Shooting at muslim cartoon event?

[rhodescholar]

Youre a fucking idiot. If muslims attacked because we wore suits I would be the first one signing up to rid the earth of their existence. As it is youre a fucking moron trying to compare wearing suits to drawing cartoons of their prophets and disrespecting their deity.

C-nt, it is YOU who are too fucking stupid to grasp that free speech means I can say whatever the flying fuck I want, whether it is making fun of their deity, their clothes, their prophets, their mother, their favorite baseball team, etc., WITHOUT the fear of a violent response.

As the other poster said, this was well covered in grade school, but given your total lack of an intelligent post in 50 pages, it isn't surprising you likely repeated 3rd grade 5 times...

 

[fanger]

Simpson was well known to the FBI. Five years ago he was convicted for lying to federal agents about his plans to travel to Africa where investigators alleged he planned to join a terror group.

The investigation into Simpson reached back to July 2007, when he was recorded saying of fighting with Islamists, "I know we can do it, man. But you got to find the right people that… Gotta have connects."

Despite that and other recordings, a judge ruled the government did not adequately prove Simpson was going to join a terror group and Simpson was sentenced to three years' probation for lying to investigators.




We'd been tracking his online activities. He's been on our radar for a long time -- but there was no indication of any attack coming," a senior law enforcement official told ABC News.

Garland Shooting Suspect Elton Simpson s Father Says Son Made a Bad Choice - ABC News

did they even get out the car?

 

[rhodescholar]

Actually Pam has been banned from the UK. She and her organization is a hate group. She fools the low of intellect by spouting patriotic rhetoric but make no mistake she is in the same boat with the KKK, skinheads, and other foul packs of feral simians.

She was stopped from entering the UK to appease the same muslim filth you are a fucking moron for apologizing for.

I thought the posters in the Israel/palestine forum were stupid, this asshole is less intelligent than anyone in my sig - by far.

Zero ability to grasp basic concepts, all rage/emotion and no brains. Let's hope you are never given a position more responsible than cleaning the cow shit off of tractor tires with a toothbrush.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thank you, Asclepias, at least you are consistent:

Dear Asclepias
1. If you provoked someone by how you used free speech, intentional or not,
would you fault yourself if someone killed you for it?

So if you had been in Pam Geller's shoes, and if one of these gunmen had
shot you, would you blame yourself for bringing it on?

If you answer yes, at least you are consistent.
But maybe you are biased because you already wouldn't ever provoke a Muslim extremist this way. So this hypothetical would never happen.

2. What about people opposed to you that you wouldn't restrain your free speech for?
What if your arguments here, caused someone to say
Hey you say that again, I am going to show up at your door and shoot you dead.
And you knew this person would do this.

Would you give up your free speech because you knew this "nutcase" couldn't help but react by killing you?
Or would you defend your free speech, and if they come at you, you'd call the cops.
Or would you let them shoot you and blame yourself for pushing their buttons?

3. In either case, 1 or 2, would you justify a violent person
killing you for expressing your free speech, even in protest.

Would you say it was your fault for provoking such an attack?

1. Yes

2. No I wouldnt give up my free speech. I'm only "endangering" myself. I actually would welcome someone opposed to my views threatening me then actually having the balls to come to my home. It would be the last thing they were able to do before I put them 6ft under.

3. "Justify" isnt the word I would use. The phrase would be more like "not surprised" Yes it would be my fault for provoking such an attack. I didnt have to provoke anyone.

Thank you at least you are consistent.
As for #2, I think the police working security did just that!

 

[rhodescholar]

In trying to understand what you could possibly be saying,.....I am guessing this is what you mean? Close enough?

You are trying to use reason with an idiot who can barely comprehend how to zip their fly.

 

[Asclepias]

Has nothing to do with the point. The christians that were inciting the muslim nutcases should have turned the other cheek and not held an event to piss them off.

Just had to respond to this fucking stupidity. Your posts are abject fucking garbage, to the point of total embarrassment.

Asshole moron, since you clearly have no fucking clue, let me walk you through reality...google "anti-semitic cartoons arab press" and "iran holocaust denial conference" and see what comes up. All across the arab world jews are called apes and monkeys by arab muslim writers and editors, yet we do not see jews suicide bombing or shooting up large groups of arab muslims.

We do see large numbers of minorities being slaughtered by the intolerant, racist, violent arab muslims across the mideast, often times simply for not being a muslim. We have seen multiple times how muslim terrorists, once they've rounded up large numbers of civilians, separating the non-muslims and killing them outright, while sending the muslims home.

Your stupidity, exposed by such comments as "why aren't you surprised some people got angry and attacked" is a sign you lack the intellectual capability to even begin to understand the importance of the 1st amendment, and why it must be protected. Or should the US revoke it because a handful of psychotics (likely muslims) might react with violence? Get a fucking brain, dimwit.

Dear Asclepias and rhodescholar
Since I generally know Asclepias to be reasonable and able to work through conflicts to make mutual corrections and clarifications,
there must be something else going on that Asclepias is just not expressing correctly.

A. Asclepias are you trying to get at INTENT, that you are assuming the INTENT of the cartoon contest was to PROVOKE VIOLENCE and murderous response so these people incited it? (while as for abortion and prolife, the people going through abortion are not trying to deliberately provoke those protesters to kill, although that has happened. There have been lawsuits to remove dangerous websites calling for death threats and violence targeting abortion providers at their neighborhood and residence. So THAT level is criminal when death threats are called for, but it is charged to the people MAKING the threats, not to the people who incited them by providing and practicing abortion.)

NOTE: If you are ASSUMING "all these people who got threatened or forced into lockdown" were DELIBERATELY trying to provoke murderous anger, how are YOU any different from people ASSUMING that "All Muslims are murderous Jihadists or sympathizers/enablers"

There were as many people participating in this as a protest or counterprotest and statement to civil respect for democratic FREEDOMS of speech and due process, under civil laws that were otherwise violated in incidents such as Charlie Hebdo and the targeting of the Dutch artist and other filmmakers (and even novelists like Rushdie).

So not ALL the people were trying to provoke violence.
Just like not ALL Muslims enable or excuse terrorism.

If you are saying Pam Geller's intent was not patriotism but some kind of harassment intended to incite violence, then by due process SHE should be addressed and corrected, or charged if there is some criminal abuse or threat committed, just like proving the websites incite crime if you are going to take down extreme prolife websites that target abortion doctors for violence and criminal actions.

