Texas Shooting

Now that the facts are out, I have a a few random thoughts about Sunday’s shooting in Texas, which apparently involved two wannabe jihadis trying to shoot up a meeting where people would draw images of Muhammed.

First, I have no use for Pamela Geller and her compadres. They spew anti-Islamic invective whenever they can, are frequently factually challenged and hold events like this to be deliberately provocative.

That having been said, the blame for this is totally on the shooters and their vile religious beliefs. Every religion has its critics and its mockers. But you don’t see Christians, even fundamentalist ones, shooting up meetings of atheists or trying to murder Richard Dawkins. As Amy Alkon reminds us, there is no free speech in fundamentalist Islam. The radicals regard murdering “blasphemers” as their duty. We can never forget that.

Second, this event is protected speech no matter how much the pantywaists and thought-controllers try to pretend it isn’t. Our commitment to free speech is most tested with provocative or even insulting speech. And our commitment should stay strong even in the face of gunfire.

Third, according to Mother Jones, this was not a mass shooting stopped by someone with a gun. As I’ve noted many times, they require four people to be killed before it counts as a mass shooting or an attempted one.

And finally … Texas? Seriously? You guys thought you were going to win a shootout in Texas? When I lived down there, I was the least-armed person in my carpool lane.

Comments are closed.

  1. richtaylor365

    Just curious, what do you think about Geller’s bus signs?

     They spew anti-Islamic invective whenever they can, are frequently factually challenged and hold events like this to be deliberately provocative.

    Let’s take this one at a time. So calling radical Islam out on their own bullshit is “invective”? Having a dialogue with folks who would kill you for disagreeing with them is impossible, is that invective?  Sharia gives us dhimmis only two choices, convert or die, not sure how exposing their idiocy is invective. Is it that she calls them savages? How is this type of thinking not savage like?

    As far as factually challenged, please provide some examples of this.

    And as for being “deliberately provocative”, would not you calling their beliefs “vile” like you did in this post, would not they view this as being deliberately provocative? Criticizing Islam, going to the movies, listening to the radio, using the internet, going to the beach not covered head to toe, not hanging gays or stoning adulterers, all these actions would be viewed by the Koran adherent as being provocative and an affront to their beliefs.

    The radicals regard murdering “blasphemers” as their duty.

     

    Quite so, that is why using terms like “deliberately provocative” when talking about radical Islam seems (to me) so misplaced.

    Third, according to Mother Jones, this was not a mass shooting stopped by someone with a gun. As I’ve noted many times, they require four people to be killed before it counts as a mass shooting or an attempted one.

     

    Oh, Hal, who gives a flying f*ck what Mother Jones thinks? These two “savages” dressed in body armor and totting assault weapons were not out just to give the artists a good scare. They were out to commit mass murder, or do you deny this? A traffic cop with a hand gun takes down 2 terrorists (is it provocative to call them terrorists?) with assault weapons, good on him,  now here is a hero.

     

     

    Thumb up 2

  2. Hal_10000 *

    Oh, Hal, who gives a flying f*ck what Mother Jones thinks? 

    Because their claim that mass shootings are on the rise is playing a big role in gun control efforts right now.  And it’s complete bullshit based on a garbage study. Every time a shooting happens, the MJ study is dragged out.

    (I’ll respond on the Geller stuff when I have some time.)

    Thumb up 0

  3. richtaylor365

    Oh, so you were mocking MJ and their terminology/metrics? OK, sorry I did not get it. But to be fair, you have cited MJ in the past as a source. You included that Franklin Harris tweet, were you mocking him as well?

    Thumb up 0

  4. Hal_10000 *

    Oh, I agree with Franklin Harris.

    To return to Gellar: this is a woman who has accused Obama of being a jihad-supporting muslim, has opposed the opening of secular Muslim schools, told numerous lies about the Cordoba house (the “ground zero mosque”) and its creators, has said that Islam (as practiced) needs to be abolished, is a birther among other conspiracy theories, says Islam allows bestiality, has claimed the Bosnian Muslim genocide as a myth, that Stalin was right to murder Chechen Muslims. She accused American Muslims of supporting the Charlie Hebdo attack (false) as well as supporting other terror attacks (also falsely). She constantly says no Muslims condemn things that millions of Muslims are condemning.

    She associates with any anti-Islamic group, including a fascist German group.  At this event, she was hosting Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician who has called for the Koran to be banned and Muslims to be expelled from the Netherlands.  She’s allied herself to the English Defense League, a radical right wing British sect. Her SIOA group includes people who want to ban the practice of Islam and have written pseudo-historical texts claiming a vast Muslim conspiracy that were cited by mass murderer Anders Brevick as justification for his actions.

    This event in particular was a response to a “sharia event” in January. The event was no such thing (the title was literally “Stand with the prophet against terror and hate and was about teaching Muslims how to promote tolerance).

    Condemning radicals is fine.  I did it above.  What Geller does is claim that every Muslim is a radical, that anyone who opposes her is a radical and that any concession to any aspect of Islam — such as halal meat or an Islamic school — is “creeping Sharia”.  She’s a crazy bigot who plays on the concerns of decent people to make herself famous.

    And she absolutely has the right to be one.

    Thumb up 1

  5. Hal_10000 *

    (Addendum: this does not mean everyone at the Garland event was a bigot; just that the woman who organized it and the man who was the keynote speaker are.)

    Thumb up 0

  6. hist_ed

    Umm Hal what is a “secular Muslim school”?

    and “She accused American Muslims of supporting the Charlie Hebdo attack (false)”  So no American Muslims supported the attack?  Not one?
    I am really not too familiar with Miss Gellar.  Can you provide any links to support your other claims?

    Thumb up 0