ISIS terrorists attack in Texas!!!!!!!!
 

Talk about stupid:

ISIS 'claims responsibility' after two gunmen 'carrying explosives' killed in attack on anti-Islam art contest near Dallas: Suspects are shot by cops and security guard is wounded at 'draw Muhammad' event that offered $10,000 prize | Daily Mail Onli

With the influx of these guys coming across our open, stop nobody, no enforcement border, there we can expect more of the less spectacular attempts
at trying to kill Americans, but just as deadly.

Let's just hope that ISIS does not have represntatives for Muslims like SOME blacks hold Sharpton. Or the Muslims take to the streets to protest the shootings.

Yes, talk about stupid. Stupid for such an inflammatory gathering was allowed to occur. "Freedom of Speech" does not mean you can yell FIRE in a crowded theater. That is basically the same as having a contest for drawing cartoons of Muhammed and having a rabid anti-Muslim speaker basically calling them all terrorists. Same goes for that wacko minister in Gainesville who tried public bonfires of Korans.

Things like that invite other wackos to come in and shoot up the place.

This shooting had nothing to do with the Mexican border.

The shooter wackos were from Arizona.

Elton Simpson: Suspect Reportedly ID'd In Texas Muhammed Cartoon Attack


Does Elton Simpson of Arizona sound like an ISIS member who just came over the border from Mexico? Police are searching his apartment in AZ.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/us...?smid=tw-share


Elton Simpson had previously been labeled by the FBI as a jihadist terrorism suspect, according to this NY Times article.

This is a 1st amendment issue. I fully support this type of event, and I'll explain why. It’s more important that you might think at first blush, and the easy way out is to criticize as inflammatory, or to otherwise argue to suppress it as you do.

Islam has a long history, dating back to Muhammad himself, of following a conscious strategy of shutting down any criticism of Islam, and more especially of Muhammad. You need to study the history and biography of Muhammad to better understand it, but the gist of it was … he wanted no opposition to his new religion. He consciously killed, or had killed on his orders, what might be deemed “major media figures” of his day. (Poets in 7th century Arabia were especially influential and, as it turns out, Muhammad was a gifted poet which is why the Koran sound like poetry when you read it.)

For example, Muhammad had a wealthy Jewish merchant by the name of Kab Ashraf assassinated in public for publishing poems critical of him. The more famous murder was of a wife and mother named Asma. Muhammad had an assassin creep into her tent at night while she was sleeping. Her offense was composing a poem critical of the Yathrib (i.e. Mecca) tribes for not resisting Muhammad more strongly than they did. The assassin of Asma lifted a sleeping baby from Asma’s breast before plunging a sword thru her heart.

The point is … Muhammad knew that most people could be terrorized into ceasing their criticism by a periodic use of force. Guess what … it worked. Muhammad subdued Yathrib, renamed the town Medina, and after winning several battles against the Meccans, Islam expanded rapidly by the sword and terror.

Nothing much has changed with that strategy of silencing criticism over the past 1,400 years by terror. That is EXACTLY what is going on with the attempted attack on the event in Garland, and the Charlie Hebdo instance along with others. Islam seeks to silence its critics. It has worked in helping to silence, or at least subdue, you because you in effect said … hey, we can’t let this type of show go on. It is by no means shouting “fire” in a theater … you have it exactly backwards. If we don’t resist the urge to self-censor, over time, Islam will prevail in its objective, especially if and as the demographics work more in their favor.

By way of background, Muhammad suffered from epilepsy (inherited from his mother Aminah) and was basically a psychotic mass killer. Think of Charles Manson, except with a very large army. It has always been a violent religion starting from its founding. Most Muslims today are peaceful (cause they got tired of all the fighting ) but the best estimates I've seen is anywhere between 10-20% support the Radical strain of Islam in various ways .. .financially, emotionally, or in some cases the guys who actually fight and shoot.

I salute the people who sponsored the event in Garland, and salute the Garland police force for taking care of business.

No, you have this whole thing screwed up in your Tea B-g mind.

You think it is a good thing to purposely anger a religion that has a splinter group who wants to hurt you? Use common sense.

Do you agree it is a First Amendment right for the American Nazi Party to hold a mass rally in front of B'nai Brith headquarters or the KKK to hold a cross burning ceremony in the middle of Baltimore's inner city or The Communist Party USA to burn dozens of American flags at the American Legion HQ?

All of these events would have trouble at them. Freedom of speech or whatever has to be tempered with common sense.

Yes, everyone is glad that the only two people killed were the shooters.

Try to control yourself by focusing on the substance of a response vs an immediate descent into name calling please

Ok let's put your recommendation for restrictions on free speech into effect on this forum. Henceforth the hateful epithet Tea B***er" is banned from use as inciteful. You ok with that?