Those charges have to be proven IN ADVANCE to be a threat before taking away people's free speech and right to protest.

So if you want to go after Geller, then do so, but within the processes of law.
Just like Christians and Constitutionalists and all citizens are required to go through.

B. rhodescholar and Asclepias
I think what Asclepias is trying to say is pointing out the Natural Law or Golden Rule that you treat others with respect if you want to claim respect for your beliefs and consent. Clearly the Muslim community and others do not consent to such provocative actions and protests, knowing that it can incite violence in radicalists.

Asclepias this is where there is a separation of church and state.

Just because it is AGAINST Christian law to "provoke your neighbor to anger"
does not mean it justifies breaking CIVIL LAW to answer to that.

The proper way to answer to a violation of Christian scripture is to enforce scripture and make the correction within that system, which calls for NOT VIOLATING IT.

So the person trying to petition or protest or object must ALSO follow the Scripture and cannot violate the very same laws. And YES Islam calls for believers to follow the Bible as well, so by Matthew 18:15-20 fellow believers are supposed to rebuke each other in private, in the spirit of Christ Jesus or Restorative Justice, to right the wrongs in order to RESTORE good faith relations between them (or if they cannot, by SURA 109 they are supposed to part ways in peace and allow each other to follow their separate ways, ie, there is NO compulsion in religion. Both by Muslim teachings and Christian Scripture you do not FORCE someone to correct things your way, but you present your grievance your side and you allow the truth to be established by agreement, without coercion or compulsion)

Asclepias for the CIVIL law, it turns out it is NOT against either civil or criminal law to hold such a contest UNLESS they broke some law, such as discrimination if they held this event on public property that was "free to the public" but excluded people on the basis of color, race or creed when it was held on public property as a public event.
If it was a private event, the rules may differ.

(In Tomball a couple won a lawsuit against the city renting a public facility for a Klan event that excluded people by race. They petitioned to change the rules where by the Fourteenth Amendment the city could not discriminate by color at an event held on public property.)

But again, even so, there is a DUE PROCESS for addressing any such breach; and it is illegal to answer with shooting at people.

Asclepias if you are trying to enforce
* natural laws, then neither can the two gunmen violate natural laws if they are going to protest and say the hosts of the event were provoking violence and disrupting natural law and order. You could have had a natural law argument if the two men followed natural law and protested civilly instead of violating the very same laws about "reciprocity"

* civil laws and respect for Constitutional religious freedom of Muslims, then neither should the two men have violated civil laws and Constitutional freedoms either.

If I had to guess what you are TRYING to argue,
you are saying by NATURAL LAWS of course there is going to be provocation
and risk of violent reaction like what happened.

So you are saying there was deliberate "intent or RISK (not assuming intent)"
of inciting crime, and this was either harassing or abusive.

Obscene, harassing and abusive speech is only illegal in CERTAIN contexts.

So you are going by the SPIRIT of the laws, and not the civil laws that citizens are required to follow. You are going by MORAL laws, similar to Buddhists advising not to cause suffering or Christians teaching not to provoke one's neighbor to anger, or to act as a stumbling block and cause others to sin out of anger, unforgiveness etc.

These are MORAL principles, but people here are arguing CIVIL laws.
So these MORAL laws are not required under CIVIL or CRIMINAL laws of the govt/state, or else that would Violate Separation of Church and State.

And guess what, the people who took justice into their own hands did just that,
violated separation of church and state by executing actions (such as shooting or intent to kill) that are reserved for police and govt through regulated procedures for that.

So even if you enforced those standards, the shooters violated the same standards also.

On all counts, if you look at moral laws, natural laws, civil and criminal,
Christian and Muslim, the shooters violated any of these laws you could possibly enforce.

But I understand you if you are trying to enforce a higher moral law, and not provoke anyone to violence, anger and suffering. It just can't be imposed by public laws; but what you are seeking is best established by example, by enforcing the same standards.

And these two gunmen did not.

My prayers to them and all people involved or affected by this incident,
that we may uplift one another, and grow to be better for the lessons learned.
May all hearts, minds, souls, relations and communities be healed and united
with greater understanding that we may prevent such grievances and grief in the future.

For the love of God and unity in Christ Jesus
that brings Restorative Justice and peace to all, Amen.

You would have to be living under a rock not to know who the prophet muhammad is and the fact it makes muslims super angry when you mock their religion. Of course all the people participating in the event had the same intent. I dont think at all the intent was to provoke violence but it damn sure was to provoke and mock Muslims. When you provoke committed people bad things are bound to happen.

Likewise Asclepias you'd have to be in oblivious denial to ignore the fact that to Christians who believe abortion is murder and not a choice, half the country has been outraged and aggrieved that this is LEGAL.

Christians have been fighting this for years, since 1973, and are still expected to follow CIVIL DUE PROCESS.
Even though to them, murder is illegal, is never justified as a "choice," and the same as abortion.

Asclepias, I think you are taking for granted that
A. Christians are expected to FORGIVE, so they are not supposed to go around and kill.
The Scriptures call for Christians to RESPECT CIVIL AUTHORITY and laws.
Even if this means being persecuted and facing injustice, they are supposed to use these occasions to TESTIFY.
And ASK and PETITION civilly to change laws that allow injustices and abuses to occur.

B. You FORGET that MUSLIMS are ALSO UNDER SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY

So if you look at the law abiding Muslims, they did follow civil standards, and protested and petitioned PEACEFULLY against this event. They asked using the same free speech that the event supporters were using, so that is EQUAL.

The faithful Muslims I know ALSO follow Restorative Justice which makes them neighbors in Christ.

I think you are excusing the violent reactions as something "these people could not help."
If they are THAT mentally ill that they cannot follow the laws, they should be required to get treatment!

Lastly Asclepias
In trying to understand what you could possibly be saying,
I THINK you are saying the equivalent of warning people "don't post your SSN and personal information online
and claim free speech, then complain when someone responds by stealing your identity and committing fraud or theft"

Even though it is LEGAL to post our information online, our children's photos, and address and school/business etc. by "freedom of speech and of the press"
You are saying it is ill advised to provoke a crime, since that is almost inevitable that someone would take advantage.

So is this a violation of free speech? To have to limit what we post online because of the criminal behavior of others?

