Slashdot Mirror
Two Gunman Killed Outside "Draw the Prophet" Event In Texas
cosm writes: ABC news reports that two armed gunman were shot and killed outside a "Draw the Prophet" event hosted in Garland Texas. From the article: "The event, sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, featured cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, and scheduled speakers included Dutch MP Geert Wilders, who has campaigned to have the Quran banned in the Netherlands. The winner of the contest was to receive $10,000." In light of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks, the Lars Vilks Muhammad drawing controversies, and the American show South Park's satirical depiction of the state of Muhammad phobia in the US and elsewhere, is there an end in sight to the madness associated with the representation of this religious figure?
were slow at the draw - texas style...
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
They place containers of corn in plain site of their blinds for weeks, then hide out on opening day of hunting season and take the deer by the dozens
Seems like they were baiting for 'terrorists' in a similar way
The unfortunate part is the two gunmen knew this was a suicide mission before they attempted the attack and decided a less violent form of protest didn't convey their message well enough.
~~
There, I fixed it for you, and in a way that will give greater understanding of the religion and its "prophet" who married a 6 year old.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
It was the cops who shot the gunmen, so what the 2nd has to do with it, I can't fathom.
And don't forget to load your hollow points with pork.
Yeah. Wilders has a large armed guard in the Netherlands too, where the gun homicide rate is seven percent of that of Texas.
And Netherlands gun violence is high by European standards - a lot of the crime is related to North-African gangs.
tfs wrote
two armed gunman
What other kind of gunman is there? If they were unarmed they couldn't be gunmen. I guess it could mean two-armed gunmen, in which case all is forgiven.
You would think even people stupid and fanatic enough to do this would know that Texas is the wrong place to try and pull a Charlie Hebdo.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
No, it is not "explicitly banned in Islam".
It may or may not be a sign of "grave disrespect", but so what? Having your beliefs disrespected is part of life, whether you're a Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, or atheist.
I've seen many cartoons depicting Jesus, but I can't recall many protests or people getting killed for it.
I don't think anyone is shocked. The shock for me comes when the suggestion is made that we should do a little self-censorship. Yeah, sure... this is just the one taboo we have to respect... this is the only bit of sharia law we infidels have to obey, right?
Except it doesn't end there. It can never end there. I mean hell, the hadith have in the past been widely interpreted to forbid all artwork of animals and humans. They've given up that battle... for now. But rest assured, they have not forgotten. None of this barbarous shit in any of the Abrahamic faiths can ever be truly forgotten, because all sitting there in the unalterable book waiting for someone to decide to take it literally again."Respect" for religious insanity is a continuous spectrum of masochistic self-censorship trailing down into an infinite abyss. Or do you really, honestly believe that ISIS's current set of laws is the most extreme interpretation possible?
It's possible to resist the scaremongering of the right (no, neither ISIS nor any of the other bearded fuckwits are in any position to do us significant harm at this very moment ) while still acknowledging that over the long run this is a zero sum game with no possibility of common ground.
We cannot share a planet with these people. So yes, let's keep making the bastards angry.
Come on now, if you try very hard to get people angry why the shock when it happens?
I am in no way defending either the loud xenophobic fascist Wilders or anyone that wants to take a shot at him.
Drawing a cartoon of Muhammad that violates the extremists' sensibilities is trivial. AFAIK a stick figure labeled by name or "the prophet" will do. Sending these people into a murderous rage is unbelievably easy, and that's the point: it illustrates just how dangerous to (and incompatible with western society) they really are.
I think they're all childish idiots. The people attending that meeting, with their provoking "who can draw the best Mohammed cartoon." Come on, your days at high school are a very long time away and you should behave like an adult now. And the idiot Muslims who think it's necessary to shoot everybody who doesn't have their opinion. We don't live in the Middle Ages anymore you idiots. And if you like killing so much why don't you kill some of your own kind? You're very good at that, we see that daily on TV.
And now get off my lawn, all of you! Crazy children.
