Muhammad Cartoon Contest....

[GoIrish41]

We usually agree on stuff. On this, I totally disagree with you. I think they are heroes.

Really? Would love to understand why you think the organizers of this event are heroes. Like you said, we agree on most issues so this surprises me.

 

[GoIrish41]

Here is the problem with this logic:

If you say that the organizers cannot hold this event because it is offensive to a certain percentage of Muslims in this country, then that sets the precedent. If it's offensive to enough people, then it is a no-go. So what happens when enough Muslims in town band together and decide that they are offended by the presence of the Catholic Church, and the masses held there, across the street from their mosque? You are going to tear down, or at the very least shutter the church? If not, then you are being hypocritical. What if a Catholic Diocese wants to build a church just down the block from the mosque? Are you going to deny the Diocese, because a relatively small group of Muslims is offended by it?

I am not advocating anything based on the size of a group. It does not matter. The post you quoted was making that very point to another poster who was talking about not all Muslims believing it is wrong to draw Muhammad.

 

[kmoose]

I am not advocating anything based on the size of a group. It does not matter. The post you quoted was making that very point to another poster who was talking about not all Muslims believing it is wrong to draw Muhammad.

That other poster was me. I think that one thing that we need to make clear here is this:

The intent of the Draw Muhammad event was not to insult Muslims. It was to use their First Amendment rights to let the Muslims in this particular mosque (which is pertinent because this is the specific mosque that the two would be shooters at the Texas event came from) that the threat of violence will not intimidate all Americans into giving up their rights.

 

[GoIrish41]

That other poster was me. I think that one thing that we need to make clear here is this:

The intent of the Draw Muhammad event was not to insult Muslims. It was to use their First Amendment rights to let the Muslims in this particular mosque (which is pertinent because this is the specific mosque that the two would be shooters at the Texas event came from) that the threat of violence will not intimidate all Americans into giving up their rights.

Then what was the purpose of the event in Texas? Surely that event was designed to be insulting? And when a security guard got shot and two people were killed, they doubled down on bigotry.

This notion of singling out Muslims or Muslims of a certain mosque demonstrates their stupidity. Should all people of color hate white people because the cop who murdered the guy in South Carolina was white? No. That's silly. Just as it is silly to prove a point to people at a mosque who had nothing to do with the incident in Texas. They are insulting innocent people for no other reason than they can. This is not a demonstration of first amendment rights. It is ignorance hiding behind their twisted cynical interpretation of the first amendment and their contempt for Muslims. Their explanation is nothing but smoke and mirrors to distract people away from their bigotry.

 

[pkt77242]

That other poster was me. I think that one thing that we need to make clear here is this:

The intent of the Draw Muhammad event was not to insult Muslims. It was to use their First Amendment rights to let the Muslims in this particular mosque (which is pertinent because this is the specific mosque that the two would be shooters at the Texas event came from) that the threat of violence will not intimidate all Americans into giving up their rights.

I am pretty sure that the two shooters stopped going to this mosque a few years ago (I think 2010 or 2011), so protesting them doesn't make much sense.

The cartoon contest was inspired by a similar event several weeks ago in Garland, Texas, when Phoenix roommates Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi drove cross country to shoot a security guard working the event. Simpson and Soofi, who were killed by police, attended the Islamic Community Center until 2010.

Drawing Mohammed & celebrating the right to be an idiot

 

[GoIrish41]

I am pretty sure that the two shooters stopped going to this mosque a few years ago (I think 2010 or 2011), so protesting them doesn't make much sense.



Drawing Mohammed & celebrating the right to be an idiot

In addition to encouraging people to come armed, the organizer will be selling t-shirts that say "Fuck Islam" but his intent is not to insult Muslims .... Riiiight!

 

[GoldenDome]

For those who think these contests are righteous, fighting for our freedoms, heroic, et al...do you really think your freedom of speech is elevated?

For myself, it is the same as before these contests. The one point I have yet to hear is that freedom of speech is somehow stronger because of these contests.

Meanwhile, a gay student was denied his valedictorian speech because he wanted to come out of the closet.

