Good Shot in Dallas

[Alexis]

May 3rd in the evening, two attackers armed with guns erupted of a car in front of a building hosting a competition of caricatures of Muhammad. They opened fire and wounded a policeman. The Dallas police fired back and downed the two attackers.

Good job, Dallas police! Two Islamic State sympathizers less to go.

Hope the injured officer recovers soon. He is already out of hospital.

The incident occurred outside the Curtis Culwell Center during a contest hosted by the New York-based American Freedom Defense Initiative, which promised to award $10,000 for the best cartoon depicting the prophet Muhammad, according to the Associated Press. The group’s president, Pamela Geller, told the AP she had planned the contest to make a stand for free speech following violence over Muhammad drawings.

[Simple Minded]

Alexis,

When everyone has access to guns and cartoons....... life is good!

[Nonc Hilaire]

This was not an art exhibit or freedom of speech forum. Only a specific form of bigotry was allowed. Ms. Geller's business is organizing anti-muslim hate groups, and she is already banned in Britain.

This was a tasteless, dangerous and rude provocation. That's no excuse for violence, but this exhibition was designed to encourage public conflict in a community with many muslim residents and a substantial anti-muslim subculture.

Bigotry and incitement to violence masquerading as free speech is sophistry.

[Parodite]

So it is only a matter of time that when a group of Muslims listening to an Imam who depicts unbelievers as scum can expect gunmen knocking on their Mosque's door to mow them down. The Noncs in this world will then come out of the woodwork and say there are no excuses for violence.. but that the preacher and his followers do not represent Islam and excusing their provocations is mere sophistry. Check.

[Alexis]

This was a tasteless, dangerous and rude provocation. That's no excuse for violence, but this exhibition was designed to encourage public conflict in a community with many muslim residents and a substantial anti-muslim subculture.

Think of it as two education projects running in parallel.

1. One education project aims at teaching Westerners, nay everybody on this planet, to refrain from expressing anything about Muhammad that Islamists might find objectionable.
Education method = murders, and threats of murder.

2. Other education project aims at teaching Islamists, nay all Muslims, to react to any criticism of the founder of their religion either with a smile ("Ah, bad taste, but still funny I have to admit") or with a shrug ("Stupid and pointless. Enough with this, let me concern myself with something important, for a change").
Education method = drawings.

Project 2. began only after and in reaction to Project 1, which was initiated no later than 1988.

Still, I reckon it's got a better chance of success in the long term.

[Nonc Hilaire]

So it is only a matter of time that when a group of Muslims listening to an Imam who depicts unbelievers as scum can expect gunmen knocking on their Mosque's door to mow them down. The Noncs in this world will then come out of the woodwork and say there are no excuses for violence.. but that the preacher and his followers do not represent Islam and excusing their provocations is mere sophistry. Check.

Well, that will be a while. US muslims serve in the military, police and intelligence communities, and are known for turning Islamists in to the FBI.

There are 100k muslims in Dallas. No violence until this provocation, and only one or two bad actors. The US is the Great Satan, we welcome muslims and their imams and yet Islamist violence is unknown. Why is that?

[kmich]

A Couple Quick Thoughts on Geller in Texas - Josh Marshall

When George Lincoln Rockwell, the American Nazi Party leader, was shot and killed in 1967 it was wrong. Same with George Wallace (who was gravely wounded and paralyzed, not killed) in 1972 or with Meir Kahane in 1990 - precisely because as a society we value free speech and we also don't allow civilians to kill people they don't like. But just as with these other worthies, we should prosecute the offenders (perhaps difficult in this case since at least the two on the scene are dead) without valorizing people who run hate groups. It's really that simple. There is zero contradiction between the two judgments. Pam Geller is a cancerous presence in the US political conversation; same with her pal Geert Wilders, the flamboyant and parodic far-right, racist Dutch parliamentarian she brought for her Muhammed cartoon event down in Texas. Political violence is the greatest corrosive of free and ordered societies. But a hate group is a hate group the day after someone takes a shot at them just like it was the day before.

