Islam just can't stand images of Mohammed

[untermensche]

You compare the sex drive with the drive to draw something and call it Mohammed?

Very amusing.

Is it?

You've determined that the insane impulse of delusional Islamists to murder people who draw Mohammed is more important than the right of people to draw Mohammed.

I'd like to say it's amusing, but it isn't.

I've determined that the US has behaved incredible murderous over the past decade.

It is the danger in the world, not a tiny few disturbed Muslims.

You're the doctor that wants to first deal with the scratch on the arm before the gaping head wound.

 

[Metaphor]

Is it?

You've determined that the insane impulse of delusional Islamists to murder people who draw Mohammed is more important than the right of people to draw Mohammed.

I'd like to say it's amusing, but it isn't.

I've determined that the US has behaved incredible murderous over the past decade.

It is the danger in the world, not a tiny few disturbed Muslims.

You're the doctor that wants to first deal with the scratch on the arm before the gaping head wound.

I am not from the United States and I have no moral responsibility for what the U.S. has done or will do.

When you can escape from your U.S. centric and Islamophile bubble, let us know.

 

[untermensche]

I've determined that the US has behaved incredible murderous over the past decade.

It is the danger in the world, not a tiny few disturbed Muslims.

You're the doctor that wants to first deal with the scratch on the arm before the gaping head wound.

I am not from the United States and I have no moral responsibility for what the U.S. has done or will do.

When you can escape from your U.S. centric and Islamophile bubble, let us know.

This thread is about a bunch of bigots in the US trying to outrage Muslims.

This thread is US centric.

I don't know if I am an "Islamophile". I feel the same about all humans. And in any group of a billion humans there will be a tiny number of seriously disturbed individuals.

But I believe in trying to minimize their damage, not maximize it.

 

[dismal]

I am not in the US; and I don't see how US relations with various Middle Eastern nations and/or organisations has thing one to do with whether or not I should be allowed to draw a picture of whomever the fuck I please.

There can be no peace while people are making completely unreasonable demands. I am struggling to come up with a better example of an unreasonable demand than someone I have never met demanding that I do not draw an historical character on pain of death.

The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with retaliation.

I know you want the US to be able to destroy the lives of millions, destroy entire nations, and then have no cost to pay for this monstrous inhumanity.

You don't even have the slightest glimpse of what justice means.

Yet you want to cry about the injustice of others.

Your position is a joke.

Yes, to really score points he should really be arguing about events from history that have abso-fucking-nothing whatever to do with the topic at hand.

I nominate the (second) Siege of Vienna.

 

[untermensche]

The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with retaliation.

I know you want the US to be able to destroy the lives of millions, destroy entire nations, and then have no cost to pay for this monstrous inhumanity.

You don't even have the slightest glimpse of what justice means.

Yet you want to cry about the injustice of others.

Your position is a joke.

Yes, to really score points he should really be arguing about events from history that have abso-fucking-nothing whatever to do with the topic at hand.

I nominate the (second) Siege of Vienna.

Your narrow vision isn't an argument.

The people killed in Texas were allegedly connected to ISIS.

ISIS exists because the US destroyed Iraq, and did it for no reason beyond a desire to dominate.

I know the millions who's lives were destroyed mean nothing to you. They are Muslims after all.

 

[dismal]

Yes, to really score points he should really be arguing about events from history that have abso-fucking-nothing whatever to do with the topic at hand.

I nominate the (second) Siege of Vienna.

Your narrow vision isn't an argument.

The people killed in Texas were allegedly connected to ISIS.

ISIS exists because the US destroyed Iraq, and did it for no reason beyond a desire to dominate.

I know the millions who's lives were destroyed mean nothing to you. They are Muslims after all.

The great dance of the irrelevancies continues.

Even if these guys were loyal footsoldiers of ISIS is does not justify a violent response to a cartoon.

As it turns out these two wannabe ISIS murderers were Americans who came later in life to their murderous ideology but took to it with the zeal of the converted.

Fortunately they really sucked at killing people.

 

[Malintent]

Right. And they didn't try to publicize it at all. Just had the contest at a private space, tried really hard to keep it to themselves, and when someone found out that the contest was happening they went out of their way to explain that it was not meant to offend, provoke, or otherwise cause a disturbance.





The motivations of these people are so transparent even the Clinton Foundation's accountants couldn't miss it.

It matters not a fuck what there motives were. What twisted idea leads you to think it does?

The US court system... to them motive matters... a lot. It reflects what our society deems 'right' and 'wrong'... intent is key.

 

[dismal]

It matters not a fuck what there motives were. What twisted idea leads you to think it does?

The US court system... to them motive matters... a lot. It reflects what our society deems 'right' and 'wrong'... intent is key.

Well, as things ended up these two guys will not be partaking in the US court system, but I'm puzzled by which of the lame excuses on offer in this thread you think the US court system would consider acceptable as a defense for mass murdering people at a cartoon show?

 

[untermensche]

Your narrow vision isn't an argument.

The people killed in Texas were allegedly connected to ISIS.

