US shooting at Mohahammed Cartoon conference

Einhard · 06-05-2015 9:52pm

jmayo wrote: »

Actually I can't think of many muslim dominated countries where a christain can be gauranteed safety.
How many would allow open freedom of religion as we know it ?

Well, I live in the UAE and I'm perfectly free to practise Christianity if I want to to. I don't, but that's besides the point.

I've been to Jordan, Bahrain, and Oman, and was perfectly free in all to practise Catholicism.

I was in Syria before the sh!t hit then fan and my contacts there were mostly Christians, and all free to practise their faith. Obiously things have changed now.

It's just strange though, that you claim that a majority of Muslim countries persecute Christians (which is what your inability to practise claim amounted to), and yet, in none of the Muslim countries I've experienced and/or lived in have I experienced such a scenario.

So, I have to ask again, can you provide me with actual date that shows that over 50% of Muslim majority countries somehow preclude the practising of religions oher than Islam?

folamh · 06-05-2015 10:17pm

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a former college of Geert Wilders. Here are her comments on the incident, published in yesterday's TIME: http://time.com/3846824/garland-texas-muhammad-jihad/

[A] distinction must be made between acts of the imagination such as cartoons, movies, books, and acts of violence such as mass shootings. The group that organized the Muhammad cartoon event, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, is using acts of imagination. In response, two men sought to use violence to try and silence them. There is no “but” in the First Amendment.

I am no cartoonist. But I do believe the Prophet Muhammad must be exposed to the same scrutiny applied to any religious figure—whether it be Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Buddha, or Joseph Smith. Applying scrutiny to the Prophet Muhammad is not an act of “hurting” Muslims or causing them “humiliation.” Instead, it can actually lead Islam to a better place—one where the imagination of every writer, artist, and citizen can run free, without fear of violent retribution.

JCX BXC · 06-05-2015 10:19pm

A Muhammed drawing contest? Did they try to piss off the Islamic extremists? My god its the most brainless competition I've ever heard of.

moc moc a moc · 07-05-2015 3:06am

Streetwalker wrote: »

Laughable amount of Islamophobia in here.

What's laughable about being wary of people who will shoot you for drawing a cartoon?

Alexis Sanchez · 07-05-2015 4:18am

Streetwalker wrote: »

Laughable amount of Islamophobia in here.

So what? Islamophobia is a good thing. I'm a proud Islamophobe.

Streetwalker · 07-05-2015 10:03am

Alexis Sanchez wrote: »

So what? Islamophobia is a good thing. I'm a proud Islamophobe.

At least you are honest about your prejudices. Sad all the same but there you go.

jackofalltrades · 07-05-2015 10:50am

Streetwalker wrote: »

Laughable amount of Islamophobia in here.

Care to point it out?

IrishTrajan · 07-05-2015 10:53am

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Care to point it out?

Anyone who doesn't ignore the transgressions of violent acts in the name of Islam is labelled an Islamaphobe. It's like how the Israelis call anyone who criticizes them anti-Semitic.

SeanW · 07-05-2015 11:42am

Nodin wrote: »

In the world where I live, having a problem with Jihadis and the likes of Pamela Gellar are not mutually exclusive thoughts. Indeed, they tend to spring from the same world view.

Actually no.

The Jihadis have a problem with Pamela Gellar, so they kill people, or in the Texas case, they try and fail :P

Pamela Gellar has a problem with jihadis, but her only weapon is a cartoonists pencil.

Jihadis are going around the world murdering people for disagreeing with them, or in some cases for even less reason such as being a different religion (ISIS alone have probably killed 100s of thousands already). Pamela Gellar, the staff of Charlie Hebdo, so far as I am aware, have killed precisely nobody. They are - at worst - reactionary idiots. At worst.

So no, having an equal problem with both does not come from "the same world view" because the positions are too far apart - it makes sense to have a problem with one more than the other.

bjork · 07-05-2015 11:49am

folamh wrote: »

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a former college of Geert Wilders. Here are her comments on the incident, published in yesterday's TIME: http://time.com/3846824/garland-texas-muhammad-jihad/

Geert in de telegraph today compares the Koran to Mein Kampf

"The biggest terrorist who ever lived is worshiped. That is the root of the problem, "said Wilders.

http://nieuws.thepostonline.nl/2015/05/07/wilders-strijd-tegen-islam-keihard-doorzetten/

jmayo · 07-05-2015 11:57am

Einhard wrote: »

Well, I live in the UAE and I'm perfectly free to practise Christianity if I want to to. I don't, but that's besides the point.