-- Cheers!
To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens: "They want to be martyrs? Well, good--we're here to help."
I think this would work in a Texan accent, too.
The others aren't just prepared to murder Wilders. They want to abolish democracy and replace it with sharia law, and kill the Untermenschen i.e. the unbelievers. I don't think fighting for freedom and democracy is as deplorable as fighting against it. Of course, there are many useful idiots who think they can live peacefully with islamists in the same country, believing that it we respect them, they'll respect us. Big mistake.
Don't take this the wrong way, but can you bugger off and take with you everyone who has parroted this again and again? I mean fucking hell, you have a 5 digit ID. Have you been doing this for every single religious/political article for the past 15 years? Don't you ever get bored of it?
Political discussions among geeks are simply more interesting than among most other crowds. I believe it's because we are by nature more willing to delve into the gritty details. Like any subculture, there are biases and stupid memes but these flaws are at least occasionally point out and debated... it's not that we don't have an echo chamber here, it's that ours at least has a skylight.
You might recall that during the whole "draw Mohammad" controversy South Park took it on. While the were not allowed to show Mohammad at all, they did show people literally shitting on Jesus, the American flag, and so on. They received zero threats in relation to that, there was no action taken against them.
It's not like Christians didn't know either, it is a major syndicated TV show that is produced in the US.
"two armed gunman were shot and killed"... by whom? Who were they? After reading the article it seems clear that the two gunmen killed were religious fanatics, and the killers were police officers who were defending the event. This should be in the summary, I think
Organizing a deliberately provocative event is a clear statement of support for free speech. A clear statement that allowing potentially offensive speech is essential to a free society. Other reactions to Charlie Hebdo - how we have to tread carefully and avoid offense - are utterly wrong.
Terrorists are barbarians, and are a direct threat to civilization. Apparently, the Texan reaction to barbarism is "bring it on".
More power to Texas. I hope other places find the courage to hold similar events.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
"is there an end in sight to the madness associated with the representation of this religious figure?"
Yes.
But you won't like the answer and it's not politically correct. Ergo, our current political establishment refuses to even admit its existence.
Religious madness
And right there we have "tautology of the week"
Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
You really can't see any difference? Then you are just being obtuse. Yes if you tried to trespass in a religious building and be offensive, there'd be a response. In particular, they'd tell you to leave and call the police. However this was not in a Mosque, no Muslims were forced to attend. This was something people were doing on their own. However the crazies felt the need to respond.
I've heard about precisely zero cases of Jews going after pig BBQs in the US. Seems they are not very concerned about what you are doing on your own. If you don't respect their religion, oh well, so it goes.
Stephen Fry put it very well:
"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
Charlie Hebdo made more fun of Jesus and Mary than Mohammed, yet guess who went in and killed people?
Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire have the most white populations, and their gun-related homicide rates are 0.3, 0.8 and 0.4 per 100,000 respectively. That's between 1.5 and 4 times the gun related homicide rate in the Netherlands. And that's the Netherlands as a whole, not a conveniently cherry picked stat that I've allowed for the US. I couldn't find a racial breakdown for Dutch murder rates either, not that it makes a difference.
I've had to use gun-related murder stats as I couldn't find comparable numbers for gun related violence.
Organise a "draw Jesus sodomizing Mary" contest in Texas and you'll get crazy Christian jihadists doing the same thing.
No, you wouldn't. You really, really wouldn't.
If you set up an event specifically designed to insult/offend/antagonise a particular religion, you're always going to get a response like this from someone.
Please stop spouting nonsense: http://www.theonion.com/articl... (NSFW)
its "prophet" who married a 6 year old.
Oh please. Political marriages of young girls were common in those days. He waited until she was nine to consummate it.
Ummmmm no they weren't. It was one of many scandals that pedophile Mohammad explained away with "Allah told me to do it". Mohammad had a "revelation" to marry her.
