Another shooting that has nothing to do with Islam

[Hijiri Byakuren]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/03/at-least-2-shot-outside-muhammad-art-exhibit-in-texas/26849897/

Except that this time, these morons targeted a group in Texas. They are also the only ones in the entire incident who died.

[Shiranu]

Thankfully no one (innocent) was killed, but... fuck, this intentionally poking beehives that is so prevalent in our culture is getting old as fuck real fast.

Why, just because we have the freedom to, do we feel the need to be assholes for the sake of being assholes? It's just pathetic. And if anyone had gotten injured or killed, the blood would be on their hands as well and people here and in our culture would be defending them because "they had the freedom to hit the beehive with a stick".

I think they have every right to hold the exhibit, but I think we should not encourage it and condemn them for being assholes who are putting people's lives at risk just so they can get off on being controversial.

[pr126]

Quite right, Shiranu.
Fuck the first amendment. Let the fanatics win.

After all, they are NEVER responsible for their actions.
No one should expect them to behave like rational human beings.

Call it racism of low expectation.

[Shiranu]

------------just in case I wasn't clear enough in my first post------------

When I say the blood is on their hands "...as well", the as well in that sentence implies that both parties in question have blood on their hands. Perhaps that phrase doesn't mean the same thing in other parts of the world, but I grew up in an area where such a statement implies that both party A and party B have responsibility to be taken. If I am mistaken and the rest of the English speaking world does not use that phrase in the same way, then I apologise now for having used it incorrectly.

If that is the case, my sentence therefor would be, "The extremists quite clearly (would, if they succeeded) had blood on their hands, but the people who would provoke violence for the sake of provocation and controversy also have a stake in the blame game, as they intentionally put other peoples live's at risk just so they can be getting their kicks off of being assholes."

-------------now back to the quote-----------------

Quite right, Shiranu.
Fuck the first amendment. Let the fanatics win.

After all, they are NEVER responsible for their actions.
No one should expect them to behave like rational human beings.

See your reading comprehension is still not quite up to snuff.

I realise you are not American, so I won't hold you to the same standards of having a grasp on what our Constitution and Bill of Rights entail, but nowhere in my statement did I say "fuck the first amendment.". In fact a quite clearly said they have every right to do what they did, which... if I remember my Bill of Rights correctly, which it is entirely possible I do not... falls within agreement of said amendment.

And of course you got the responsibility part wrong as well, seeing as how no one in this thread has says anything of the sort, but given how (willfully if not literally) illiterate you have proven yourself to be... that is hardly surprising at this point.

Call it racism of low expectation.

Ooooh, the witty stab in the edit. That was a nice touch, I'll give it an 8 out of 10. It's a shame you didn't get a single thing right in your post which took any real bite out of it so I have to downgrade it to a 3.5/10. Still a nice effort, though.

[pr126]

 

In fact a quite clearly said they have every right to do what they did,...

BUT, they should not! Isn't that what you meant?


Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither.  - Benjamin Franklin

BTW, they are not "extremist".
They are fanatical true believers. Ready to kill and die for their cult. (see Quran 9:111)

[Shiranu]

BUT, they should not! Isn't that what you meant?

Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither.  - Benjamin Franklin

Correct. Would you like the definition of freedom to help clear up some confusion?

"the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint."

Perhaps freedom of speech?

the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.

So, in what way again does saying that you have the right to say something, even if it is a poor choice, mean I am saying "fuck the first amendment"?

If I say, "You shouldn't tell your wife she is a fat pig who looks like shit"... does that mean I am saying "fuck the first amendment" as well?

If you would like, I will break down each word of Franklin's quote and define them for you, since you seem to not grasp a word he said. Since I have never said they should sacrifice their liberty (and have said they have every right to it and should keep it), exactly what relevance does it have?

Here is a man who wasn't a slave owner and a rich bureaucrat who was tired of paying taxes and started a war over it, someone I have a bit more respect for. His quote is also a bit more relevant to this topic.

Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Or the man who was a key part of stopping one of the most vicious and racist governments in human history...