Yes, we'd blame the identity thieves for committing such crimes if they did that.

But YES I agree with you, we would WARN citizens DON'T POST YOUR PERSONAL INFO ONLINE.
Especially not your children. We already warn them DON'T post personal info or statements on facebook because your employer can find that, and it can possibly affect your job.

So if this is what you mean, yes, it is NOT ADVISABLE to set yourself up for criminals to take advantage. It is better NOT to tempt people if you know this will INVITE crime.

Asclepias is that closer to what you are trying to say?

Don't leave the house or car unlocked, with keys in the ignition or someone could try to break in and steal property.
Don't leave your purse in the cart at the store and walk away.

Is it legal to do these thing? Yes, but it is ILL ADVISED and not safe.
For the sake of security and deterring crime, it is best to lock up and not INVITE criminals.

I am guessing this is what you mean?
Close enough?

Doesnt matter what Christians think about abortion. if they are opposed to abortion then they shouldnt get one. Being opposed to abortion is not the same as being opposed to someone drawing cartoons of your prophet. One is a personal choice and no ones business. The other is a provocation of an entire religious base. More noteable a minority of that base is known to violently react to provocation without a regard for innocents.

Yes thats exactly what I am saying . Just because you can do something doesnt mean you should do it.

 

[emilynghiem]

In trying to understand what you could possibly be saying,.....I am guessing this is what you mean? Close enough?

You are trying to use reason with an idiot who can barely comprehend how to zip their fly.

Dear rhodescholar
=====================================================
Asclepias answered consistently:

1. Yes

2. No I wouldnt give up my free speech. I'm only "endangering" myself. I actually would welcome someone opposed to my views threatening me then actually having the balls to come to my home. It would be the last thing they were able to do before I put them 6ft under.

3. "Justify" isnt the word I would use. The phrase would be more like "not surprised" Yes it would be my fault for provoking such an attack. I didnt have to provoke anyone.
=================================================
Thank you @Ascelpias at least you are consistent.
As for #2, I think the police working security did just that!
=============================================

So he would still do the same thing, and clobber the other guy first.
All he is adding to the scenario, is he is saying he would still hold himself responsible for his part if he deliberately provoked such an attack.

 

[Asclepias]

In trying to understand what you could possibly be saying,.....I am guessing this is what you mean? Close enough?

You are trying to use reason with an idiot who can barely comprehend how to zip their fly.

Dont be mad because you have the intellectual capacity of a fruit fly and cannot advance your arguments.

 

[hangover]

It's obvious that the extremist right wingers don't give a shit how many Americans are killed in the religious war they want so desperately, as long as they get to make fun of the Muslim religion, and use their words and cartoons to hurt those they hate. There will be consequences.

 

[Asclepias]

Thank you, Asclepias, at least you are consistent:

Dear Asclepias
1. If you provoked someone by how you used free speech, intentional or not,
would you fault yourself if someone killed you for it?

So if you had been in Pam Geller's shoes, and if one of these gunmen had
shot you, would you blame yourself for bringing it on?

If you answer yes, at least you are consistent.
But maybe you are biased because you already wouldn't ever provoke a Muslim extremist this way. So this hypothetical would never happen.

2. What about people opposed to you that you wouldn't restrain your free speech for?
What if your arguments here, caused someone to say
Hey you say that again, I am going to show up at your door and shoot you dead.
And you knew this person would do this.

Would you give up your free speech because you knew this "nutcase" couldn't help but react by killing you?
Or would you defend your free speech, and if they come at you, you'd call the cops.
Or would you let them shoot you and blame yourself for pushing their buttons?

3. In either case, 1 or 2, would you justify a violent person
killing you for expressing your free speech, even in protest.

Would you say it was your fault for provoking such an attack?

1. Yes

2. No I wouldnt give up my free speech. I'm only "endangering" myself. I actually would welcome someone opposed to my views threatening me then actually having the balls to come to my home. It would be the last thing they were able to do before I put them 6ft under.

3. "Justify" isnt the word I would use. The phrase would be more like "not surprised" Yes it would be my fault for provoking such an attack. I didnt have to provoke anyone.

Thank you at least you are consistent.
As for #2, I think the police working security did just that!

The police werent drawing cartoons. If Pam had of shot the nutcases herself that would be more like what I was saying.

 

[emilynghiem]

Has nothing to do with the point. The christians that were inciting the muslim nutcases should have turned the other cheek and not held an event to piss them off.

Just had to respond to this fucking stupidity. Your posts are abject fucking garbage, to the point of total embarrassment.

Asshole moron, since you clearly have no fucking clue, let me walk you through reality...google "anti-semitic cartoons arab press" and "iran holocaust denial conference" and see what comes up. All across the arab world jews are called apes and monkeys by arab muslim writers and editors, yet we do not see jews suicide bombing or shooting up large groups of arab muslims.

We do see large numbers of minorities being slaughtered by the intolerant, racist, violent arab muslims across the mideast, often times simply for not being a muslim. We have seen multiple times how muslim terrorists, once they've rounded up large numbers of civilians, separating the non-muslims and killing them outright, while sending the muslims home.

Your stupidity, exposed by such comments as "why aren't you surprised some people got angry and attacked" is a sign you lack the intellectual capability to even begin to understand the importance of the 1st amendment, and why it must be protected. Or should the US revoke it because a handful of psychotics (likely muslims) might react with violence? Get a fucking brain, dimwit.

Dear Asclepias and rhodescholar
Since I generally know Asclepias to be reasonable and able to work through conflicts to make mutual corrections and clarifications,
there must be something else going on that Asclepias is just not expressing correctly.

A. Asclepias are you trying to get at INTENT, that you are assuming the INTENT of the cartoon contest was to PROVOKE VIOLENCE and murderous response so these people incited it? (while as for abortion and prolife, the people going through abortion are not trying to deliberately provoke those protesters to kill, although that has happened. There have been lawsuits to remove dangerous websites calling for death threats and violence targeting abortion providers at their neighborhood and residence. So THAT level is criminal when death threats are called for, but it is charged to the people MAKING the threats, not to the people who incited them by providing and practicing abortion.)