[Doc]

A Couple Quick Thoughts on Geller in Texas - Josh Marshall

When George Lincoln Rockwell, the American Nazi Party leader, was shot and killed in 1967 it was wrong. Same with George Wallace (who was gravely wounded and paralyzed, not killed) in 1972 or with Meir Kahane in 1990 - precisely because as a society we value free speech and we also don't allow civilians to kill people they don't like. But just as with these other worthies, we should prosecute the offenders (perhaps difficult in this case since at least the two on the scene are dead) without valorizing people who run hate groups. It's really that simple. There is zero contradiction between the two judgments. Pam Geller is a cancerous presence in the US political conversation; same with her pal Geert Wilders, the flamboyant and parodic far-right, racist Dutch parliamentarian she brought for her Muhammed cartoon event down in Texas. Political violence is the greatest corrosive of free and ordered societies. But a hate group is a hate group the day after someone takes a shot at them just like it was the day before.

NO Islam is not a "Race" Real "racists" are always claiming It is about "Race". Maybe Wilders is a bigot. But certainly people that kill others because they find other cultures offend their cultural pride are murderous bigots.

So who are the biggest bigots? Who are the most cancerous?

[kmich]

A Couple Quick Thoughts on Geller in Texas - Josh Marshall

When George Lincoln Rockwell, the American Nazi Party leader, was shot and killed in 1967 it was wrong. Same with George Wallace (who was gravely wounded and paralyzed, not killed) in 1972 or with Meir Kahane in 1990 - precisely because as a society we value free speech and we also don't allow civilians to kill people they don't like. But just as with these other worthies, we should prosecute the offenders (perhaps difficult in this case since at least the two on the scene are dead) without valorizing people who run hate groups. It's really that simple. There is zero contradiction between the two judgments. Pam Geller is a cancerous presence in the US political conversation; same with her pal Geert Wilders, the flamboyant and parodic far-right, racist Dutch parliamentarian she brought for her Muhammed cartoon event down in Texas. Political violence is the greatest corrosive of free and ordered societies. But a hate group is a hate group the day after someone takes a shot at them just like it was the day before.

NO Islam is not a "Race" Real "racists" are always claiming It is about "Race". Maybe Wilders is a bigot. But certainly people that kill others because they find other cultures offend their cultural pride are murderous bigots.

So who are the biggest bigots? Who are the most cancerous?

Totally beside the point. A cancerous bigot is a cancerous bigot.

I suppose I will have to let sages like you judge who is the "biggest" or the most "cancerous."

[Nonc Hilaire]

If you hate even a single person you are damned.

If you hate people in aggregate, you are damned ignorant.

[Doc]

A Couple Quick Thoughts on Geller in Texas - Josh Marshall

When George Lincoln Rockwell, the American Nazi Party leader, was shot and killed in 1967 it was wrong. Same with George Wallace (who was gravely wounded and paralyzed, not killed) in 1972 or with Meir Kahane in 1990 - precisely because as a society we value free speech and we also don't allow civilians to kill people they don't like. But just as with these other worthies, we should prosecute the offenders (perhaps difficult in this case since at least the two on the scene are dead) without valorizing people who run hate groups. It's really that simple. There is zero contradiction between the two judgments. Pam Geller is a cancerous presence in the US political conversation; same with her pal Geert Wilders, the flamboyant and parodic far-right, racist Dutch parliamentarian she brought for her Muhammed cartoon event down in Texas. Political violence is the greatest corrosive of free and ordered societies. But a hate group is a hate group the day after someone takes a shot at them just like it was the day before.

NO Islam is not a "Race" Real "racists" are always claiming It is about "Race". Maybe Wilders is a bigot. But certainly people that kill others because they find other cultures offend their cultural pride are murderous bigots.

So who are the biggest bigots? Who are the most cancerous?

Totally beside the point. A cancerous bigot is a cancerous bigot.

I suppose I will have to let sages like you judge who is the "biggest" or the most "cancerous."

Well apparently unlike you, I would certainly give the nod to people that want to kill others because their pride is hurt. So do you think it is OK to blow up, say abortion clinics?

[kmich]

A Couple Quick Thoughts on Geller in Texas - Josh Marshall

When George Lincoln Rockwell, the American Nazi Party leader, was shot and killed in 1967 it was wrong. Same with George Wallace (who was gravely wounded and paralyzed, not killed) in 1972 or with Meir Kahane in 1990 - precisely because as a society we value free speech and we also don't allow civilians to kill people they don't like. But just as with these other worthies, we should prosecute the offenders (perhaps difficult in this case since at least the two on the scene are dead) without valorizing people who run hate groups. It's really that simple. There is zero contradiction between the two judgments. Pam Geller is a cancerous presence in the US political conversation; same with her pal Geert Wilders, the flamboyant and parodic far-right, racist Dutch parliamentarian she brought for her Muhammed cartoon event down in Texas. Political violence is the greatest corrosive of free and ordered societies. But a hate group is a hate group the day after someone takes a shot at them just like it was the day before.