If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner. - Nelson Mandela

[pr126]

Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner. - Nelson Mandela

Nice.

If you only knew the basics of Islam, you would realize that it would never work.
If you only knew some history, you would realize that it has not worked in 14 centuries.

Islam is a zero sum ideology. It only accepts a winner or a loser. There cannot be a compromise.
When Islam is weak, it crawls back into it's box. Waits, never gives up.

When it is strong, and the opposition is weak, then - well, look around you.
In case you haven't noticed yet, there is a war in progress.

[Shiranu]

Nice.

If you only knew the basics of Islam, you would realize that it would never work.
If you only knew some history, you would realize that it has not worked in 14 centuries.

What a depressing world you must live in. And not-so-funny, since you clearly don't grasp how great of joke your "know your history, it has not worked in 14 centuries" is. I guess you have never heard of the Moorish Caliphate which lived in relative peace with it's conquered Christians. Or the Ottoman Empire. Or the Rashidun Caliph. Or the Abbasid Caliphate, who "we" were at peace with, traded with and who pretty much saved all our knowledge of antiquity in Europe as it was brought there while Europeans were busy burning anything that wasn't Christian. But yes, clearly you hold all the historical knowledge in this conversation... because clearly you knew all this and it just slipped your mind when you said, "it has not worked in 14 centuries".

Well, have fun with that depressing little world you live in. I figure everyone here already has a side they are on in this "debate", if you can call you throwing out wrong information and me pointing out why it is such, so I don't see much point to go on if I am not enjoying myself. And I'm not so... toodaloo till next time!

Oh,and if you would so desire, I can send you a dictionary so that you can look up these words yourself before you make a fool of yourself in the inevitable future thread where you accuse people of being anti-this or anti-that simply because you couldn't grasp what they said.

[drunkenshoe]

In 20th century, esp. after it was established that art didn't have to depict nature to be 'beautiful' so 'good' and 'correct' and therefore 'right'; more than that 'beauty' had nothing to do with art, Western Culture developed ways of conveying ideas, criticism or opinions with it. You can create every kind of feeling with art, impose on people, force to build an empathy, you can also practically slap them with something they don't want to see. Art became a voice for pretty much everything you wanted to say. If you want to convey a point of view or deliver a message of criticism you needed to provoke people, more, shock them in accordance to inspire. So what was essentially an artistic objective became a form of speech.

As a result it has worked in the Western World, reached up to a harmless point more less.  However, this all happened gradually and has given its fruits ONLY WHEN the Western culture reached an economically superior state, when with that the laws and social contracts developed. Only when people have become individuals this works. We are all individualists guys, don't forget that.

Individualism is not just something that occurs as a result of a culture's socio economical success among other world cultures. It also occurs and develops because that cullture defines itself as the 'ideal culture' and its people as the group of individuals with the 'ideal identity'. A culture that defines itself 'superior' with its race, traditions, history; sees itself as righteous on its acts in every scale. State policy or individual behaviour. Anyone who is not from that 'ideal set of conditions' is deemed to be negated in some form. Like the Middle Eastern or generally Eastern people. So creating a so called "Clash of civilisations" which today turned into another bullshit of so called "Religious Wars".

Now, as we created an 'ideal culture' with 'ideal people', of course we are in need of a threat to them, because otherwise there is no motivation, interest or benefit in being a part of that 'ideal world', is there?

How did Westerners percieve the Middle Easterners, specifically Muslims BEFORE 9/11? What is Orientalism? How it was constructed and used? Is it just a bunch of paintings showing naked concubines of some Sultan?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVC8EYd_Z_g

What is the biggest weapon? Media. How is the model work? It works on everything. Manifacturing Consent. Controling Public Mind. Why? If you are not controlled, you are a threat to corporate system. It's not some conspiracy or complicated net of affairs. This is the system in the country you live.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHU2AVcK5l8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO51ahW9JlE


Where do those caricatures of or paintings or depictions of Muhammed and violent reaction fall in that big picture? Just a simple violent attack on some innocent form of criticism and exercising freedom of speech? This is something has started LONG before 9/11 or terrorism of political Islam.