NOTE: If you are ASSUMING "all these people who got threatened or forced into lockdown" were DELIBERATELY trying to provoke murderous anger, how are YOU any different from people ASSUMING that "All Muslims are murderous Jihadists or sympathizers/enablers"

There were as many people participating in this as a protest or counterprotest and statement to civil respect for democratic FREEDOMS of speech and due process, under civil laws that were otherwise violated in incidents such as Charlie Hebdo and the targeting of the Dutch artist and other filmmakers (and even novelists like Rushdie).

So not ALL the people were trying to provoke violence.
Just like not ALL Muslims enable or excuse terrorism.

If you are saying Pam Geller's intent was not patriotism but some kind of harassment intended to incite violence, then by due process SHE should be addressed and corrected, or charged if there is some criminal abuse or threat committed, just like proving the websites incite crime if you are going to take down extreme prolife websites that target abortion doctors for violence and criminal actions.

Those charges have to be proven IN ADVANCE to be a threat before taking away people's free speech and right to protest.

So if you want to go after Geller, then do so, but within the processes of law.
Just like Christians and Constitutionalists and all citizens are required to go through.

B. rhodescholar and Asclepias
I think what Asclepias is trying to say is pointing out the Natural Law or Golden Rule that you treat others with respect if you want to claim respect for your beliefs and consent. Clearly the Muslim community and others do not consent to such provocative actions and protests, knowing that it can incite violence in radicalists.

Asclepias this is where there is a separation of church and state.

Just because it is AGAINST Christian law to "provoke your neighbor to anger"
does not mean it justifies breaking CIVIL LAW to answer to that.

The proper way to answer to a violation of Christian scripture is to enforce scripture and make the correction within that system, which calls for NOT VIOLATING IT.

So the person trying to petition or protest or object must ALSO follow the Scripture and cannot violate the very same laws. And YES Islam calls for believers to follow the Bible as well, so by Matthew 18:15-20 fellow believers are supposed to rebuke each other in private, in the spirit of Christ Jesus or Restorative Justice, to right the wrongs in order to RESTORE good faith relations between them (or if they cannot, by SURA 109 they are supposed to part ways in peace and allow each other to follow their separate ways, ie, there is NO compulsion in religion. Both by Muslim teachings and Christian Scripture you do not FORCE someone to correct things your way, but you present your grievance your side and you allow the truth to be established by agreement, without coercion or compulsion)

Asclepias for the CIVIL law, it turns out it is NOT against either civil or criminal law to hold such a contest UNLESS they broke some law, such as discrimination if they held this event on public property that was "free to the public" but excluded people on the basis of color, race or creed when it was held on public property as a public event.
If it was a private event, the rules may differ.

(In Tomball a couple won a lawsuit against the city renting a public facility for a Klan event that excluded people by race. They petitioned to change the rules where by the Fourteenth Amendment the city could not discriminate by color at an event held on public property.)

But again, even so, there is a DUE PROCESS for addressing any such breach; and it is illegal to answer with shooting at people.

Asclepias if you are trying to enforce
* natural laws, then neither can the two gunmen violate natural laws if they are going to protest and say the hosts of the event were provoking violence and disrupting natural law and order. You could have had a natural law argument if the two men followed natural law and protested civilly instead of violating the very same laws about "reciprocity"

* civil laws and respect for Constitutional religious freedom of Muslims, then neither should the two men have violated civil laws and Constitutional freedoms either.

If I had to guess what you are TRYING to argue,
you are saying by NATURAL LAWS of course there is going to be provocation
and risk of violent reaction like what happened.

So you are saying there was deliberate "intent or RISK (not assuming intent)"
of inciting crime, and this was either harassing or abusive.

Obscene, harassing and abusive speech is only illegal in CERTAIN contexts.

So you are going by the SPIRIT of the laws, and not the civil laws that citizens are required to follow. You are going by MORAL laws, similar to Buddhists advising not to cause suffering or Christians teaching not to provoke one's neighbor to anger, or to act as a stumbling block and cause others to sin out of anger, unforgiveness etc.

These are MORAL principles, but people here are arguing CIVIL laws.
So these MORAL laws are not required under CIVIL or CRIMINAL laws of the govt/state, or else that would Violate Separation of Church and State.

And guess what, the people who took justice into their own hands did just that,
violated separation of church and state by executing actions (such as shooting or intent to kill) that are reserved for police and govt through regulated procedures for that.

So even if you enforced those standards, the shooters violated the same standards also.

On all counts, if you look at moral laws, natural laws, civil and criminal,
Christian and Muslim, the shooters violated any of these laws you could possibly enforce.

But I understand you if you are trying to enforce a higher moral law, and not provoke anyone to violence, anger and suffering. It just can't be imposed by public laws; but what you are seeking is best established by example, by enforcing the same standards.

And these two gunmen did not.

My prayers to them and all people involved or affected by this incident,
that we may uplift one another, and grow to be better for the lessons learned.
May all hearts, minds, souls, relations and communities be healed and united
with greater understanding that we may prevent such grievances and grief in the future.

For the love of God and unity in Christ Jesus
that brings Restorative Justice and peace to all, Amen.

You would have to be living under a rock not to know who the prophet muhammad is and the fact it makes muslims super angry when you mock their religion. Of course all the people participating in the event had the same intent. I dont think at all the intent was to provoke violence but it damn sure was to provoke and mock Muslims. When you provoke committed people bad things are bound to happen.

Likewise Asclepias you'd have to be in oblivious denial to ignore the fact that to Christians who believe abortion is murder and not a choice, half the country has been outraged and aggrieved that this is LEGAL.

Christians have been fighting this for years, since 1973, and are still expected to follow CIVIL DUE PROCESS.
Even though to them, murder is illegal, is never justified as a "choice," and the same as abortion.

Asclepias, I think you are taking for granted that
A. Christians are expected to FORGIVE, so they are not supposed to go around and kill.
The Scriptures call for Christians to RESPECT CIVIL AUTHORITY and laws.
Even if this means being persecuted and facing injustice, they are supposed to use these occasions to TESTIFY.
And ASK and PETITION civilly to change laws that allow injustices and abuses to occur.

B. You FORGET that MUSLIMS are ALSO UNDER SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY

So if you look at the law abiding Muslims, they did follow civil standards, and protested and petitioned PEACEFULLY against this event. They asked using the same free speech that the event supporters were using, so that is EQUAL.

The faithful Muslims I know ALSO follow Restorative Justice which makes them neighbors in Christ.

