Shooting at Muhammad cartoon contest in Texas

This has me somewhat conflicted, and I think there's room for multiple angles of feelings and opinions.

On one hand, murder for depicting Muhammad is so fucking dumb, not only for its extreme overreaction, but also because there isn't anything in the Quran or Haddiths that explicitly prohibits the depiction of the prophet.

But this group is pretty goddamn anti-Muslim. I think they're considered a hate group by some. They're assholes, without a doubt. They can be as anti-Muslim as they want, though, and if the byproduct is they kill some wannabe jihadists who make the dumb decision to attack them, that's not the worst thing in the world. But the next attack on something like this might not be just two morons. I hope the potential cost is worth it to this group of assholes.

On the other hand, this "free speech" threat nonsense is ridiculous. This group thinks Islam is out to extinguish speech in this country (it isn't), and these two idiots gave them exactly what they wanted -- an example to continue to spread their message of fear mongering.

 

The Washington Post ran the Hebdo cartoons. More than once, too, IIRC.

 

I don't think you know how "extremism" works.

 

Which is part of the problem. Why are they so extreme? And is there any hope of having them turn from extremism? If not, then why bother trying not to provoke them, especially when they will find any reason to be provoked?

 

It's pretty clear at this point that we're not reasoning our way to winning the war. They took up arms against us, and we did the same in return. Violence was met with violence.

I'd be just a little uncomfortable with every gun-toting jerkoff in America picking fights with every Muslim they see, because freedom. You want to fight them? Join the military. Don't turn to vigilantism.

 

I'd have to go back and look, but my memory is that the editorial page showed a single cartoon, a single time. The news pages didn't show any of the cartoons.

 

There was never a compelling reason to show the Hebdo cartoons. It wasn't the specific content of the cartoons that was at issue, just the fact that they depicted Mohammed. And it wasn't the Times' or any other news agency's job to strike a blow in some imaginary culture wars battle to appease Islamaphobes.

 

Let's say we all voluntarily agree that we will not make fun of or depict the Prophet. Do we think that would be it? Devout Muslims would have no more issues with American society, and would make no more demands of it?

In all of human history, has appeasement ever been met with such a response?

Has a single advocacy group ever won a victory, and then suspended further advocacy?

Wouldn't we expect devout Muslims to move on to other issues, and fight on behalf of them?

 

This is silly Cran.

Piss Christ and the Holy VIrgin Mary were depicted in the Times and other publications.

Short of pornography, there is no reason for a publication to simply describe an image, when they can publish it for their readers to see for themselves.

 

One cartoon ran on the editorial page. The other, the one published right after the massacre, ran on the front page.

I don't see why it matters where in the paper they ran. You called them cowards for not running them at all. That's clearly not true.

 

Why don't you see what our U.S. military policy is in the countries where we are fighting?

Is it to kill all the Muslims because they'd never settle for our Christian ways or is it to fight the extremists, win hearts of the locals and forge alliances with more reasonable -- though perhaps still devout -- groups?

 

No the images you cite are controversial because of the content. The Mohammed depictions are controversial just because they have been created. The images are offensive to millions of people, much like pornography.