NO Islam is not a "Race" Real "racists" are always claiming It is about "Race". Maybe Wilders is a bigot. But certainly people that kill others because they find other cultures offend their cultural pride are murderous bigots.

So who are the biggest bigots? Who are the most cancerous?

Totally beside the point. A cancerous bigot is a cancerous bigot.

I suppose I will have to let sages like you judge who is the "biggest" or the most "cancerous."

Well apparently unlike you, I would certainly give the nod to people that want to kill others because their pride is hurt. So do you think it is OK to blow up, say abortion clinics?

No.

You would "certainly give the nod to people that want to kill others because their pride is hurt?" Weird.

[kmich]

If you hate even a single person you are damned.

If you hate people in aggregate, you are damned ignorant.

I can be as nasty as judgmental and as hateful as anyone. Just human. The challenge is taking account of my own failings in this. Always a hard business.

[Doc]

A Couple Quick Thoughts on Geller in Texas - Josh Marshall

When George Lincoln Rockwell, the American Nazi Party leader, was shot and killed in 1967 it was wrong. Same with George Wallace (who was gravely wounded and paralyzed, not killed) in 1972 or with Meir Kahane in 1990 - precisely because as a society we value free speech and we also don't allow civilians to kill people they don't like. But just as with these other worthies, we should prosecute the offenders (perhaps difficult in this case since at least the two on the scene are dead) without valorizing people who run hate groups. It's really that simple. There is zero contradiction between the two judgments. Pam Geller is a cancerous presence in the US political conversation; same with her pal Geert Wilders, the flamboyant and parodic far-right, racist Dutch parliamentarian she brought for her Muhammed cartoon event down in Texas. Political violence is the greatest corrosive of free and ordered societies. But a hate group is a hate group the day after someone takes a shot at them just like it was the day before.

NO Islam is not a "Race" Real "racists" are always claiming It is about "Race". Maybe Wilders is a bigot. But certainly people that kill others because they find other cultures offend their cultural pride are murderous bigots.

So who are the biggest bigots? Who are the most cancerous?

Totally beside the point. A cancerous bigot is a cancerous bigot.

I suppose I will have to let sages like you judge who is the "biggest" or the most "cancerous."

Well apparently unlike you, I would certainly give the nod to people that want to kill others because their pride is hurt. So do you think it is OK to blow up, say abortion clinics?

No.

You would "certainly give the nod to people that want to kill others because their pride is hurt?" Weird.

You are claiming equivalence where it does not exist. People exercising their right to free speech no matter that some find it insulting is not the same thing as trying to kill people exercising their right to free speech. That is not "weird" it is quite plain.

[kmich]

Well apparently unlike you, I would certainly give the nod to people that want to kill others because their pride is hurt. So do you think it is OK to blow up, say abortion clinics?

No.

You would "certainly give the nod to people that want to kill others because their pride is hurt?" Weird.

You are claiming equivalence where it does not exist. People exercising their right to free speech no matter that some find it insulting is not the same thing as trying to kill people exercising their right to free speech. That is not "weird" it is quite plain.

I am not claiming anything, don't put words in my mouth to suit your own agenda.

You said, "I would certainly give the nod to people that want to kill others because their pride is hurt." How am I supposed to interpret that? You would give the nod to Muslims who want to kill others because their pride is hurt when their prophet is insulted also?

Your writing is incoherent and I am wasting my time responding to you.

[Doc]

Well apparently unlike you, I would certainly give the nod to people that want to kill others because their pride is hurt. So do you think it is OK to blow up, say abortion clinics?

No.

You would "certainly give the nod to people that want to kill others because their pride is hurt?" Weird.

You are claiming equivalence where it does not exist. People exercising their right to free speech no matter that some find it insulting is not the same thing as trying to kill people exercising their right to free speech. That is not "weird" it is quite plain.

I am not claiming anything, don't put words in my mouth to suit your own agenda.

You said, "I would certainly give the nod to people that want to kill others because their pride is hurt." How am I supposed to interpret that? You would give the nod to Muslims who want to kill others because their pride is hurt when their prophet is insulted also?

