Yes, you’re right. About talking generally, not the self-esteem versus common sense thing.
How about bringing an end to the “strawmen” regarding what others might think? How about simply acknowledging that:
- The event was legal and could not nor should be prohibited
- The contents might be despicable in the POV of some but entirely legitimate in the views of others.
- The event might have been more than about drawing cartoons
but most importantly that
- There are no excuses, no justification for the criminal intents of deluded Islamic terrorist
- The argument of an armed response to an organized event protected by the First Amendment is just silly
The debate about what is deserved or about the exact intentions of the Geller group is just as silly as the continuing veiled or unveiled support of those deluded criminals who were shot.
Why is it so hard to admit that the wrongs in that case are so blatant? Isn’t the problem that lunatics are easily manipulated by even bigger lunatics to commit acts of terrorism?
It is NOT us; it is them!
No one on this thread is excusing or justifying the actions of the dead suspects, or Daesh/IS/ISIL/ISIS that they were following.
But some posters appear to be trying to imply that criticism of Geller/AFDI/SIOA/etc. is excusing or justifying said actions, which it is not.
Since the suspects as well as that event’s participants were likely all US citizens or permanent residents, wouldn’t they all be “us” from that standpoint?
From the standpoint of goals and effects, they are basically the same between Daesh/IS/ISIL/ISIS and Geller/AFDI/SIOA/etc.:
A. To cause Americans to fear and loath Muslims (in general, as opposed to Daesh/IS/ISIL/ISIS or jihadis and their ilk in particular) and support groups like AFDI/SIOA/etc. and/or practice discrimination against Muslims.
B. To incite disaffected Muslims to support Daesh/IS/ISIL/ISIS and/or attack Americans.
Presumably, if you agree with the above goals and effects, both Daesh/IS/ISIL/ISIS and Geller/AFDI/SIOA/etc. would be “us” (as an ally) from your point of view. If not, both would be “them” (as an enemy) from your point of view. This would be the case even though one (Daesh/IS/ISIL/ISIS) is more noxious and immediately dangerous due to its violent tendencies.
This statement is silly.
Actual citizens of Garland, Texas.
This event carried the possibility of violence, just as umpteen events per year do. Anytime there is a large gathering of Americans, there is the distinct possibility of terrorism or other violence. But we don’t cancel the Super Bowl, or the State Fair, or peaceful protests because there “might” be an incident or because one time out of 100, someone was shown to be correct about their fears of violence. We don’t deny the LBGT parade its permit because violent homophobes may decide to make an example of someone, we don’t close down the planned parenthood because a rabid pro-lifer won’t keep his gun in his holster, we don’t keep the KKK from marching through the town square because we are worried someone will be “provoked” to murder one of them. And the Garland ISD didn’t cancel the previous event at that building which dealt with the problem of “Islamophobia” because some bubba who hates Muslims might show up to make a point. The 2014 Boston Marathon was deemed to be high risk for copy cat violence; for that matter, almost any marathon could be. But we don’t cancel these. Twice as many people as normal attended the Boston Marathon in 2014-some attended not because they particularly wanted to watch people pass the finish line of a foot race, but to give the proverbial finger to terrorists and show that they would not be bullied into submission.
This cartoon exhibit was not shoved into any Muslim’s face. You would have had to make a deliberate effort to be “offended” by taking the time to travel to this obscure little venue and pay your price for admission, just as you would have to do to see the horribly offensive sight of a woman dancing naked, or the total indecency of a movie which visually simulates the sex act. Any devout Muslim could EASILY go through life without ever viewing these images and feeling the burn of “blasphemy.” I think the focus which has been placed on the actions of the event organizers rather than on those of the attempted murderers has the effect, intended or not, of giving the terrorists just a little bit of a pass.
Perhaps there is less debate about the dead suspects because it appears that pretty much everyone agrees that (assuming that everything is as it appears) (a) they were noxious terrorists whose actions cannot be excused or justified by any reasonable person, (b) their attempt was a complete failure, resulting in them getting killed while killing no one else, and (c) there are no criminal justice issues (what to charge them with, how to try them, death penalty, etc.) to debate since they are already dead.
In which way? Should I rephrase the word support to include statements that attempt to redirect the guilt of their actions to the “provocateurs.” Some here have gone through great length to shoulder the burden of the incidents to the organizers and openly question their motives or objectives.
