Security guard injured in Texas Muhammed cartoon conference

SciNeT · 4 May 2015 at 18:08

OhEsEcks said:
Saw this posted on Reddit and it gave me a chuckle.

Very droll

So who won the contest anyway?

Housey · 4 May 2015 at 18:08

OhEsEcks said:
Saw this posted on Reddit and it gave me a chuckle.

Raz · 4 May 2015 at 18:13

Longbow said:
I feel strongly about many things too, IE freedom of speech. I'm not going to kill people who oppose it though, and we shouldn't pander to or defend those who do make threats.

Right, but we're talking about it respectfully

Tefal · 4 May 2015 at 18:14

KIA said:
Thank god for the armed police. The Charlie Hebdo massacre could have been avoided if they were given a similar level of protection.

The threat posed by religious fanatics is very real, and will increase as they grow in number.

you seen the pic of the officers there? full military gear, camouflage, assault rifles tec.

thought they were soldiers not police.

Vulcan · 4 May 2015 at 18:23

Raz said:
Right, but we're talking about it respectfully

You're talking about banning freedom of speech if someone feels strongly about something. That's not how it works, freedom of speech is there to offend people, that's the whole point.

Pawnless Endgame · 4 May 2015 at 18:27

Raz said:
Yes.

When I was at school my friend drew a picture of a bully's mum and promptly got beaten up.

That's a bit different because you're referring to kids.

What we're dealing with here are 2 adults, therefore they should be held responsible for attempted murder. It's like they knew that the event was being held, they ventured there with their guns as if they were gagging to be offended. It was calculated, pre-meditated.

Take South Park or Monty Python for example. Both of these have mocked religions. I would pick up the case, see the brief descriptions on the back as to why they have an age rating of 15 or 18. As an adult, I have the mental capacity to say yay or nay. If I knew it was going to be offensive and I said yay anyway (watched it), then it's no one else but my own fault that I got offended.

StriderX · 4 May 2015 at 18:50

Support for Wilders went up i imagine, the next EU election will be make or break for Mare Nostrum and Immigration as well.

Malevolence · 4 May 2015 at 18:51

I'd have entered this, and then laughed at the paradox it created.

(That's Muhammad on the horse)

Danthus · 4 May 2015 at 19:09

Is that a Trojan Horse.

Only joking.

Destination · 4 May 2015 at 19:18

Tefal said:
you seen the pic of the officers there? full military gear, camouflage, assault rifles tec.

thought they were soldiers not police.

'merica!

Skunkworks · 4 May 2015 at 19:23

Clearly they were expecting a visit from the Religion of Peace.

StriderX · 4 May 2015 at 20:23

Also its lolworthy due to a massive operation by the US army posing as civilians for this very reason and Texas was one of the states in said operation.

The enemy can be really stupid sometimes.

OhEsEcks · 4 May 2015 at 20:41

Tefal said:
you seen the pic of the officers there? full military gear, camouflage, assault rifles tec.

thought they were soldiers not police.

That was the SWAT team, and they were put on standby at the event "just in case". Turned out it was justified. (It would be the equivalent of armed response here being put on standby).

And there's the whole thing about the US military selling off surplus stock to police departments for like a dollar. There's small towns in the middle of nowhere back-woods America that are equipped with armoured personnel carriers and stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1033_program

There was a similar program took place in the UK with the restructuring of the RUC in Northern Ireland, to the PSNI. A lot of the old Land Rover Tangi stock was offloaded to England and Wales for public order situations. Yorkshire got a few and apparently after the Bradford Riots bought 6 more (so they have a total fleet of nine).

Raz · 4 May 2015 at 20:44

Longbow said:
You're talking about banning freedom of speech if someone feels strongly about something. That's not how it works, freedom of speech is there to offend people, that's the whole point.

Not really, it's about giving people the chance to put forward their view, whether it's in agreement or in opposition to something. How is it beneficial for humanity to give them a right to ridicule someone else's belief?

Pawnless Endgame said:
That's a bit different because you're referring to kids.