I've been to Jordan, Bahrain, and Oman, and was perfectly free in all to practise Catholicism.

Ok fair enough you have mentioned some of the more enlightened (not hard really when comapred to some of their neighbours) who allow christians freedom to practice religion and live peacefully.
Then again how many of the actual citizens of the likes of the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar are non muslim ?
How many are westeners there to keep the place running ?

Einhard wrote: »

I was in Syria before the sh!t hit then fan and my contacts there were mostly Christians, and all free to practise their faith. Obiously things have changed now.

Note how I menitoned states that had Arab spring and how the regime changes had brought about intolerance.
And yes I know Bashar al-Assad is still nominally in charge, but of how much of the country is in his control.

Einhard wrote: »

It's just strange though, that you claim that a majority of Muslim countries persecute Christians (which is what your inability to practise claim amounted to), and yet, in none of the Muslim countries I've experienced and/or lived in have I experienced such a scenario.

So, I have to ask again, can you provide me with actual date that shows that over 50% of Muslim majority countries somehow preclude the practising of religions oher than Islam?

Hang on does presecution necessarily mean you totally ban people from practicising their religion ?
I never said people wrere totally banned from practicising non muslim relgions, that is your interpretation.
Persecution to means it is dangerous and you don't get equality.
And a right to live peacefully like your neighbour to me is equality.

I mentioned the safety of christians as in what happened in Turkey, Malaysia, etc.
Are christians free to practice their religion in Nigeria ?
Yes they are, but would you be happy going to Sunday mass in Borno state ?

The state or rulers can legally allow people to practice a religion, but still turn a blind eye to them getting beat up, or worse, specifically because of that religion.
They can legally allow people to practice a religion, but make it hard for them to do so in reality.
For instance yeah you can practice your religion, but there is no way in hell you can build a church.

IMHO the most startling thing I did come across looking through rankings on religous persecution is that North Korea is the worse with Burma also in the mix.

Nodin · 07-05-2015 12:03pm

SeanW wrote: »

Actually no.

The Jihadis have a problem with Pamela Gellar, so they kill people, or in the Texas case, they try and fail :P

Pamela Gellar has a problem with jihadis, but her only weapon is a cartoonists pencil.

.............

If Ms Gellar restricted herself to just cartoons, you might have a point.

Custardpi · 07-05-2015 12:12pm

Nodin wrote: »

If Ms Gellar restricted herself to just cartoons, you might have a point.

So what if she doesn't? I agree that Gellar is a reactionary idiot. However, she has not killed anyone, or as far as I know, called for anyone to be killed merely because of something they have written or drawn. People like Gellar are the true test of whether someone properly believes in freedom of speech. She is the modern day equivalent of the Nazis in Skokie. You don't have to agree with everything or indeed anything she says to recognise that giving any ideology a free pass from criticism, ridicule etc is not in the interests of a free society. Would it be better for democracy if people of her ilk did not exist? Probably. But censoring & silencing them will ultimately do far more damage to democracy than their presence.

Nodin · 07-05-2015 12:15pm

Custardpi wrote: »

So what if she doesn't? I agree that Gellar is a reactionary idiot. However, she has not killed anyone, or as far as I know, called for anyone to be killed merely because of something they have written or drawn. People like Gellar are the true test of whether someone properly believes in freedom of speech. She is the modern day equivalent of the Nazis in Skokie. You don't have to agree with everything or indeed anything she says to recognise that giving any ideology a free pass from criticism, ridicule etc is not in the interests of a free society. Would it be better for democracy if people of her ilk did not exist? Probably. But censoring & silencing them will ultimately do far more damage to democracy than their presence.

She's a vile hate monger. As bad as an Islamic preacher who radicalises via his mouthings. I'm perfectly ok with criticism and ridicule.