Your writing is incoherent and I am wasting my time responding to you.

How about interpreting it in the context it was written?

Me>So who are the biggest bigots? Who are the most cancerous?

You>Totally beside the point. A cancerous bigot is a cancerous bigot.

I suppose I will have to let sages like you judge who is the "biggest" or the most "cancerous."

Me>Well apparently unlike you, I would certainly give the nod to people that want to kill others because their pride is hurt.

You are the one that made it incoherent by editing, not me.

[Alexis]

A Couple Quick Thoughts on Geller in Texas - Josh Marshall

people who run hate groups. (...) Pam Geller is a cancerous presence in the US political conversation; same with her pal Geert Wilders (...) But a hate group is a hate group the day after someone takes a shot at them just like it was the day before.

Josh Marshall is totally off. Organizing a Muhammad caricature competition doesn't have anything to do with being a hate group.
- Organizing a "Napoleon caricature competition" wouldn't be hate against the French.
- Nor a "Jesus funny faces competition" hate against the Christians.
- Nor a "Washington taking a pee drawing competition" hate against the Americans.
At worst, such competitions may be considered futile or a bit silly.

The Muhammad caricature competition isn't even that, because it has educative purposes.

[Doc]

A Couple Quick Thoughts on Geller in Texas - Josh Marshall

people who run hate groups. (...) Pam Geller is a cancerous presence in the US political conversation; same with her pal Geert Wilders (...) But a hate group is a hate group the day after someone takes a shot at them just like it was the day before.

Josh Marshall is totally off. Organizing a Muhammad caricature competition doesn't have anything to do with being a hate group.
- Organizing a "Napoleon caricature competition" wouldn't be hate against the French.
- Nor a "Jesus funny faces competition" hate against the Christians.
- Nor a "Washington taking a pee drawing competition" hate against the Americans.
At worst, such competitions may be considered futile or a bit silly.

The Muhammad caricature competition isn't even that, because it has educative purposes.

More than that it is exercising a right. Rights that are not exercised, like muscles, go away.

[Nonc Hilaire]

A Couple Quick Thoughts on Geller in Texas - Josh Marshall

people who run hate groups. (...) Pam Geller is a cancerous presence in the US political conversation; same with her pal Geert Wilders (...) But a hate group is a hate group the day after someone takes a shot at them just like it was the day before.

Josh Marshall is totally off. Organizing a Muhammad caricature competition doesn't have anything to do with being a hate group.
- Organizing a "Napoleon caricature competition" wouldn't be hate against the French.
- Nor a "Jesus funny faces competition" hate against the Christians.
- Nor a "Washington taking a pee drawing competition" hate against the Americans.
At worst, such competitions may be considered futile or a bit silly.

The Muhammad caricature competition isn't even that, because it has educative purposes.

More than that it is exercising a right. Rights that are not exercised, like muscles, go away.

I hereby proclaim my right to deliberately fart in your face.

[Simple Minded]

If you hate even a single person you are damned.

If you hate people in aggregate, you are damned ignorant.

I can be as nasty as judgmental and as hateful as anyone. Just human. The challenge is taking account of my own failings in this. Always a hard business.

Kudos for your honesty kmich! Being able to laugh at oneself is a good start to getting along well with others.

Hard to take others seriously enough to get pissed off..... when you know they can be just as foolish as oneself.

I recall an old quote, but not the author "It is only one's sense of self-importance that allows one to feel offended."

Boy, if we can ever get past the vanity aspect of being human, humanity just might be something we can be proud of...... oh crap! It just happened again.

[Simple Minded]

I hereby proclaim my right to deliberately fart in your face.

Not exactly the common interpretation of turning the other cheek.... but I trust in your superior scholarship!

Or are you quoting from the book of Flatulence?

Then Jesus said "Yea, verily, I say to onto thee Peter..... pullest my most holy of fingers......."

Hard to take seriously any religion that is void of fart jokes......

[Doc]

A Couple Quick Thoughts on Geller in Texas - Josh Marshall

people who run hate groups. (...) Pam Geller is a cancerous presence in the US political conversation; same with her pal Geert Wilders (...) But a hate group is a hate group the day after someone takes a shot at them just like it was the day before.

Josh Marshall is totally off. Organizing a Muhammad caricature competition doesn't have anything to do with being a hate group.
- Organizing a "Napoleon caricature competition" wouldn't be hate against the French.
- Nor a "Jesus funny faces competition" hate against the Christians.
- Nor a "Washington taking a pee drawing competition" hate against the Americans.
At worst, such competitions may be considered futile or a bit silly.