I think you are excusing the violent reactions as something "these people could not help."
If they are THAT mentally ill that they cannot follow the laws, they should be required to get treatment!

Lastly Asclepias
In trying to understand what you could possibly be saying,
I THINK you are saying the equivalent of warning people "don't post your SSN and personal information online
and claim free speech, then complain when someone responds by stealing your identity and committing fraud or theft"

Even though it is LEGAL to post our information online, our children's photos, and address and school/business etc. by "freedom of speech and of the press"
You are saying it is ill advised to provoke a crime, since that is almost inevitable that someone would take advantage.

So is this a violation of free speech? To have to limit what we post online because of the criminal behavior of others?

Yes, we'd blame the identity thieves for committing such crimes if they did that.

But YES I agree with you, we would WARN citizens DON'T POST YOUR PERSONAL INFO ONLINE.
Especially not your children. We already warn them DON'T post personal info or statements on facebook because your employer can find that, and it can possibly affect your job.

So if this is what you mean, yes, it is NOT ADVISABLE to set yourself up for criminals to take advantage. It is better NOT to tempt people if you know this will INVITE crime.

Asclepias is that closer to what you are trying to say?

Don't leave the house or car unlocked, with keys in the ignition or someone could try to break in and steal property.
Don't leave your purse in the cart at the store and walk away.

Is it legal to do these thing? Yes, but it is ILL ADVISED and not safe.
For the sake of security and deterring crime, it is best to lock up and not INVITE criminals.

I am guessing this is what you mean?
Close enough?

Doesnt matter what Christians think about abortion. if they are opposed to abortion then they shouldnt get one. Being opposed to abortion is not the same as being opposed to someone drawing cartoons of your prophet. One is a personal choice and no ones business. The other is a provocation of an entire religious base. More noteable a minority of that base is known to violently react to provocation without a regard for innocents.

Yes thats exactly what I am saying . Just because you can do something doesnt mean you should do it.

Hi Asclepias
1. so if the cartoons were drawn in private, that is a personal choice, an individual act like abortion by one person.

2. but if the legalization of abortion is established by public courts as public law,
then Christians who are prolife are mandatorily under these laws and compelled to pay taxes and be under those laws!

It's not just on the personal side of individuals,
this is LEGISLATED through public laws and govt paid for with public taxes that are MANDATORY.

So it is national, not just personal.

Same with the ACA mandates that have federal authorities MANDATING personal choices.

When you mess with federal laws and you nationalize a policy, then it has to be consistent with all people's beliefs,
and nobody should be abusing govt to establish a belief or bias that runs in conflict with the beliefs of citizens who have the right not to be imposed on or discriminated against by faith.

I think you are dismissing or downplaying the faith of Christians because they tend to be NONVIOLENT.

So you are indirectly and unintentionally REWARDING violent behavior by giving more respect to Islam than to Christians
just because people with Christian faith and support tend to respect laws and not be violent.

This comes across as taking Christians for granted, who are expected to follow civil laws,
and kowtowing to criminally violent cults who are not held to the same standards, which incidentally
are supposed to be part of Muslim faith.

I think you need to emphasize more the entire context of what you said last, and include that you would still shoot someone before they shot you. If you include that, then it doesn't sound like you are excusing criminal behavior.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thank you, Asclepias, at least you are consistent:

Dear Asclepias
1. If you provoked someone by how you used free speech, intentional or not,
would you fault yourself if someone killed you for it?

So if you had been in Pam Geller's shoes, and if one of these gunmen had
shot you, would you blame yourself for bringing it on?

If you answer yes, at least you are consistent.
But maybe you are biased because you already wouldn't ever provoke a Muslim extremist this way. So this hypothetical would never happen.

2. What about people opposed to you that you wouldn't restrain your free speech for?
What if your arguments here, caused someone to say
Hey you say that again, I am going to show up at your door and shoot you dead.
And you knew this person would do this.

Would you give up your free speech because you knew this "nutcase" couldn't help but react by killing you?
Or would you defend your free speech, and if they come at you, you'd call the cops.
Or would you let them shoot you and blame yourself for pushing their buttons?

3. In either case, 1 or 2, would you justify a violent person
killing you for expressing your free speech, even in protest.

Would you say it was your fault for provoking such an attack?

1. Yes

2. No I wouldnt give up my free speech. I'm only "endangering" myself. I actually would welcome someone opposed to my views threatening me then actually having the balls to come to my home. It would be the last thing they were able to do before I put them 6ft under.

3. "Justify" isnt the word I would use. The phrase would be more like "not surprised" Yes it would be my fault for provoking such an attack. I didnt have to provoke anyone.

Thank you at least you are consistent.
As for #2, I think the police working security did just that!

The police werent drawing cartoons. If Pam had of shot the nutcases herself that would be more like what I was saying.

But if police shot the guy first, before you got to do the honors, you wouldn't protest them doing that, right?

And since she was busy hosting the event, I understand she hired SWAT guards for security.
So she was basically paying someone else to do that job for her so she didn't have to.

 

[Asclepias]

Just had to respond to this fucking stupidity. Your posts are abject fucking garbage, to the point of total embarrassment.

Asshole moron, since you clearly have no fucking clue, let me walk you through reality...google "anti-semitic cartoons arab press" and "iran holocaust denial conference" and see what comes up. All across the arab world jews are called apes and monkeys by arab muslim writers and editors, yet we do not see jews suicide bombing or shooting up large groups of arab muslims.

We do see large numbers of minorities being slaughtered by the intolerant, racist, violent arab muslims across the mideast, often times simply for not being a muslim. We have seen multiple times how muslim terrorists, once they've rounded up large numbers of civilians, separating the non-muslims and killing them outright, while sending the muslims home.

Your stupidity, exposed by such comments as "why aren't you surprised some people got angry and attacked" is a sign you lack the intellectual capability to even begin to understand the importance of the 1st amendment, and why it must be protected. Or should the US revoke it because a handful of psychotics (likely muslims) might react with violence? Get a fucking brain, dimwit.

Dear Asclepias and rhodescholar
Since I generally know Asclepias to be reasonable and able to work through conflicts to make mutual corrections and clarifications,
there must be something else going on that Asclepias is just not expressing correctly.