Custardpi · 07-05-2015 12:19pm

Nodin wrote: »

She's a vile hate monger. As bad as an Islamic preacher who radicalises via his mouthings. I'm perfectly ok with criticism and ridicule.

Like I said, I'm not a fan of hers, not by any means. However, I would still hold that "vile hate mongers", including Islamic ones of course have the right to express their views, so long as they do not directly incite violence. Better that bad ideas be expressed openly, so that they can be opposed on their merits, rather than handing their proponents the gilded cloak of martyrdom which censorship grants.

Egginacup · 07-05-2015 12:33pm

Carnacalla wrote: »

A Muhammed drawing contest? Did they try to piss off the Islamic extremists? My god its the most brainless competition I've ever heard of.

Careful. I said the same thing and someone translated that into me being a terrorist sympathiser.

BoJack Horseman · 07-05-2015 12:37pm

Egginacup wrote: »

me being a terrorist sympathiser.

Only when Americans are the victims, right?

Egginacup · 07-05-2015 12:41pm

mister gullible wrote: »

More appropriate title: Jihadist Retards shoot at Provocative Gob****es.

These gunmen were known to the authorities for years. Just like the perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo killings, which incidentally have now spawned more police state powers in France:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32587377

In all these so-called terrorists incidents the alleged perpetrators are always known to the authorities. I'm getting pretty damn tired of how inept these so called security services are. These "intelligence" agencies are either pretty fucking useless or they let these events occur.

Ash.J.Williams · 07-05-2015 12:45pm

Egginacup wrote: »

These gunmen were known to the authorities for years. Just like the perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo killings, which incidentally have now spawned more police state powers in France:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32587377

In all these so-called terrorists incidents the alleged perpetrators are always known to the authorities. I'm getting pretty damn tired of how inept these so called security services are. These "intelligence" agencies are either pretty fucking useless or they let these events occur.

that's what i've been saying regarding the boston bombings...if an irish person even tweets about something terroristish...they can be hauled off the plane strip searched and charged....however two suspects were allowed leave the country and disappear into a terrorist training camp in a troubled region and return no questions asked?

Egginacup · 07-05-2015 1:05pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

I agree with you, it was provocative. But it was not pointless. It was to make a point (that point being; Islam is not a religion of peace). If I drew a picture of Jesus with a dick in his mouth, wearing two different fabrics and with a tattoo of a pentagram on his neck with "I hate Jews" on his forehead, you think someone would shoot me? I'd get a whole lot of angry twitter rants (deservedly), but I don't think anyone would shoot me. Never mind the fact that this happens quite regularly, for simply drawing Mohammed. You can't absolve one group by blaming the others as "you got shot for drawing in paper, totally deserved it!".

I'm quite glad nobody at this event got seriously hurt, aside from those two idiots with guns.

No religions are religions of peace or violence. They don't espouse either. Show me where the central tenets of any religion are to promote either peace or violence. This puerile argument about "religions of peace" is bullshit but it is an argument that is low-iq enough for some dimwit pundits, alleged "experts" on talk shows and the simians who have cartoon drawing contests.

IrishTrajan · 07-05-2015 1:52pm

Egginacup wrote: »

No religions are religions of peace or violence. They don't espouse either. Show me where the central tenets of any religion are to promote either peace or violence. This puerile argument about "religions of peace" is bullshit but it is an argument that is low-iq enough for some dimwit pundits, alleged "experts" on talk shows and the simians who have cartoon drawing contests.

Jainism and Buddhism. You would be hard pressed finding someone using the religion to justify violence. The same can not be said for Abrahamic religions or the vast majority of Pagan religions. Yes there are those practitioners of the Buddhist religion who engage in violent actions, but they themselves are not turning to the Faith in order to justify their actions.

Stop trying to wriggle the blame away from these fundamentalists and the religion. It is quite clear that Islam is a violent religion, that preaches and condones violence against non-believers and kaffir. Islam is not a religion of peace, which is the lie spread by Imams and followers to make the religion seem more "Western-friendly".

omnithanos · 07-05-2015 2:17pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Almost appears like the whole thing was a trap & the jihadis took the bait.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-is-who-would-have-met-the-garland-gunman-if-they-m-1701964388

Had the Jihadis made it inside, they wouldn't have lasted long, the event was very well protected.