The Muhammad caricature competition isn't even that, because it has educative purposes.

More than that it is exercising a right. Rights that are not exercised, like muscles, go away.

I hereby proclaim my right to deliberately fart in your face.

I proclaim my right to kick you in the butt before you get that far. Short of that I have a lighter waiting a ready to turn you into a suicide bomb.

[Nonc Hilaire]

A Couple Quick Thoughts on Geller in Texas - Josh Marshall

people who run hate groups. (...) Pam Geller is a cancerous presence in the US political conversation; same with her pal Geert Wilders (...) But a hate group is a hate group the day after someone takes a shot at them just like it was the day before.

Josh Marshall is totally off. Organizing a Muhammad caricature competition doesn't have anything to do with being a hate group.
- Organizing a "Napoleon caricature competition" wouldn't be hate against the French.
- Nor a "Jesus funny faces competition" hate against the Christians.
- Nor a "Washington taking a pee drawing competition" hate against the Americans.
At worst, such competitions may be considered futile or a bit silly.

The Muhammad caricature competition isn't even that, because it has educative purposes.

More than that it is exercising a right. Rights that are not exercised, like muscles, go away.

I hereby proclaim my right to deliberately fart in your face.

I proclaim my right to kick you in the butt before you get that far. Short of that I have a lighter waiting a ready to turn you into a suicide bomb.

You are arguing the righteousness of the Dallas gunmen?

Farting is my right of free speech, just like burning a Qu'ran or organizing a deliberately offensive cartoon contest. My deliberately offending you does not give you the right to physically assault me. And, as with the lighter, you should be prepared to suffer the inevitable backdraft. Igniting my fart would not be a lamp unto your feet, but rather a flamethrower unto your moustache.

[Doc]

More than that it is exercising a right. Rights that are not exercised, like muscles, go away.

I hereby proclaim my right to deliberately fart in your face.

I proclaim my right to kick you in the butt before you get that far. Short of that I have a lighter waiting a ready to turn you into a suicide bomb.

You are arguing the righteousness of the Dallas gunmen?

Farting is my right of free speech, just like burning a Qu'ran or organizing a deliberately offensive cartoon contest. My deliberately offending you does not give you the right to physically assault me. And, as with the lighter, you should be prepared to suffer the inevitable backdraft. Igniting my fart would not be a lamp unto your feet, but rather a flamethrower unto your moustache.

I have the right to kick you in the butt and set your farts on fire if it comes to that. And note it is you not me that threatens assault with a deadly chemical weapon

[Alexis]

I hereby proclaim my right to deliberately fart in your face.

There is no such right, because farting is not a way to express one's thoughts (err, except if the organ of one's thought is... )

OTOH, organize a farting jokes competition about Jesus, or about any past character of my nation or any past person I happen to respect, and be sure of one thing: I won't call you a "hate group member", nor a "cancerous presence", nor sue you, even less usher in any violence or threat.

---

Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who was speaking at this Muhammad caricature competition, was an express target of Al Qaida, just like Charbonnier the leader of Charlie Hebdo magazine killed during the January attacks in France.

Al-Qaeda hit list
In 2010 Anwar al-Awlaki published a hit list in his Inspire magazine, including Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Salman Rushdie along with cartoonists Lars Vilks and three Jyllands-Posten staff members: Kurt Westergaard, Carsten Juste, and Flemming Rose. The list was later expanded to include Stéphane "Charb" Charbonnier, who was murdered in a terror attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris, along with 11 other people. After the attack, Al-Qaeda called for more killings.

Geert Wilders was invited to an art exhibit in Garland, Texas that offered a $10,000 prize for the best drawing of Muhammad. During the event, two gunmen attacked the event, and both gunmen were shot and killed by police briefly after the suspects shot a security guard.

Charbonnier was clearly a leftist, some would say quite hardcore at that. Wilders is clearly a rightist, some would say quite hardcore at that.

But to Islamists... it doesn't make a difference. Express opinions critical of the founder of Islam, and they want your death.

This thing won't stop until either Project 1 has succeeded - everybody cows rather to say publicly anything critical about Muhammad - or until Project 2 has succeeded - no Muslim uses any violence or threat of violence against people whose opinions he doesn't like.