairy tales of the region? All those executions, amputations, torture, martyring all for nothing.

      I'd be pretty cross too.

      In short, baiting them isn't a very humane thing to do, but the rest of the world has a right to live in peace, and we need to stand up to the bullies.

      Education, as always, will eventually solve the problem, but it's going to be slow when even in the West we still allow ourselves to be ruled over by the likes of Christianity in its various forms (birth control, civil rights, equality, scientific freedom)...

      There are some support organisations out there who help people trying to escape from oppressive religions of all kinds. Google is your friend.

  • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday May 04 2015, @02:40PM

    by hemocyanin (186) on Monday May 04 2015, @02:40PM (#178521) Journal

    Prior to the reported explosion, several reporters said police had warned they might deploy an electronic magnetic pulse, or EMP, though the claim was not confirmed and there are still questions about such a device being available to law enforcement.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/03/shooting-outside-muhammad-cartoon-contest-in-texas-police [theblaze.com]

    Is it know what type of EMP devices police may be using? This article references work on an EMP grenade: http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/us-army-law-enforcement-agencies-working-emp-grenades [homelandsecuritynewswire.com] , though how you'd pack enough juice into something that size escapes me. I have heard that high powered EMP devices use explosive switches to get all the juice as fast as possible out of the capacitors -- maybe that is the source of the explosion? I would think it would sound more like a gunshot though. There is of course the info regarding the car disabling EMP device from a few years back: http://www.policeone.com/police-products/Pursuit-Management-Technology/articles/6755618-Vehicle-mounted-device-disables-car-electronics-at-50-meters/ [policeone.com]

    Anyway -- curious about this.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @02:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @02:44PM (#178523)

      Mention of EMP is only in the part from TheBlaze and they aren't what you would call a reliable news source with a strong fact-checking department.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:45PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:45PM (#178720)

        I guess I'll take an enlightened stance to understanding this: If police do have a broad EMP of some sort, wouldn't they [ab]use it during the recent riots to break everyone's cameras and communication equipment?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @05:52PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @05:52PM (#178656)

    You will see a big increase in terror attacks committed by Christians within this century.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:13PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:13PM (#178665)

      > You will see a big increase in terror attacks committed by Christians within this century.

      We've already had more christian terrorist attacks than muslim attacks in this century.
      But it is by white men claiming to be patriots so it doesn't fit the narrative.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Las_Vegas_shootings [wikipedia.org]
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting [wikipedia.org]
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting [wikipedia.org]
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_George_Tiller [wikipedia.org]
      etc...

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:53PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:53PM (#178690)

        We've already had more christian terrorist attacks than muslim attacks in this century.

        The problem with your little list of "Christian Taliban" is that all but the last example didn't really claim any sort of Christian ideological motivation for their attacks. Your list would be a bit more convincing if it were exclusively made up of people who were specifically motivated by their Christian beliefs to do violent terrorist attacks. If this were a school assignment I would have given it a grade of D-.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:03PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:03PM (#178700)
          So unless these two guys in question were heard shouting some religious sermons before they were shot dead, this must not count as a muslim terrorist act. Right?
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:56PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:56PM (#178756)

            So unless these two guys in question were heard shouting some religious sermons before they were shot dead, this must not count as a muslim terrorist act. Right?

            Oh, FFS! Would you please do at least a little reading of the news before you post? One of them was posting things like "May Allah accept us as mujahideen." [cnn.com] to twitter immediately before the attack. Do you honestly think that does not count as showing some religious motivation?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:21PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:21PM (#178707)

          > is that all but the last example didn't really claim any sort of Christian ideological motivation for their attacks.

          The walmart shooters were deep in that weird christian sovereign-citizen culture. Son of conservative christian he once posted to facebook that "Soon, USA will be slaughtering christans and constitutionalists"

          The guy who shot up the unitarian church did it because they were not religious enough, complaining that they supported gays "It's an abomination" and "attacked... Religion."

          The guy who shot the sikhs talked about an "impending racial holy war" was a member of the christian-identity white-power hammerskins group.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @09:23PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @09:23PM (#178783)

            Call me weird but your examples look primarily like right-wing political extremism and/or KKK, rather than religious motivation.

            The walmart shooters were deep in that weird christian sovereign-citizen culture. Son of conservative christian he once posted to facebook that "Soon, USA will be slaughtering christans and constitutionalists"

            This looks to me more like right-wing political extremists, rather than Christian ideologues.

            The guy who shot up the unitarian church did it because they were not religious enough, complaining that they supported gays "It's an abomination" and "attacked... Religion."

            The wiki article referenced above said he was primarily concerned about "Democrats" ruining this country. Again, this looks more like right-wing political extremism, rather than religious motivation.

            The guy who shot the sikhs talked about an "impending racial holy war" was a member of the christian-identity white-power hammerskins group.

            And this looks more like KKK rather than Christianity. Obviously, YMMV.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @09:45PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @09:45PM (#178803)

              Call me weird but your examples look primarily like right-wing political extremism and/or KKK, rather than religious motivation.

              Nothing exists in a vacuum. These things are all mixed together. The sovereign-citizens, neo-nazis and KKK are all wrapped up with their own freaky version of christianity. For example, KKK chapters often call themselves churches. [adl.org]

              The reason you can pick out some non-christian motivations in those cases is because you have exposure to normal christianity. Not being familiar with islam means you can't easily recognize the same in their extremists. When muslim extremists say "jihad" they mean the same thing that the christian taliban mean when they say things like "fight for justice." It is a difference of language more than a difference of ideology.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:22PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:22PM (#178738)

    Freedom of speech (at least as enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America) is protection from the government suppressing what one wants to say (or express).

    The First Amendment doesn't shield one from the consequences of what they express freely.

    Being shot at is a consequence of expressing one's self in this instance.

    There is a difference.

    Not trying to convey anything other than what I stated...simply wanted to point out an important (in my mind) distinction.

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:15AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:15AM (#178991)

      And in the US, it's generally illegal to try to murder or harm someone because you were offended by their speech.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @11:32PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @11:32PM (#178846)

    Here is how I see it:

    1. Some people draw something they think expresses something.
    2. A couple of mindless pawns get shot dead. They were probably encouraged/sent by their "middle-eastern hook-nosed, droopy-eyed, sloped foreheaded, bankster" friends.
    3. A security guard gets a bullet in his leg.
    4. An extremist Dutch politician gets what he wants: more attention.

    Meanwhile Shlomo is very happy. First they got Europeans to destroy each other, which let them take over the world. Now they are looking at Christians vs. Muslims. Shlomo is indeed very happy.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @07:50AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @07:50AM (#178982)

      Got europeans to ban everything good, like marrying little girls, having weapons, etc.