So as far the pathtetic sarcasm attempt of that title goes, YES this shooting has something to do with Islam and that it is those people see ther religion as a channel to strike back at every opportunity of how they have been defined, seen, categorised. And Westerners who are supposedly exercising their right of 'free speech' actually exercising their 'entitlement' and 'superiority' consciously or unconsciously. This is not some simple violent reaction about drawing a prophet's picture. It's far more bigger than that. It's far more older than some Islamic terrorism.

Hatred against Americans and America? Or against Western World? Yeah, there is a huge hatred in the world against Western culture and world. Not just among Muslims.  May I ask why wouldn't there be? Could someone give me a reasonable explanation please? 

[drunkenshoe]

Nice.

If you only knew the basics of Islam, you would realize that it would never work.
If you only knew some history, you would realize that it has not worked in 14 centuries.

Islam is a zero sum ideology. It only accepts a winner or a loser. There cannot be a compromise.
When Islam is weak, it crawls back into it's box. Waits, never gives up.

When it is strong, and the opposition is weak, then - well, look around you.
In case you haven't noticed yet, there is a war in progress.

Hmmm, why is that familiar? Oh... Godzilla! Have you seen the last one? He was so brave and cute. No wait, Avengers? Iron Man? Oooh wait, were you talking about corporate democracy or international Middle East policies led by the USA? When you implied naked agression, mass annihilation and no compromise; win or lose, for some reason those came up. 

Also I am curious what is this has worked in 14th century for Christianity and not for Islam that is related to our age in any terms? What is this secular criticism of some religion in 14th century West?

Oh and hey, how are you? No hugs? You are breaking my heart.

[Solomon Zorn]

 

[SGOS]

This is one of those topics that is guaranteed to create a mini shit storm.

[Solomon Zorn]

Sorry, Shiranu, but I think you are on the wrong side of this one.

Why, just because we have the freedom to, do we feel the need to be assholes for the sake of being assholes? It's just pathetic.

I don't know the motives of the artists involved, or the exhibitor, but our right to the freedom of speech is irrelevant, unless that speech is offensive. Otherwise why would you need your right to be protected? Offensive speech is exactly what is being protected. And religious fanatics are not exempt, just because "blasphemy" makes them angry.

And if anyone had gotten injured or killed, the blood would be on their hands as well and people here and in our culture would be defending them because "they had the freedom to hit the beehive with a stick".

So if some whacked out Christian decides to off me for my poetry, then by this reasoning, I am partly to blame for my own murder.

I think they have every right to hold the exhibit, but I think we should not encourage it and condemn them for being assholes who are putting people's lives at risk just so they can get off on being controversial.

I think we should withhold judgement, until actually seeing the exhibit.


Je suis Charlie!

[Brian37]

Um what do you mean nothing to do with Islam? No sorry, but it has EVERYTHING to do with the fucking insane idea that religion deserves to be blasphemy free. The west has learned to put up with things like piss Christ in a jar of urine, but don't hand me this crap that Islam is in the same century yet.

I refuse to ignore religion because of well intended politically correct liberals, WHICH I AM myself. No, Islam needs to grow up and only a fool thinks this has nothing to do with insecure brats who read words in an old comic book and get violent over those words.

Do not expect this liberal to play verbally nice and bury my head in the sand.

[drunkenshoe]

So if some whacked out Christian decides to off me for my poetry, then by this reasoning, I am partly to blame for my own murder.

No. If a Christian killed you for your poetry, his act wouldn't be defind as religious terrorism or extremism. He would be portrayed as some 'mentally ill' person or some 'psycopath' in media, who got his hands on guns and the whole issue would be taken in the light of 'gun issue' and 'what is wrong with gun procedures in this country'; another rat race between pro-guns and others.

May be -just maaay be- because you are an atheist, if this goes out -depending on the channel giving your death news- it could be portrayed as a 'hate crime'.

However, it would have never been defined as an act of Christian extremism or terrorism. Noone would even question the issue along those lines. Somebody got killed by a psycho. Happens everyday, everywhere. Doesn't it?