It simply isn't a case that "That's what they did back then". The Koran very explicitly states that Muslims must follow the "sunnah" or example of Mohammad. It is in the Koran so that means FOREVER! These are recorded in what are called the hadiths (orally transmitted information about Mohammad's life and actions) . So Muslims are OBLIGED to do everything contained in hadiths that are sahih (trusted). Mohammad was recorded literally dozens of times as having sex with a little 9 year old girl in these sahih hadiths. Ever wondered why ISIS, the Taliban and other fundamentalist Muslims are into marrying little girls. Just following the example of pedophile Mohammad which is FOREVER.
So marrying and having sex with little 9 year old girls like Aysha is a "perfect" example for Muslims THEN NOW AND FOREVER.
It gets even more disgusting and worse!!!!!! Mohammad was even more depraved than "merely" having vaginal sex with little 9 year old girls.
He was performing "Muta Kathat" on Aisha when she was 6 when he first married her. BTW, "Muta Kathat" was anal sex and masturbation between the thighs.
Ask a Muslim about "Muta Kathat". They either will honestly not know what it is (fewer than one or two percent have ever read the hadiths or Mohammad's biography the sira.. only about 10% of Muslims have ever read the Quran!) or they will lie about it with the hope that you didn't actually check out what was written (and Islam obliges Muslims to lie 'if of help to Islam' - rather difficult to get converts when your founder in the modern day would be on a sexual offenders register or with a prison file stamped "never to be released").
Not only was he performing pedophile sex acts with a little 6 year old girl (yes, it's 6, not 9!!!), he was performing pedophile acts on little boys, The hadiths explain that one away with some nonsense about the "miraculous and soothing effects" of Mohammad's saliva.
Further, Mohammad was a necrophile, having sex with his dead aunt Fatima "to make her a mother of the believers".
He even was a cross-dresser, dressing up in the clothes of his wives. His favorite dressing up was in the clothing of the above mentinoed Aysha. You may start asking questions of Mohammad being married for more than 10 years with more than 10 wives yet only achieving one child!
I didn't even discuss other parts of Mohamamd's "achievements" such as his rapes, his murders of old women poets for writing satires, his genocides against other tribes or his banditry.
No, I'm not "anti-muslim". I feel that Muslims are in fact the biggest victims if Islam. Imagine belonging to a cult (yes, Islam fulfills all the academic criteria of being a cult such as death if you leave it, exclusivity, avoiding association and marriage with non-members, substantial efforts into recruitment and so on) whose Koran tells you that family members are OBLIGED to shun you if you leave and even tells its members to kill you if you don't recant on your decision to be an apostate. Please take your bigoted "raghead" comments elsewhere (I didn't say "racist", Islam is not an ethnicity, it is a "faith").
Posting as an Anonymous Coward for good reason. If you think that fundamentalist Muslims get upset about cartoons, you should see them when you point out explicitly where in the Koran, the hadiths and the sira the things I mentioned above are said.
Mohammed was a pedophile.
Yes indeed he was.
Today 'cause he's a pedophile.
We have such media buzz.
Mohammed liked boinking extra young.
This is what we've learned.
But try to talk about this sicko.
Causes jihadi brains to burn.
QUIT USING THE SUBJECT LINE AS PART OF YOUR COMMENTS!! It was a bad idea when the first person started it and it's still a bad idea!
Don't blame the commenters, blame the Slashdot editors for introducing subject lines to begin with.
If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
Surprise? Surprise? The whole purpose of this contest was to attract a Jihadi to shoot. Why else the extra extra guards?
Perfectly Texas entertainment. I'm calling this a success.
Naw, the difference between them and us, is that they have countries where they LYNCH apostates, and the lynching parties are legal.
You'll get signs and yelling. You won't get assassins.
Stop trying to draw parallels where none exist.
You were *apparently* comparing the drawing of a historical figure on private property to breaking and entering a Jewish place of worship and barbequing a pig. That seemed to be to be a sort of weird analogy, a sign that some piece of your reasoning was mis-calibrated somewhere along the way. It wasn't exactly the most polite thing I've ever written in my life but it wasn't meant to be some kind of vile ad-hominem attack.