ISIS exists because the US destroyed Iraq, and did it for no reason beyond a desire to dominate.

I know the millions who's lives were destroyed mean nothing to you. They are Muslims after all.

The great dance of the irrelevancies continues.

Even if these guys were loyal footsoldiers of ISIS is does not justify a violent response to a cartoon.

As it turns out these two wannabe ISIS murderers were Americans who came later in life to their murderous ideology but took to it with the zeal of the converted.

Fortunately they really sucked at killing people.

Your position is spinning so hard you must be dizzy.

Nobody ever said it was justified.

Only probable, given the incredible amount of lethal force aimed at Muslims by the US over the last 12 years.

But you want to ignore the situation created by all this unjustified killing.

Again, I suppose because it was only Muslims being killed and for reasons not much different from killing over cartoons, killing because you want to dominate and see a weakness.

 

[dismal]

The great dance of the irrelevancies continues.

Even if these guys were loyal footsoldiers of ISIS is does not justify a violent response to a cartoon.

As it turns out these two wannabe ISIS murderers were Americans who came later in life to their murderous ideology but took to it with the zeal of the converted.

Fortunately they really sucked at killing people.

Your position is spinning so hard you must be dizzy.

Since I am defending free speech instead of trying to defend murdering cartoonists my position does not require any spinning or dragging forth of irrelevancies.

Defending the indefensible is the real challenge. Not sure why so many here feel so compelled to do it.

 

[untermensche]

Your position is spinning so hard you must be dizzy.

Since I am defending free speech instead of trying to defend murdering cartoonists my position does not require any spinning or dragging forth of irrelevancies.

Defending the indefensible is the real challenge. Not sure why so many here feel so compelled to do it.

The speech you're defending is the right to scream fire anywhere you want under any circumstances.

It is a child's version of free speech.

 

[dismal]

Since I am defending free speech instead of trying to defend murdering cartoonists my position does not require any spinning or dragging forth of irrelevancies.

Defending the indefensible is the real challenge. Not sure why so many here feel so compelled to do it.

The speech you're defending is the right to scream fire anywhere you want under any circumstances.

It is a child's version of free speech.

This has already been explained to you.

It is not.

Muslims are humans being capable of being moral agents. The fact that some of them will kill people over cartoons does not make drawing cartoons the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater. It makes the people willing to kill over cartoons deeply morally flawed and unworthy of any defense of any kind.

 

[untermensche]

The speech you're defending is the right to scream fire anywhere you want under any circumstances.

It is a child's version of free speech.

This has already been explained to you.

Bullshit! Some children agreed amongst themselves.

Children that want to make determinations without considerations of circumstance.

Their determinations are easily dismissed as childishness.

The US creates chaos, and does it for no good reason.

And out of this chaos a few disturbed individuals arise.

Then the children jump up and down and point at how terrible the victims of US aggression are because they have a tiny few highly disturbed individuals in their midst.

 

[dismal]

This has already been explained to you.

Bullshit! Some children agreed amongst themselves.

Children that want to make determinations without considerations of circumstance.

Their determinations are easily dismissed as childishness.

The US creates chaos, and does it for no good reason.

And out of this chaos a few disturbed individuals arise.

Then the children jump up and down and point at how terrible the victims of US aggression are because they have a tiny few highly disturbed individuals in their midst.

That's a wonderful speech. Other than the fact it has absolutely no relevance to the current thread.

Haven't you yourself acknowledged there is no defense for shooting cartoonists?

If so why are you spamming out so many irrelevant defenses?

 

[PyramidHead]

untermensche, do you think the cartoons are protected under the first amendment or not?

 

[untermensche]

untermensche, do you think the cartoons are protected under the first amendment or not?

Are people who incite others to violence protected?

I know it takes a mind capable of understanding the concept of reasonably expected incitement under present circumstances to grasp it.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Are people who incite others to violence protected? I know it takes a mind capable of understanding the concept of reasonably expected incitement under present circumstances to grasp it.

Wow, will you ever answer the question??!!!

 

[untermensche]

Are people who incite others to violence protected? I know it takes a mind capable of understanding the concept of reasonably expected incitement under present circumstances to grasp it.

Wow, will you ever answer the question??!!!

I thought I was clear.

I do not defend the right of a few bigots to endanger others by doing something not very different in principle from yelling fire in a crowded theater.

I do defend the right of bigots to speak as long as it is only themselves put in danger.

 

[TSwizzle]

I do not defend the right of a few bigots to endanger others by doing something not very different in principle from yelling fire in a crowded theater.

In this case, allah's holy warriors ran into the crowded theater that wasn't on fire and still got burned. Result.

 

[Trausti]

Wow, will you ever answer the question??!!!

I thought I was clear.

I do not defend the right of a few bigots to endanger others by doing something not very different in principle from yelling fire in a crowded theater.

I do defend the right of bigots to speak as long as it is only themselves put in danger.

If the standard is to judge what is acceptable by its affect on fragile and hypersensitive minds, then obviously you'd agree making fun of Britney Spears is like yelling fire in a crowded theater. There should be laws against it.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc[/YOUTUBE]