A. Asclepias are you trying to get at INTENT, that you are assuming the INTENT of the cartoon contest was to PROVOKE VIOLENCE and murderous response so these people incited it? (while as for abortion and prolife, the people going through abortion are not trying to deliberately provoke those protesters to kill, although that has happened. There have been lawsuits to remove dangerous websites calling for death threats and violence targeting abortion providers at their neighborhood and residence. So THAT level is criminal when death threats are called for, but it is charged to the people MAKING the threats, not to the people who incited them by providing and practicing abortion.)

NOTE: If you are ASSUMING "all these people who got threatened or forced into lockdown" were DELIBERATELY trying to provoke murderous anger, how are YOU any different from people ASSUMING that "All Muslims are murderous Jihadists or sympathizers/enablers"

There were as many people participating in this as a protest or counterprotest and statement to civil respect for democratic FREEDOMS of speech and due process, under civil laws that were otherwise violated in incidents such as Charlie Hebdo and the targeting of the Dutch artist and other filmmakers (and even novelists like Rushdie).

So not ALL the people were trying to provoke violence.
Just like not ALL Muslims enable or excuse terrorism.

If you are saying Pam Geller's intent was not patriotism but some kind of harassment intended to incite violence, then by due process SHE should be addressed and corrected, or charged if there is some criminal abuse or threat committed, just like proving the websites incite crime if you are going to take down extreme prolife websites that target abortion doctors for violence and criminal actions.

Those charges have to be proven IN ADVANCE to be a threat before taking away people's free speech and right to protest.

So if you want to go after Geller, then do so, but within the processes of law.
Just like Christians and Constitutionalists and all citizens are required to go through.

B. rhodescholar and Asclepias
I think what Asclepias is trying to say is pointing out the Natural Law or Golden Rule that you treat others with respect if you want to claim respect for your beliefs and consent. Clearly the Muslim community and others do not consent to such provocative actions and protests, knowing that it can incite violence in radicalists.

Asclepias this is where there is a separation of church and state.

Just because it is AGAINST Christian law to "provoke your neighbor to anger"
does not mean it justifies breaking CIVIL LAW to answer to that.

The proper way to answer to a violation of Christian scripture is to enforce scripture and make the correction within that system, which calls for NOT VIOLATING IT.

So the person trying to petition or protest or object must ALSO follow the Scripture and cannot violate the very same laws. And YES Islam calls for believers to follow the Bible as well, so by Matthew 18:15-20 fellow believers are supposed to rebuke each other in private, in the spirit of Christ Jesus or Restorative Justice, to right the wrongs in order to RESTORE good faith relations between them (or if they cannot, by SURA 109 they are supposed to part ways in peace and allow each other to follow their separate ways, ie, there is NO compulsion in religion. Both by Muslim teachings and Christian Scripture you do not FORCE someone to correct things your way, but you present your grievance your side and you allow the truth to be established by agreement, without coercion or compulsion)

Asclepias for the CIVIL law, it turns out it is NOT against either civil or criminal law to hold such a contest UNLESS they broke some law, such as discrimination if they held this event on public property that was "free to the public" but excluded people on the basis of color, race or creed when it was held on public property as a public event.
If it was a private event, the rules may differ.

(In Tomball a couple won a lawsuit against the city renting a public facility for a Klan event that excluded people by race. They petitioned to change the rules where by the Fourteenth Amendment the city could not discriminate by color at an event held on public property.)

But again, even so, there is a DUE PROCESS for addressing any such breach; and it is illegal to answer with shooting at people.

Asclepias if you are trying to enforce
* natural laws, then neither can the two gunmen violate natural laws if they are going to protest and say the hosts of the event were provoking violence and disrupting natural law and order. You could have had a natural law argument if the two men followed natural law and protested civilly instead of violating the very same laws about "reciprocity"

* civil laws and respect for Constitutional religious freedom of Muslims, then neither should the two men have violated civil laws and Constitutional freedoms either.

If I had to guess what you are TRYING to argue,
you are saying by NATURAL LAWS of course there is going to be provocation
and risk of violent reaction like what happened.

So you are saying there was deliberate "intent or RISK (not assuming intent)"
of inciting crime, and this was either harassing or abusive.

Obscene, harassing and abusive speech is only illegal in CERTAIN contexts.

So you are going by the SPIRIT of the laws, and not the civil laws that citizens are required to follow. You are going by MORAL laws, similar to Buddhists advising not to cause suffering or Christians teaching not to provoke one's neighbor to anger, or to act as a stumbling block and cause others to sin out of anger, unforgiveness etc.

These are MORAL principles, but people here are arguing CIVIL laws.
So these MORAL laws are not required under CIVIL or CRIMINAL laws of the govt/state, or else that would Violate Separation of Church and State.

And guess what, the people who took justice into their own hands did just that,
violated separation of church and state by executing actions (such as shooting or intent to kill) that are reserved for police and govt through regulated procedures for that.

So even if you enforced those standards, the shooters violated the same standards also.

On all counts, if you look at moral laws, natural laws, civil and criminal,
Christian and Muslim, the shooters violated any of these laws you could possibly enforce.

But I understand you if you are trying to enforce a higher moral law, and not provoke anyone to violence, anger and suffering. It just can't be imposed by public laws; but what you are seeking is best established by example, by enforcing the same standards.

And these two gunmen did not.

My prayers to them and all people involved or affected by this incident,
that we may uplift one another, and grow to be better for the lessons learned.
May all hearts, minds, souls, relations and communities be healed and united
with greater understanding that we may prevent such grievances and grief in the future.

For the love of God and unity in Christ Jesus
that brings Restorative Justice and peace to all, Amen.

You would have to be living under a rock not to know who the prophet muhammad is and the fact it makes muslims super angry when you mock their religion. Of course all the people participating in the event had the same intent. I dont think at all the intent was to provoke violence but it damn sure was to provoke and mock Muslims. When you provoke committed people bad things are bound to happen.

Likewise Asclepias you'd have to be in oblivious denial to ignore the fact that to Christians who believe abortion is murder and not a choice, half the country has been outraged and aggrieved that this is LEGAL.

Christians have been fighting this for years, since 1973, and are still expected to follow CIVIL DUE PROCESS.
Even though to them, murder is illegal, is never justified as a "choice," and the same as abortion.