I am saying this sincerely, in a non-mocking tone--recalibrate you view of what these events actually are. Yes, Wilders and Gellar are asshats, but I am suggesting that you evaluate their asshatery in the context of the cornucopia of human douchebags in the country. Yes, I'm sure the hurt feelings of Muslims are real--but try and evaluate the inflmatory nature of these cartoons in the context of the Onion cartoon I set you, or the censored South Park episode, or the Piss Christ controversy from the 90s, etc.
Recalibration is something you do with a tool that you know isn't broken but is for some reason giving weird readings. If you want an actual "fuck you, fuck your mother, fuck your dog and please fuck off and die" type of insult then I'm sure you can get one from someone else around here--just keep on defending the viewpoint of the jihadis instead of defending people like Maajid Nawaz, a liberal *Muslim* who does not believe there is anything wrong with drawing Muhammad. He posted a picture of Muhammad to show his solidarity with cartoonists and he received death threats from Muslim jihadis because of it. By sticking up for the right of jihadis to be offended, you are turning your back on genuine moderate reformers like him.
Recalibrate. I'm sure you're not a stupid or bad person... just, recalibrate.
If you set up an event specifically designed to insult/offend/antagonise a particular religion
The point of Muslim iconoclasm is that Mohammud is merely God's messenger and is not divine himself. The Muslims who are "offended" are the ones who don't actually understand why they have the rule in the first place. And why the rule doesn't apply to non-Muslims in the first place.
(Ironically much like Christian iconoclasm while it lasted.)
I am missing something or they were totally utterly untrained with the used weapon.
Aiming is considered pointless by devout muslims. It is not the aiming that decides where a bullet goes, but Allah's hand. If you are destined to hit, you will; if not, you cannot override Allah's will by aiming. Same thinking (to use the word loosely) goes for e.g. wearing seatbelts - Allah decides whether you survive a car crash.
Reliance upon the government to protect you after you have insulted someone is not freedom. Freedom requires courage, and sometimes the price of courage is high. Ed Snowden is my hero - he paid the price.
Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps part of the reason they as so god damn fucking angry is BECAUSE of the dropped bombs?
I just wonder, how many years of bombs being dropped on your families would it take for you to consider a driveby on the people doing it?
But no, its the RELIGION thats the problem.. cannot be anything else.
So..... these guys set up an event supposedly to protect free speech and all, and then they invite a guy "who has campaigned to have the Quran banned in the Netherlands."
I can't put my finger on it but something here doesn't fit :P
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
Does it specifically say female virgins? Maybe they get there and it's just a bunch of slashdotters milling about.
Anybody who wants a virgin has never had one.
Just another day in Paradise
and my Christian religion was united with the wisdom of my ancestors and created Europe (and America)
The Christian religion created America in the same way that cancer created chemotherapy. Now, what is the treatment for our capitalism?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
T let's place it in Texas, where the kids are taught to shoot a gun before they can read.
You've never been to Texas, have you?
Steve Martin answered the question about what 72 virgins might really be like, and his answer follows:
Virgin No. 1: Yuck.
Virgin No. 2: Ick.
Virgin No. 3: Ew.
Virgin No. 4: Ow.
Virgin No. 5: Do you like cats? I have fourteen!
Virgin No. 6: I’m Becky. I’ll be legal in two years.
Virgin No. 7: Here, I’ll just pull down your zipper. Oh, sorry!
Virgin No. 8: Can we cuddle first?
Virgin No. 9: It was a garlic-and-onion pizza. Why?
Virgin No. 10: . . . so I see Heath, and he goes, “Like, what are you doing here?,” and I go, “I’m hangin’ out,” so he goes, “Like, what?” . . .
Virgin No. 11: First you’re going to have to show me an up-to-date health certificate.