 

[JughedJones]

That other poster was me. I think that one thing that we need to make clear here is this:

The intent of the Draw Muhammad event was not to insult Muslims. It was to use their First Amendment rights to let the Muslims in this particular mosque (which is pertinent because this is the specific mosque that the two would be shooters at the Texas event came from) that the threat of violence will not intimidate all Americans into giving up their rights.

Give me a break with this horseshit.

Going to innocent people's place of worship, armed, carrying signs that say "fuck Islam". Isn't meant to insult?

Seriously moose. That's just plain silliness.


(Sorry goirish, I got so wound up after reading that goofiness I didn't see your post!)

 

[kmoose]

The intent was to show the radicals at this mosque(if there are any left, but it is safe to say that someone at this mosque probably radicalized the two young men who tried to shoot up the Texas event) that Americans will not be cowed by fear. I'm not saying that the organizer didn't probably take some joy in knowing that it would piss some Muslims off, but that's not the same as his saying, "Hey, I feel like pissing some Muslims off today. I think I will go stand outside of a mosque and draw pictures of Muhammad!"

I do find it ironic that some people who appear to be so offended by this event because of it's inflammatory nature, were making excuses for people holding up signs that said "Fuck the Police" in places like Ferguson and Baltimore. So, honestly, I question some of your actual convictions.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Really? Would love to understand why you think the organizers of this event are heroes. Like you said, we agree on most issues so this surprises me.

I would say that, without knowing these people, I probably disagree with them about just about everything. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. The idea that a religion would purport to make rules for what people outside of religion are allowed to draw is so preposterous and so offensive to my core beliefs that it is an absolute moral imperative to challenge it.

When there was all the ridiculous outrage a few years back about the "ground zero mosque" I was strongly opposed to what I felt was an embarrassing display of ignorance and xenophobia. So my thing here is not at all about being anti-Muslin and entirely about something deep inside of me that wants to respond to anyone trying to tell me or anyone else what to do by screaming "GO FUCK YOURSELF" at the top of my lungs. The entirety of my religious beliefs can be stated as: believe whatever you want, but leave everyone else alone with that shit. That applies as much to Muslims as it does to anti-gay Christians or door-to-door proselytizing JWs or anyone else.

 

[AvesEvo]

I can't understand how anyone is taking the side of these "protesters." They are gathering outside of a mosque (a place where parents bring their children), wearing tactical gear, openly displaying their ARs, shouting anti Muslim and Arab phrases, and are HOPING that they will get to shoot people! These people are terrorists.

 

[kmoose]

I can't understand how anyone is taking the side of these "protesters." They are gathering outside of a mosque (a place where parents bring their children), wearing tactical gear, openly displaying their ARs, shouting anti Muslim and Arab phrases, and are HOPING that they will get to shoot people! These people are terrorists.

Let's not get too melodramatic. Terrorists don't wait for provocation; they shoot people just because they don't like them. Encouraging people to bring weapons was a really dumb idea, and I think that the authorities should have been able to prohibit them from showing up with them.

 

[AvesEvo]

Let's not get too melodramatic. Terrorists don't wait for provocation; they shoot people just because they don't like them. Encouraging people to bring weapons was a really dumb idea, and I think that the authorities should have been able to prohibit them from showing up with them.

What terrorists do is cause terror. You have a group of people gathered outside of your church screaming fuck you, openly saying that they look forward to shooting you, and they are dressed and equipped to do it. That's pretty fucking terrifying.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Also just want to add that I am not necessarily as supportive of the specific actions of these people as I am of their underlying point. I don't think it is really necessary to go to a mosque to make the point they are trying to make. But while I don't support being so directly confrontational, I sort of understand the mentality of trying to counterbalance the cowardice shown by mainstream news media outlets in refusing to show the images.

People should not allow themselves to be intimidated. If they just asked nicely not to draw Muhammed, I can't imagine ever having the urge to do so. But having the audacity to demand it, and threaten violence to enforce the demand, is something I just can't abide.

 

[kmoose]

What terrorists do is cause terror. You have a group of people gathered outside of your church screaming fuck you, openly saying that they look forward to shooting you, and they are dressed and equipped to do it. That's pretty fucking terrifying.