Asclepias, I think you are taking for granted that
A. Christians are expected to FORGIVE, so they are not supposed to go around and kill.
The Scriptures call for Christians to RESPECT CIVIL AUTHORITY and laws.
Even if this means being persecuted and facing injustice, they are supposed to use these occasions to TESTIFY.
And ASK and PETITION civilly to change laws that allow injustices and abuses to occur.

B. You FORGET that MUSLIMS are ALSO UNDER SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY

So if you look at the law abiding Muslims, they did follow civil standards, and protested and petitioned PEACEFULLY against this event. They asked using the same free speech that the event supporters were using, so that is EQUAL.

The faithful Muslims I know ALSO follow Restorative Justice which makes them neighbors in Christ.

I think you are excusing the violent reactions as something "these people could not help."
If they are THAT mentally ill that they cannot follow the laws, they should be required to get treatment!

Lastly Asclepias
In trying to understand what you could possibly be saying,
I THINK you are saying the equivalent of warning people "don't post your SSN and personal information online
and claim free speech, then complain when someone responds by stealing your identity and committing fraud or theft"

Even though it is LEGAL to post our information online, our children's photos, and address and school/business etc. by "freedom of speech and of the press"
You are saying it is ill advised to provoke a crime, since that is almost inevitable that someone would take advantage.

So is this a violation of free speech? To have to limit what we post online because of the criminal behavior of others?

Yes, we'd blame the identity thieves for committing such crimes if they did that.

But YES I agree with you, we would WARN citizens DON'T POST YOUR PERSONAL INFO ONLINE.
Especially not your children. We already warn them DON'T post personal info or statements on facebook because your employer can find that, and it can possibly affect your job.

So if this is what you mean, yes, it is NOT ADVISABLE to set yourself up for criminals to take advantage. It is better NOT to tempt people if you know this will INVITE crime.

Asclepias is that closer to what you are trying to say?

Don't leave the house or car unlocked, with keys in the ignition or someone could try to break in and steal property.
Don't leave your purse in the cart at the store and walk away.

Is it legal to do these thing? Yes, but it is ILL ADVISED and not safe.
For the sake of security and deterring crime, it is best to lock up and not INVITE criminals.

I am guessing this is what you mean?
Close enough?

Doesnt matter what Christians think about abortion. if they are opposed to abortion then they shouldnt get one. Being opposed to abortion is not the same as being opposed to someone drawing cartoons of your prophet. One is a personal choice and no ones business. The other is a provocation of an entire religious base. More noteable a minority of that base is known to violently react to provocation without a regard for innocents.

Yes thats exactly what I am saying . Just because you can do something doesnt mean you should do it.

Hi Asclepias
1. so if the cartoons were drawn in private, that is a personal choice, an individual act like abortion by one person.

2. but if the legalization of abortion is established by public courts as public law,
then Christians who are prolife are mandatorily under these laws and compelled to pay taxes and be under those laws!

It's not just on the personal side of individuals,
this is LEGISLATED through public laws and govt paid for with public taxes that are MANDATORY.

So it is national, not just personal.

Same with the ACA mandates that have federal authorities MANDATING personal choices.

When you mess with federal laws and you nationalize a policy, then it has to be consistent with all people's beliefs,
and nobody should be abusing govt to establish a belief or bias that runs in conflict with the beliefs of citizens who have the right not to be imposed on or discriminated against by faith.

I think you are dismissing or downplaying the faith of Christians because they tend to be NONVIOLENT.

So you are indirectly and unintentionally REWARDING violent behavior by giving more respect to Islam than to Christians
just because people with Christian faith and support tend to respect laws and not be violent.

This comes across as taking Christians for granted, who are expected to follow civil laws,
and kowtowing to criminally violent cults who are not held to the same standards, which incidentally
are supposed to be part of Muslim faith.

I think you need to emphasize more the entire context of what you said last, and include that you would still shoot someone before they shot you. If you include that, then it doesn't sound like you are excusing criminal behavior.

1. I wouldnt even say you had to go as far as doing it in private. You could draw a cartoon of muhammad and place it on the window of of your home or your place of business. As long as you are the only one that would be in any danger of retaliation from nutcases go for it.

2. Doesnt matter what christians dont believe in. They have to pay taxes regardless just like muslims.do in a land where its legal to mock islam.

I'm not giving more respect to islam. I think both religions have nutcases. if the shoe was on the other foot and this had been a "draw a cartoon of jesus" event I would have said the same exact thing since christians are just as violent.

I'm not rewarding bad behavior. I'm saying dont provoke people unless you have a damn good reason to.

 

[eots]

So....they now have learned that we are not France, we aren't Britain......they now realize that there are zones in America with guns that will be used to kill them.....

Um, not really. Hey, this wasn't a "good guy with a gun" as you gun fetishists compensating for your tiny peckers always say. This was a trained law enforcement officer doing what he was trained to do, and good for him.

It's just too bad he had to do it under these circumstances because a hate group incited a riot.

Not a hate group....one of the groups actually standing up to muslim hate....

Actually Pam has been banned from the UK. She and her organization is a hate group. She fools the low of intellect by spouting patriotic rhetoric but make no mistake she is in the same boat with the KKK, skinheads, and other foul packs of feral simians.

the uk banned michael savage for gods sake

 

[Asclepias]

Thank you, Asclepias, at least you are consistent:

Dear Asclepias
1. If you provoked someone by how you used free speech, intentional or not,
would you fault yourself if someone killed you for it?

So if you had been in Pam Geller's shoes, and if one of these gunmen had
shot you, would you blame yourself for bringing it on?

If you answer yes, at least you are consistent.
But maybe you are biased because you already wouldn't ever provoke a Muslim extremist this way. So this hypothetical would never happen.

2. What about people opposed to you that you wouldn't restrain your free speech for?
What if your arguments here, caused someone to say
Hey you say that again, I am going to show up at your door and shoot you dead.
And you knew this person would do this.

Would you give up your free speech because you knew this "nutcase" couldn't help but react by killing you?
Or would you defend your free speech, and if they come at you, you'd call the cops.
Or would you let them shoot you and blame yourself for pushing their buttons?

3. In either case, 1 or 2, would you justify a violent person
killing you for expressing your free speech, even in protest.

Would you say it was your fault for provoking such an attack?

1. Yes

2. No I wouldnt give up my free speech. I'm only "endangering" myself. I actually would welcome someone opposed to my views threatening me then actually having the balls to come to my home. It would be the last thing they were able to do before I put them 6ft under.