Virgin No. 12: Hurry! My parents are due home!
Virgin No. 13: Do you want the regular or the special?
Virgin No. 14: I’m eighty-four. So what?
Virgin No. 15: Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!
Virgin No. 16: Even I know that’s tiny.
Virgin No. 17: “Do it”? Meaning what?
Virgin No. 18: I’m saving myself for Jesus.
Virgin No. 19: Somewhere on my body I have hidden a buffalo nickel.
Virgin No. 20: Don’t touch my hair!
Virgin No. 21: I hope you’re not going to sleep with me and then go sleep with seventy-one others.
Virgin No. 22: Do you mind if we listen to Mannheim Steamroller?
Virgin No. 23: Are you O.K. with the dog on the bed?
Virgin No. 24: Would you mind saying, “Could I see you in my office, Miss Witherspoon?”?
Virgin No. 25: Ride me! Ride me, Lucky Buck!
Virgin No. 26: You like your vanilla hot?
Virgin No. 27: Does Ookums like Snookums?
Virgin No. 28: It’s so romantic here, dead.
Virgin No. 29: Well, I’m a virgin, but my hand isn’t.
Virgin No. 30: You are in?
Virgin No. 31: Hi, cowboy. I just rode down from Brokeback Mountain.
Virgin No. 32: I’m a virgin because I’m so ugly.
Virgin No. 33: You like-ee?
Virgin No. 34: I’ll betcha you can’t get an erection. Go on, impress me. C’mon, show me. Show me, big shot.
Virgin No. 35: By the way, here in Heaven “virgin” has a slightly different meaning. It means “chatty.”
Virgin No. 36: Sure, I like you, but as a friend.
Virgin No. 37: No kissing. I save that for my boyfriend.
Virgin No. 38: I’m Zania, from the planet Xeron. My vagina is on my foot.
Virgin No. 39: It’s a lesion, and, no, I don’t know what kind.
Virgin No. 40: I’m Jewish. Why do you ask?
Virgin No. 41: Hi, I’m Becky. Oh, whoops—you again.
Virgin No. 42: I just love camping! Camping is so great! Can we go camping sometime?
Virgin No. 43: In the spirit of full disclosure, I’m a single mom.
Virgin No. 44: You like my breasts? They were my graduation gift.
Virgin No. 45: When you’re done, you should really check out how cool this ceiling is.
Virgin No. 46: I’m almost there. Just another couple of hours.
Virgin No. 47: Get your own beer, you nitwit.
Virgin No. 48: No, you’ve got it wrong. We’re in the Paradise Casino.
Virgin No. 49: I really enjoyed that. Thank you very much. Gee, it’s late.
Virgin No. 50: You make me feel like a real woman. And after this is over I’m going to find one.
Virgin No. 51: What do you mean, “move a little”?
Virgin No. 52: Not now, I’m on my BlackBerry.
Virgin No. 53: I love it when you put on your pants and leave.
Virgin No. 54: We’ve been together twenty-four hours now, and, you know, sometimes it’s O.K. to say something mildly humorous.
Virgin No. 55: That was terrible. I should have listened to the other virgins.
Virgin No. 56: I think I found it. Is that it?
Your equivocation is showing.
Nobody shows up to just start opening fire on everyone involved when some art exhibit depicting Jesus in some terrible way is shown (though they may show up to damage the artwork). Piss Christ is just one example. The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals is another. South Park has done plenty of cartoons depicting Jesus in a less than respectful manner as has Family Guy, yet no murders. Leon Ferrari lived to a ripe old age despite his many works of blasphemy that even drew the ire of Pope Francis (Mary in a blender comes to mind). Yet again, some of the artwork was vandalized, but the man himself was never harmed. In fact, the threats he received were for his earlier political work (which drove him to exile). Ants of a Crucifix, Phallus-faced Jesus, Chris Ofili’s “The Holy Virgin Mary"; the list just goes on and on. Protests, lawsuits, condemnations, funding being pulled; these are the reactions from Christians.