Terrorists cause terror by actually killing people. Have you ever left the United States and traveled anywhere in the world? Timothy McVeigh actually killed people. Those two idiots from this mosque actually killed someone. The 9/11 hijackers actually killed someone. The people gathered outside of this mosque were largely dumbass rednecks and hillbillies who probably don't have the mental acumen to figure out 2+2 without a paper and pencil. They aren't terrorists any more than school bullies are terrorists.

 

[GoIrish41]

Terrorists cause terror by actually killing people. Have you ever left the United States and traveled anywhere in the world? Timothy McVeigh actually killed people. Those two idiots from this mosque actually killed someone. The 9/11 hijackers actually killed someone. The people gathered outside of this mosque were largely dumbass rednecks and hillbillies who probably don't have the mental acumen to figure out 2+2 without a paper and pencil. They aren't terrorists any more than school bullies are terrorists.

Terrorism is the use of terror as a political weapon. Although it often is, terrorism does not have to involve killing. The event organizer is hatred hiding behind the First Amendment (political) and he is going armed to a place where people worship and encouraging other bigots to insult Muslims and bring guns. I have little doubt that those who worship at the mosque are frightened (use of terror). The organizer of this event is, by definition, a terrorist. It is not even debatable.

 

[kmoose]

Terrorism is the use of terror as a political weapon. Although it often is, terrorism does not have to involve killing. The event organizer is hatred hiding behind the First Amendment (political) and he is going armed to a place where people worship and encouraging other bigots to insult Muslims and bring guns. I have little doubt that those who worship at the mosque are frightened (use of terror). The organizer of this event is, by definition, a terrorist. It is not even debatable.

Oh, really?

From Terrorism | Definition of terrorism by Merriam-Webster :

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

The threat of violent acts is not the same as the use of violent acts, and it is not even debatable.

 

[AvesEvo]

Oh, really?

From Terrorism | Definition of terrorism by Merriam-Webster :



The threat of violent acts is not the same as the use of violent acts, and it is not even debatable.

Violence is not limited to physical attacks. Beyond that, there is not a universal definition of terrorism.

Here is the oxford dictionary's version "The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

 

[GoIrish41]

We could swap definitions for the rest of the day because there seems to be as many as there are sources. Is the destruction of property terrorism if it's aim is to intimidate? I say yes. Is threatening violence terrorism even when the threat is not acted upon? I say yes. The intent of the organizers of this event is both political and threatening. I do not have an urge to struggle for another term when there is one that already fits. Encouraging people to bring weapons to an event like this -- one designed to intimidate Muslims -- is pretty clearly threatening behavior. And the intent of the organizers is beyond obvious.

 

[BobbyMac]

Violence is not limited to physical attacks. Beyond that, there is not a universal definition of terrorism.

Here is the oxford dictionary's version "The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

It says, and.... not or.

You may want to rethink your position. The protest in Phoenix may have been over the line or in poor taste depending on your perspective but it wasn't terrorism.

.

 

[AvesEvo]

It says, and.... not or.

You may want to rethink your position. The protest in Phoenix may have been over the line or in poor taste depending on your perspective but it wasn't terrorism.

.

No I'm good. Like I said before, violence is not limited to physical attacks.

 

[BobbyMac]

No I'm good. Like I said before, violence is not limited to physical attacks.

It is in terrorism. So says all media, not just the talking heads at Fox.

.

 

[kmoose]

We could swap definitions for the rest of the day because there seems to be as many as there are sources. Is the destruction of property terrorism if it's aim is to intimidate? I say yes. Is threatening violence terrorism even when the threat is not acted upon? I say yes. The intent of the organizers of this event is both political and threatening. I do not have an urge to struggle for another term when there is one that already fits. Encouraging people to bring weapons to an event like this -- one designed to intimidate Muslims -- is pretty clearly threatening behavior. And the intent of the organizers is beyond obvious.

So you are ok with labeling 16 year old High School bullies as terrorists?