Please list the hateful epithets that you and all who think along the same side (conservative) would stop using when referring to liberals in general or liberals by name (Pres. Obama, Sec. Clinton, Mayor DiBlasio, etc).

If you can extract a guarantee that there will be NO MORE hateful or disgraceful references to all I have listed - I will not refer to the Tea Party members by the term you dislike.

You think it is a good thing to purposely anger a religion that has a splinter group who wants to hurt you? :mademyday:

Do you agree it is a First Amendment right for the American Nazi Party to hold a mass rally in front of B'nai Brith headquarters or the KKK to hold a cross burning ceremony in the middle of Baltimore's inner city or The Communist Party USA to burn dozens of American flags at the American Legion HQ?

All of these events would have trouble at them. Freedom of speech or whatever has to be tempered with common sense.
---------------------

Now that the name calling has been removed, would you like to answer the question with your comments. Thank you.

First of all, Islam is always angry or upset ... that's because they don't like to be criticized, and they have a long history of killing or terrorizing to dissuade it.

Second, they are waging a war against the West in various way, one of which is against free speech. Do you disagree with that assertion?

No, I do not agree that ISIS is trying to wage war by curbing free speech. In countries they control, free speech is curbed but in some of our ally countries, it is also curbed such as Saudi Arabia.

I was specifically asking about if you agree it is a First Amendment right for the American Nazi Party to hold a mass rally in front of B'nai Brith headquarters or the KKK to hold a cross burning ceremony in the middle of Baltimore's inner city or The Communist Party USA to burn dozens of American flags at the American Legion HQ?

All of these events would have trouble at them. Is a a First Amendment right for those groups to hold their ceremonies or rallies as I described - and would it be allowed?

One more example to add to your list; how about Hillary Clinton having a rally at Lake Sumter Landing?

:BigApplause:

The KKK cross burning in Baltimore's inner-city would probably be safer!

:coolsmiley:

1. You should ask yourself “what is the common thread in the examples I just cited where free speech is curtailed?” The answer is Islam. Or, stated differently, any place where Sharia law is practiced western style freedom of speech is not. That’s why we want to oppsed it here at home

2. Yes, in each of the instances you cite, each group has a 1st amendment protection to exercise free speech. It may be obnoxious, but it’s protected. All of the groups you cite also don’t pose a serious threat to the American future whereas Islam, if not resisted, does. Thus, it’s particularly important NOT to self-censor and why the Garland event was positive.

3. Yes, obnoxious speech would cause trouble in some cases, and make some people angry. But, there’s a reason the 1st amendment is the very first one the Founders added to the Constitution. Free speech is foundational to all of our political freedoms. Think about it … controversial speech is, by definition the very type of speech the 1st amendment was intended to protect. Why would anyone even worry about protecting non-controversial speech

You are 100 percent WRONG.

Get your money back from your Constitional Law class - even though yours sounds it might have been taught in either Florida, Texas, or Arizona. Those are the stupidest states in the Union.

:popcorn::popcorn:

Thanks for your thoughtful, insightful reply which has greatly added to the discussion. I'm guessing your mentor is Jim Carrey?

Two crazies from Arizona crossed the border into Texas to commit a crime. They were crazy enough to believe their actions would be meaningful but the event they attacked was ridiculous.

An anti-Islam group was holding a cartoon rally? It was asking for trouble and it is hogwash. If any of you readers believe this hogwash, just go visit you he Islamic Center on Hwy 27 near Clermont to hear what they preach. You will not hear them preaching hatred like the fool was doing in Garland.

This widely publicized event was designed to provoke. It is within their rights to do that but the right also comes with responsibility.

As far as ISIS attacking in Texas - no. ISIS takes credit naturally as it makes them look powerful.

These were two Arizona crazies who took their legal guns and legal ammo from Arizona to Texas to kill the Texas crazies who were dissing their religion.

Moral of the story: Never argue with anyone crazier than yourself.

Go to Fox News and listen to the video of Greta Von Sustern about the event. She says it was wrong to put the police in danger by allowing such a provacative event to occur. I agree with her, as usual.

Some people like you, in reaction to the Garland event, agree with the assertion that, since the Muslims “forbid” cartoons or other graphic characterizations of Mohammed, Americans should not engage in that activity. In other words, refrain and self-censor. People need to understand that, over time, this inhibits free speech -- which is something Islam is not comfortable with, sometimes trying to kill people who exercise it.

You also need to understand that the source of the prohibition against making images of Muhammad stems from the Koran and other Muslim sources , and is one (of many) aspects of Sharia law. In a nutshell, instituting Sharia law is what Islam is all about, and why CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood are helping to expand mosques across the country, including the one in Clermont.