But draw cartoons of Mohammed? Guys with guns show up to murder people.
There's a fucking difference.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Why do people always look to "gun-related" murder stats as though being murdered by a gun is somehow worse than being murdered by other means. The intentional homicide rate in the Netherlands in 2012 (latest easy to find stats) was 0.9. In Vermont, it was 1.3. Higher, yes, but since the numbers we're playing with are single-digits (8 in Vermont in 2012), that's rather skewed. Looking back at recent history, there were years where it was as high at 16 and as low as 6. If you go back into the 1960s, it was as low as 1 or 2, and now we're getting into Iceland territory.
The Netherlands is certainly its own country, but the better comparison to the United States is Europe as a whole. Europe comes in at 3.0 and the US comes in at 4.7. Again, looking at all intentional homicides; not just gun-related (because being murdered by a kitchen knife leaves you just as dead as being murdered by a .22). Higher, yes, but when you look at regions with analogous geographic sizes, populations, and cultural variations, the numbers don't express any ludicrously high differences.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
One of the biggest problems in any polygamous society is getting rid of young men. Every man with 4 wives leaves 3 angry, young, horny men in his wake who got no wives. So Islam came up with the perfect solution, Martyrdom! Just blow yourself up in some mall and get all the virgins you want!
Dumb motherfuckers.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
1. Draw stickman. ...
2. Add beard and turban.
3.
4. Prophet!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
you guys know its a several hundred year old typo, right?
the corrected script actually says "72 YEAR OLD virgin". and you get one of them, just one.
now, if that's worth killing yourself over, hey, its your [after]life, not mine!
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Apparently, you need a little remedial math yourself. The US murder rate is 4.7/100000. Europe's murder rate is 3.0/100000. That's already not so different. Now, about half of US murders are committed by African Americans, who make up about 1/8 of the population. If you adjust the rate of that population to the national average, you get a US murder rate of less than 2.7/100000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Europeans manage to murder each other just fine despite strict gun control. The population that owns guns in the US legally and that tells you "Fuck You" is not the population that commits murders. In fact, in the US, increases in gun ownership and sales have correlated with decreases in murder rate.
The event, sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, featured cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, and scheduled speakers included Dutch MP Geert Wilders, who has campaigned to have the Quran banned in the Netherlands.
so aparantly they don't really care about freedom. The irony is biting. Cut off your nose to spite your face. While I certainly believe its OK to draw Muhammad, even lampoon him.(along with any and all other religeous figures) and in fact I promote it, you're a total hypocrit if you want to ban the koran. In fact you've proved your just as crazy as the gunman.
Gandhi "provoked violent reactions" with his salt march. It turns out that dragging the barbarism of the British into the open was a better way of combating it than pretending it didn't exist.
And before you mention it, yes several individuals who set up this event are (unlike the Charlie Hebdo staff) known asshats. That doesn't change the basic formula of what happened. Do I have to drag out the old "blaming the rape victim" meme here? Because I will if I have to. Or, if you prefer, we can just leap straight to Godwin and talk about just how well appeasement has worked with fascist jerks in the past.
Hint: mockery and blasphemy is a HUGE part of modern American culture. Disregarding the legal problems re: the first amendment, there is a massive amount of culture here that you are implying would need to be changed and censored. Do you really think that is fair, productive or realistic?
If you want fewer extremists, integration is the best approach. By isolating them, belittling them, and then provoking them you're creating the problem you're pretending to solve. This is true for any group of people, of course, not just Muslims, as we've recently seen. Oppressed groups tend to fight against oppression.
How'd that work out with Hitler?
You do not understand human nature or human history, and are thus unqualified to tell anyone what the best way to peace is.
War is part of the human problem solving toolset. Right now, Islam is making war on Western civilization and Freedom of Thought. All I'm hearing from you is to "Submit" to that violence to get less of it ... which funnily enough is what "Islam" means - "Submission".