 

[GoIrish41]

It should be noted that multiple agencies within the federal government have differing definitions of terrorism depending on the function of the agency. Some specify violence others do not. For example the definition used by DHS includes harm to critical infrastructure that does not include killing (which was the initial contention as to what terrorism is) or violence. The same is true of dictionary definitions. Some include violence, others do not. It really comes down to how much we want to limit the definition for it to be useful in identifying and dealing with "terrorist" activity. I have made it clear that I draw the line at instigating violent activity that would put the public at risk. I believe the actions of the event organizers for the "art contests" clearly are designed to provoke violence and therefore should be viewed as terrorism. They can hide behind their first amendment rights, but they are clearly trying to provoke a confrontation that, in Texas, led to two deaths and a shooting. After seeing what happened there, it is insane to do it again to attempt to further prove a political point. They are singling out a specific group, arming themselves to participate in a confrontation of their own design so they can shoot anyone who reacts angrily to their position (even though that is what their event is designed to do). To me, any definition that falls short of including these despicable behaviors is inadequate.

 

[GoIrish41]

So you are ok with labeling 16 year old High School bullies as terrorists?

Is there a specific instance of a 16-year-old taking a violent stance to influence political unrest that you want to discuss? Otherwise, this is a silly thing to say.

 

[kmoose]

Is there a specific instance of a 16-year-old taking a violent stance to influence political unrest that you want to discuss? Otherwise, this is a silly thing to say.

Well, I define intimidating others into doing your bidding or being subservient to you to be the epitome of politics, and therefore a political objective. Since you get to make up and use your own definitions, I am sure you won't object to affording me the same privilege, lest you label yourself a bigot.

 

[pkt77242]

The intent was to show the radicals at this mosque(if there are any left, but it is safe to say that someone at this mosque probably radicalized the two young men who tried to shoot up the Texas event) that Americans will not be cowed by fear. I'm not saying that the organizer didn't probably take some joy in knowing that it would piss some Muslims off, but that's not the same as his saying, "Hey, I feel like pissing some Muslims off today. I think I will go stand outside of a mosque and draw pictures of Muhammad!"

I do find it ironic that some people who appear to be so offended by this event because of it's inflammatory nature, were making excuses for people holding up signs that said "Fuck the Police" in places like Ferguson and Baltimore. So, honestly, I question some of your actual convictions.

Why would you say that? The two men from the Texas incident left the mosque to right around the time that they became radicalized which as I have stated was about 5 years ago. Isn't it more likely that they were radicalized on the internet?

 

[EddytoNow]

I can't understand how anyone is taking the side of these "protesters." They are gathering outside of a mosque (a place where parents bring their children), wearing tactical gear, openly displaying their ARs, shouting anti Muslim and Arab phrases, and are HOPING that they will get to shoot people! These people are terrorists.

You are absolutely correct. These people are terrorists. If Muslim protesters were outside a Christian Church or an American Embassy carrying weapons and shouting anti-American and anti-Christian phrases, we would have no trouble calling them terrorists.

 

[GoIrish41]

Well, I define intimidating others into doing your bidding or being subservient to you to be the epitome of politics, and therefore a political objective. Since you get to make up and use your own definitions, I am sure you won't object to affording me the same privilege, lest you label yourself a bigot.

You are free to believe any crazy, strained idea you wish -- I am not certain you will get a lot of support for calling a HS junior a terrorist for picking on freshmen. But by all means, shout it from the rooftops. I am sure you will catch the ear of a few.

 

[kmoose]

You are free to believe any crazy, strained idea you wish -- I am not certain you will get a lot of support for calling a HS junior a terrorist for picking on freshmen. But by all means, shout it from the rooftops. I am sure you will catch the ear of a few.

You are the one who said:

Is threatening violence terrorism even when the threat is not acted upon? I say yes.

So, according to this, any child who threatens violence is a terrorist. I was trying to point out that you cannot just make up your own definition, and then make up your own exceptions to that definition. You either go by the accepted definition, as found in the dictionary, or you simply don't use the term. You can't say "I want to call this person a terrorist, so I am going to say that terrorism is defined as "X". But when you point out a ridiculous example that would obviously also fit that definition, then I am going to claim that logic clearly dictates that that example would be an exception to my 'rule'." It just doesn't work that way. You can call them inbred rednecks, you can call them ignorant hillbillies, you can call them bigoted assholes. But they do NOT fit the Merriam-Webster criteria for terrorism, so don't call them terrorists. You don't have to call them terrorists to express your disapproval of them and hatred for them.