3. "Justify" isnt the word I would use. The phrase would be more like "not surprised" Yes it would be my fault for provoking such an attack. I didnt have to provoke anyone.

Thank you at least you are consistent.
As for #2, I think the police working security did just that!

The police werent drawing cartoons. If Pam had of shot the nutcases herself that would be more like what I was saying.

But if police shot the guy first, before you got to do the honors, you wouldn't protest them doing that, right?

And since she was busy hosting the event, I understand she hired SWAT guards for security.
So she was basically paying someone else to do that job for her so she didn't have to.

Why would I protest the police for shooting people that were about to kill others?

That would be like me hiring police to protect my home from a threat I provoked. What if all the cops had been killed? She put them in harms way because she doesnt understand simple respect.

 

[Asclepias]

So....they now have learned that we are not France, we aren't Britain......they now realize that there are zones in America with guns that will be used to kill them.....

Um, not really. Hey, this wasn't a "good guy with a gun" as you gun fetishists compensating for your tiny peckers always say. This was a trained law enforcement officer doing what he was trained to do, and good for him.

It's just too bad he had to do it under these circumstances because a hate group incited a riot.

Not a hate group....one of the groups actually standing up to muslim hate....

Actually Pam has been banned from the UK. She and her organization is a hate group. She fools the low of intellect by spouting patriotic rhetoric but make no mistake she is in the same boat with the KKK, skinheads, and other foul packs of feral simians.

the uk banned michael savage for gods sake

What does that have to do with Pams organization being a hate group?

 

[emilynghiem]

Thank you, Asclepias, at least you are consistent:

Dear Asclepias
1. If you provoked someone by how you used free speech, intentional or not,
would you fault yourself if someone killed you for it?

So if you had been in Pam Geller's shoes, and if one of these gunmen had
shot you, would you blame yourself for bringing it on?

If you answer yes, at least you are consistent.
But maybe you are biased because you already wouldn't ever provoke a Muslim extremist this way. So this hypothetical would never happen.

2. What about people opposed to you that you wouldn't restrain your free speech for?
What if your arguments here, caused someone to say
Hey you say that again, I am going to show up at your door and shoot you dead.
And you knew this person would do this.

Would you give up your free speech because you knew this "nutcase" couldn't help but react by killing you?
Or would you defend your free speech, and if they come at you, you'd call the cops.
Or would you let them shoot you and blame yourself for pushing their buttons?

3. In either case, 1 or 2, would you justify a violent person
killing you for expressing your free speech, even in protest.

Would you say it was your fault for provoking such an attack?

1. Yes

2. No I wouldnt give up my free speech. I'm only "endangering" myself. I actually would welcome someone opposed to my views threatening me then actually having the balls to come to my home. It would be the last thing they were able to do before I put them 6ft under.

3. "Justify" isnt the word I would use. The phrase would be more like "not surprised" Yes it would be my fault for provoking such an attack. I didnt have to provoke anyone.

Thank you at least you are consistent.
As for #2, I think the police working security did just that!

The police werent drawing cartoons. If Pam had of shot the nutcases herself that would be more like what I was saying.

But if police shot the guy first, before you got to do the honors, you wouldn't protest them doing that, right?

And since she was busy hosting the event, I understand she hired SWAT guards for security.
So she was basically paying someone else to do that job for her so she didn't have to.

Why would I protest the police for shooting people that were about to kill others?

That would be like me hiring police to protect my home from a threat I provoked. What if all the cops had been killed? She put them in harms way because she doesnt understand simple respect.

Thanks Asclepias I think it helps that you give the entire framework, so that people don't take
part of what you say "out of context" and think you mean to coddle or excuse criminal behavior.

Your last few msgs make it clear that you're not saying this.

NOTE: this is like the difference between teaching Islam in the FULL CONTEXT with equal respect for Christian
and natural/civil/Constitutional laws, instead of taking part out of context where it sounds like supporting jihadists.

 

[eots]

It's obvious that the extremist right wingers don't give a shit how many Americans are killed in the religious war they want so desperately, as long as they get to make fun of the Muslim religion, and use their words and cartoons to hurt those they hate. There will be consequences.

ya two dead dirt bags

 

[eots]

So....they now have learned that we are not France, we aren't Britain......they now realize that there are zones in America with guns that will be used to kill them.....

Um, not really. Hey, this wasn't a "good guy with a gun" as you gun fetishists compensating for your tiny peckers always say. This was a trained law enforcement officer doing what he was trained to do, and good for him.

It's just too bad he had to do it under these circumstances because a hate group incited a riot.

Not a hate group....one of the groups actually standing up to muslim hate....

Actually Pam has been banned from the UK. She and her organization is a hate group. She fools the low of intellect by spouting patriotic rhetoric but make no mistake she is in the same boat with the KKK, skinheads, and other foul packs of feral simians.

the uk banned michael savage for gods sake

What does that have to do with Pams organization being a hate group?

define hate group

 

[emilynghiem]

So....they now have learned that we are not France, we aren't Britain......they now realize that there are zones in America with guns that will be used to kill them.....

Um, not really. Hey, this wasn't a "good guy with a gun" as you gun fetishists compensating for your tiny peckers always say. This was a trained law enforcement officer doing what he was trained to do, and good for him.

It's just too bad he had to do it under these circumstances because a hate group incited a riot.

Not a hate group....one of the groups actually standing up to muslim hate....

Actually Pam has been banned from the UK. She and her organization is a hate group. She fools the low of intellect by spouting patriotic rhetoric but make no mistake she is in the same boat with the KKK, skinheads, and other foul packs of feral simians.

the uk banned michael savage for gods sake

What does that have to do with Pams organization being a hate group?

Asclepias
Calling her organization a hate group, isn't that like saying all Muslims are hateful Jihadis?

"Geller says she is not anti-Muslim, only anti-jihad and anti-sharia law."
Quote from Why Pamela Geller is a hate-monger to critics a free-speech hero to fans - LA Times

It sounds pretty mutual to me, then.

If Geller is trying to attack just the Jihadist violence and oppression, and not all Muslims,
but it "looks all the same to others," as one big hate group that is "anti-Muslim"
that is like trying to distinguish the peaceful Muslims from militant Jihadists,
that looks all the same to others, as one big cult that is "anti-US freedom."

Aren't there people on both sides painting with a broad brush?