Or maybe the jihadis are fake and all of you took the bait?

IrishTrajan · 07-05-2015 2:21pm

omnithanos wrote: »

Or maybe the jihadis are fake and all of you took the bait?

This isn't /b/, there is no baiting here.

Hans Bricks · 07-05-2015 2:27pm

Egginacup wrote: »

No religions are religions of peace or violence. They don't espouse either. Show me where the central tenets of any religion are to promote either peace or violence. This puerile argument about "religions of peace" is bullshit but it is an argument that is low-iq enough for some dimwit pundits, alleged "experts" on talk shows and the simians who have cartoon drawing contests.

It's really just a sarcastic response to the insincere defense mechanism of "Islam is a religion of peace".

omnithanos · 07-05-2015 2:34pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

This isn't /b/, there is no baiting here.

What does /b/ mean, fake?

Like Copenhagen and Charlie Hebdo weren't faked?

How do you know? Is that what the media told you?

Look at this ridiculous ad they are putting on New York city buses to insight violence.

How many black people have been murdered by the police now?

wes · 07-05-2015 2:41pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Jainism and Buddhism.

In regards to Jainism, you do appear to be correct, but non-violence is central to that faith from my understanding, so its actually unique in regards to most religions.

Buddhism on the other hand, well......

How an Extremist Buddhist Network Is Sowing Hatred Across Asia

and

Sri Lanka’s Violent Buddhists

They have there fair share of extremists nutjobs.

omnithanos · 07-05-2015 2:56pm

folamh wrote: »

I think that Pamela Geller was in cahoots with police and orchestrated this event to gain public sympathy, deliberately putting herself in the firing line of would-be assassins because somehow she knew beforehand that people would try to kill her on this day, even though she does this kind of stuff all the time. By the way, I am a moron.

I suspect she knew the jihadis were actors hired to fuel more hatred for Muslims and to spread the misconception that they are all terrorists. She knew there wasn't any real danger in this staged event which adds to the long list of deceptions carried out by the authorities.

IrishTrajan · 07-05-2015 2:58pm

omnithanos wrote: »

What does /b/ mean, fake?

Like Copenhagen and Charlie Hebdo weren't faked?

How do you know? Is that what the media told you?

Look at this ridiculous ad they are putting on New York city buses to insight violence.

How many black people have been murdered by the police now?

I'll save you the trouble of actually saying it, because I really don't want you to say it and be genuine in your belief. "The media is owned by Jews"

More whites than blacks, not down to colour but a variety of factors

A 2002 study in the American Journal of Public Health found that the death rate due to legal intervention was more than three times higher for blacks than for whites in the period from 1988 to 1997.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that in 2004, state courts had over 1 million felony convictions. Of those, 59 percent were committed by whites and 38 percent by blacks. But when you factor in the population of whites and blacks, the felony rates stand at 330 per 100,000 for whites and 1,178 per 100,000 for blacks. That’s more than a three-fold difference.

McCoy noted that this has more to do with income than race. The felony rates for poor whites are similar to those of poor blacks.

Can we stop with the "cops shoot blacks because racism" stuff now? A white person, Dillon Taylor, was shot by a black cop several months ago, unarmed and simply walking out of a convenience store. The cop was acquitted of any charges. Where's the public outrage against that? Oh, wait, the person shot was white, and the person doing the shooting was black, so we can't talk about it or we're closet racists.

SeanW · 07-05-2015 3:00pm

BBS and/or any Buddhist that uses violence, have to completely disregard their faith to do that. Pacifism is a central tenet of Buddhism AFAIK.

SeanW · 07-05-2015 3:02pm

omnithanos wrote: »

I suspect she knew the jihadis were actors hired to fuel more hatred for Muslims and to spread the misconception that they are all terrorists. She knew there wasn't any real danger in this staged event which adds to the long list of deceptions carried out by the authorities.

So not only was the whole thing staged by the authorities, but Pamela Gellar was in on the conspiracy?

If only there was a forum for Conspiracy Theories ...

US shooting at Mohahammed Cartoon conference

Comments