I call it as see it: redirecting the guilt from the terrorists who decide to take guns to the events is nothing else than expressing a sentiment that the actions might have been justified, including that PC non-sense of having to demonstrate sensibilities to that religion’s most obscure and delude tenets.
Forgive me but that is a battle of pure semantics. The underlying message is that everyone would have been better off if the event had NOT existed and that Geller would have spent her time somewhere else. The same goes with the blanket indictment of the message of that group as being unworthy or deserving of critics.
One can disagree with the message --and obviously NOT spending any time trying to understand the full contents-- without having to express certains sentiments of support or … understanding.
Really? Is that unclear? Those deluded criminals who follow their violent-minded purported clerics with egregious interpretations are not “us.” They are them and that them is a subgroup of Muslims.
ubcalumnus, Rabin’s death was a political assassination, not a question of religious justice within a community. I have no idea how it can be compared especially since Rabin wasn’t in any way a member of a cultishly devout sect. His murder wasn’t about religion, about how devout or not devout he was, but about a substantial political disagreement. (Note that Ariel Sharon pulled settlements from Gaza, something Sharon could do because he was on the political right while Rabin was on the left.) I was talking about places like Kiryas Joel in NY, where there are real issues about the welfare of women and children and how the state of NY has failed in certain case because the community self-isolates.
But to repeat my actual point, the issue people should be afraid of is not attempts to ban cartoons about Muhammed- by violence or protest or changing laws - but that this has never, ever been the limit of demands. As I noted, liberal Muslims are oppressed in many Muslim nations. Even beyond that, if you read Salafist material or Muslim Brotherhood material (or read stuff like [url=<a href=“http://carnegieendowment.org/2015/04/29/egypt-s-salafists-at-crossroads/i7y8%5Dthis%5B/url”>http://carnegieendowment.org/2015/04/29/egypt-s-salafists-at-crossroads/i7y8]this[/url] by the Carnegie Endowment), you see clearly that their belief system cannot accept the kind of open dialogue we take for granted, except of course in a form that they find religiously acceptable. And note that the political jargon expresses that kind of religiously acceptable behavior and speech as “freedom”.
The assassin in this case claimed a religious justification for the murder of Rabin. This is analogous to others who claim religious justifications for heinous murders or attempts.
“The assassin in this case claimed a religious justification for the murder of Rabin. This is analogous to others who claim religious justifications for heinous murders or attempts.”
What and why are you analogizing? The murder of one person with the mass execution of many thousands of people?
Next, are you going to make an analogy with the Crusades?
" I call it as see it: redirecting the guilt from the terrorists who decide to take guns to the events is nothing else than expressing a sentiment that the actions might have been justified, including that PC non-sense of having to demonstrate sensibilities to that religion’s most obscure and delude tenets."
You betcha.
I personally am very careful not to offend people, and never put them on the defensive, always trying to make people feel good about themselves. HOWEVER, there is a part of me that appreciates this kind of activity, as a declaration of—Those of you who want to execute people because they aren’t showing proper respect to your religion? You can go ahead and kiss my freedom loving, respect for women loving, irreverent white hairless American ass.
Is it not an argument of semantics to assert this:
Maybe it’s not an issue of semantics. Maybe it’s just your opinion. Regardless, I disagree.
“Redirecting the guilt” I assume means disagreeing with Geller and opposing the event … I think that, while it’s your opinion and you certainly have a right to it, to posit that disagreeing with Geller is in effect, giving support to whatever reaction the deluded terrorists among us decide to take is overreaching to the extent that it looks like an attempt to shut down any dissent. It sounds like "you’re with Geller, or you’re with the terrorists. " Well, no to that.
If these criminals hadn’t bothered to drive from Phoenix to Texas with their guns and goal of jihad, I still would have disagreed with Geller in general and this event in particular. So because the attack occurred, my opposition can be smeared as support for terrorists bent on murder?
No.
right…
one group draws a picture and the other one murders thousands of people.
I can see how those might be the same.
Is that the white wine talking? 
Their goals and intended effects of their actions are the same, even though their actions are drastically different. Yes, some actions (attempted murder) are much more noxious than others, but do you really suggest that non-violent actions in pursuit of noxious goals are praiseworthy?
"Is that the white wine talking? "
Oh, I’m so offended! I would never drink white wine. Red, only. Do you think I have no taste, whatsoever? 
Sorry, busdriver, you are WRONG!
White is far superior and more patriotic than red. Is there no end to the polarization? Sigh.
Can’t we all get along and just drink blush?