I can cite many examples but will keep it simple and stick with three other key features of Sharia law:
- Stoning homosexuals to death for the crime of … being homosexual
- Stoning women to death who commit adultery
- Requiring a woman to have four (i.e. 4) witnesses in order for her to prove a rape case against her assailant.

Out of respect for Muslim sensitivities, which of the above features of Sharia law do your recommend we adopt in the USA, in addition to self-censoring free speech??

The aspect of this story not yet fully reported pertains to the cop who killed the two would-be jihadis:

- The two Islamic attackers got out of their car, with body armor and armed with assault rifles (AK-47s I think) and start firing away.

- The cop gets out of his car, and uses his service handgun (Glock 40?), fires a couple of shots, and kills both of them. Very impressive to say the least.

- Anyone who knows anything about shooting knows that going up against multiple semi-automatic weapons with only a handgun is never a good idea.

This cop is a) an EXPERT marksman b) was cool under fire and c) should be given a medal and/or promoted.

Why don't you organize an anti Muslim rally with your fellow Tea
Party extremists - but do it only after you publicize it on all social media - and hold it at your house? :a20:

As per usual, you cannot answer reasonable questions and revert to indulging in your Jim Carrey antics ... and it looks like the truce on name calling lasted about a day.

Just listen to Greta von Sustern's viewpoint on Fox regarding free speech that has to be tempered with common sense. The event in Texas put the lives of police in jeopardy. An inflammatory event is not a demonstration of free speech but rather is dangerous and foolish.

My question now: Would you attend a KKK cross burning in inner city Baltimore because it was advertised as a message of free speech?

Playing (?) the fool in the face of seriousness must be a sign of something.

Attending an event is not the same as acknowledging and supporting a controversial group's right to exercise their 1st amendment rights. I usually agree with Greta, and Bill O'Reilly for that matter, but in this case don't.

Some questions now for you please ...

Do you think any group, religious or otherwise, should be allowed to intimidate other groups into maintaining silence? ie self-censoring?

Do you think that Islam, in general, supports free speech?

Do you remember any Christians killing, or attempting to kill, artists who some years ago put the crucifix in urine or depicted Mary in an unflattering way?

Good luck.

I do not understand how a presumed adult poster can be so smug, arrogant and self centered. Disagreeing is one thing; to smugly make fun of people is just not acceptable in adult conversation.

You and I are not going to agree to any part of the issue. It is pointless for us just to go back and forth saying the same thing each time.

Best wishes. :beer3:

To all posters on this thread "but for" the First Amendment, you would have been unable to carry on with this written dialogue.

Some of you may want to go back and read why our founders urgently recognized the need to write and implement the Bill of Rights, with free speech becoming the First Amendment.

If being "offensive"were the deciding criteria for denying First Amendment Rights then I am afraid my friends that we would all be living in a totalitarian state .

Irrespective of its blemishes, be very grateful that you live in the greatest nations this world ever produced. And if you are religious kneel down and give thanks to Almighty God.

Personal Best Regards:

This post certainly emphasizes your predjudice against a specific group. Whether you realize it or not, all that is accomplished is displaying either a lack of knowledge or extreme pretense to to intimate there is no anti Muslim sentiment in what ever party you are a member of or pretend to represent.

I tried looking at these cartoons that i could find on the internet. I did not see one that was gratuitously offensive. Most of the ones I saw showed Muhammad treating people for drawing him or associated with the symbolism of terrorism. They all made political statements (once again, at least the ones I saw).

None came close to the level of deliberate offense that you see when the Left draws or mocks Christ — “**** Christ” or showing Jesus engaged in graphic gay sex or covering Mary in feces. So even the comparisons that some conservatives make of this contest vs. what Libs do to Christ are off the mark.

Following 9-11 everyone was saying if you fear doing this thing or that thing, “then the terrorists have won!”

Why don’t we hear that expression lately?

Maybe it is like slowly heating/boiling the frog in hot water.

From Snopes:

"The frog’s body temperature follows its surroundings. If you put the frog directly in boiling water, it will sense the heat immediately and jump out. But when you heat the water slowly, the frog keeps adjusting to the rising temperature. When the heat is too much for the frog to take, it is too late. The frog collapses and dies."

That's an excellent analogy and describes the situation pretty closely. Gradually getting used to one aspect as ok, then a bit more, and still some more. It actually tracks pretty well to the original expansionist tactics used by Muhammad himself in the 7th century when he lived in Mecca.

He was actually quite effective, if not brilliant, in the use of these "frog boiling" tactics as long as his followers were a significant minority. Once he had an active percentage 20% or more, and certainly when in the vicinity of 50%, the tactics changed to simple force and overt terror. It worked.