What we're dealing with here are 2 adults, therefore they should be held responsible for attempted murder. It's like they knew that the event was being held, they ventured there with their guns as if they were gagging to be offended. It was calculated, pre-meditated.

Take South Park or Monty Python for example. Both of these have mocked religions. I would pick up the case, see the brief descriptions on the back as to why they have an age rating of 15 or 18. As an adult, I have the mental capacity to say yay or nay. If I knew it was going to be offensive and I said yay anyway (watched it), then it's no one else but my own fault that I got offended.

In an ideal world there would be two things:

1. People wouldn't need to ridicule the beliefs of others under the guise of 'freedom of speech'.
2. Those who were offended wouldn't respond with violence.

As an adult I know that while I don't personally believe in Hindu mythology, reincarnation, the resurrection of Jesus and so on I know they mean a lot others.

This is obviously my own view, but I just don't see the need to ridicule or mock their beliefs. If I disagree with them I should be able to put my views across without upsetting anyone. People hold things like religion, culture and nationality very close to their hearts.

I in no way support the actions of these people (the attackers) but I don't support mocking religious beliefs or other beliefs which people hold. It alienates them, gives them a reason to feel persecuted and therefore in some cases justifies their belief as being right (true believers are always persecuted and all that...). In this particular case, as has been mentioned, it simply serves to provoke a group of people who already think they're being attacked by the West.

SexyGreyFox · 4 May 2015 at 21:04

Dear OCUK

This morning I got stung by two Queen wasps because my Dad kills them for a living but I don't know why.
All I was doing was hitting the nest with a big stick so it didn't warrant them stinging me.

Yours in disgust
1 brain cell Dimple

Vulcan · 4 May 2015 at 21:07

Raz said:
Not really, it's about giving people the chance to put forward their view, whether it's in agreement or in opposition to something. How is it beneficial for humanity to give them a right to ridicule someone else's belief?

Yes really, it's about being able to going against the grain and offend. After all the opposite view may offend someone. Ridicule and humour is one of the ways we deal with stupid ideologies.

Dimple said:
All I was doing was hitting the nest with a big stick so it didn't warrant them stinging me.

More victim blaming. You're arguing that we shouldn't challenge Islam in case they might kill someone.

Mynight · 4 May 2015 at 21:08

Should have let your dad take care of them then as you clearly don't have adequate training.

dowie · 4 May 2015 at 21:13

Raz said:
In an ideal world there would be two things:

1. People wouldn't need to ridicule the beliefs of others under the guise of 'freedom of speech'.
2. Those who were offended wouldn't respond with violence.

As an adult I know that while I don't personally believe in Hindu mythology, reincarnation, the resurrection of Jesus and so on I know they mean a lot others.

This is obviously my own view, but I just don't see the need to ridicule or mock their beliefs. If I disagree with them I should be able to put my views across without upsetting anyone.

but some of those beliefs upset people in the first place - like gay people, unmarried couples etc..

those beliefs are often offensive to them, telling them they're sinners and will burn in hell or that they should be punished

do they not have a right to reply?

If we're all for not offending people the surely you should, for the sake of consistency, get various religious leaders to alter their religions so as they're not offensive to begin with before you can really say that others shouldn't be offensive towards them.

Skunkworks · 4 May 2015 at 21:15

Dimple said:
Dear OCUK

This morning I got stung by two Queen wasps because my Dad kills them for a living but I don't know why.
All I was doing was hitting the nest with a big stick so it didn't warrant them stinging me.

Yours in disgust
1 brain cell Dimple

Another fool who thinks drawings and murder are equal. I hope you're not a fan of bacon, because when you appease people on one thing, they tend to move onto the next on their list.

dowie · 4 May 2015 at 21:20

some bad analogies in here re: hitting dogs, hitting wasps...

aside from dubiously comparing muslims to angry dogs/wasps the analogies don't even fit that well. These people weren't going round to a mosque or muslim area and waving these things in their faces to provoke them - they were hosting it as an event at some conference centre, you actually would have had to go and make a special journey to be offended/insulted...