This is a common argument for the apologists. If we weren't so "mean to them" they wouldn't attack us. Same idea as people who spout nonsense about the US being the world's leading terrorist.

You know, we get into conflicts, so that justifies their attacks on us. It's ridiculous.

Muslims are just supposed to submit like black people are supposed to submit to cops?

Nope. Just decided to open up this thread and seeing you behave exactly the same as in other threads just made burst out laughing. It's literally word for word. You take a position. Someone disagrees. You say they don't have reading comprehension because, you know, they don't agree with what you've said. Obviously everyone who disagrees with you just don't possess reading skills as the people who do.

He's totally right. The left has totally lost their minds on this particular topic.

1) defend free speech.

2) don't offend Muslims.

Pick one. Free speech doesn't mean you have to agree with what the other side are saying. That's not how free speech works. As brought up earlier, the Westboro Baptist church are pretty much universally reviled in this country, but that doesn't take away their right to have their opinion. You either believe in the concept or you don't. You don't get to pick what stuff offends you and what doesn't. That's not how it works.

What are they "submitting" to? What rights are taken away from them? They are constitutionally protected, just as every other group of people are.

Guess what? As much as you despise a view, sometimes you have to come down on the side of people you might revile. Rights are rights, they are universal, you don't get to pick and choose who gets rights and who doesn't.

"Muslims are just supposed to submit". Lol. What kind of 19-year-old-college-student-logic bull**** is this?

Oh good, wil has discovered this thread. I can't possibly imagine what's about to ensue.

Here, I think, is part of the disconnect. The two gunmen aren't special little ponies, they aren't any different than the thousands of of other murderers/attempted murderers this country produces every year. Iow they are inconsequential to society overall. The bigots, otoh, actually have some amount of influence, and are thus a bigger net negative to society than the handful of dip****s who are going to try to kill people for drawing a picture. This isn't really anything more than a who's worse argument. No one is arguing the would be murderers are swell folks, and few itt would be happy to hang out with the idiot organizers.

Oh and lol @ incompetent terrorist wannabes.

really?

I guarantee I could come up with a plan if I were charged with the future security of my country.

Sitting around hoping they have a change of attitude is asinine. Isn't that what the world did while Hitler slowly built up a force so powerful it almost took over the world? At this point ISIS poses nowhere near the threat Hitler's forces posed in 1939 but where will ISIS be in five or ten years? Their intentions are clear and they should be dealt with now.

Eyescrew getting to Godwin's law is the best thing I'll read all day.

Let me ask you this--how many typical leftie politards would now be in this thread saying those two Arabic men who got their asses kicked should have known better than to antagonize white trash Texans?

Don't say the analogy sucks without at least giving us a hint as to why.

If you had two choices:

A) Join them
B) Make every effort to stop them

Which would you choose?

This is a false argument.

Well, ikes and you and others keep lying about what I've said itt, so I don't know what to tell you.

You can do both.


If only liberals would admit that that people have a right to their opinion.



Of course you get to pick what offends you and what doesn't. What an unbelievably terrible argument.

Why didn't you ask him if he was drunk? You like to switch substances between different posters?

Keep it up.

Well then we would be condemning the Texans committing the violence. If you want to jump all over an American flag go ahead, its your right to do so.

In this scenario, I would want the rednecks prosecuted, although I would also be thinking "what a couple of dumb asses" in regards to Muslims who would try to burn a US flag in front of a group of Texas rednecks.

Naturally, you completely mischaracterized my argument.

He's totally right. The right has totally lost their minds on this particular topic.

1) defend free speech.

2) don't criticize goofy.

Pick one.

I'm pretty sure that if a bunch of Muslims in Texas got beat up or killed for burning a flag or ****ting on a crucifix - the thrust of this thread wouldn't be - this is about free speech stop victim-blaming stupid libtards. The thrust of the thread would be more like "Yeah the rednecks suck, but what the **** were the Muslims thinking? Why are you throwing rocks at a bee hive?"

I mean we know right now exactly what would happen if a Muslim group in Texas did something truly offensive to the US, or Christianity. Muslims get protested if they even try to have a gathering in Texas. And here. Rednecks would straight up lose their **** if Muslims actually did something that was offensive to them in a public way. To suggest otherwise just beggars belief and common sense.

So by the logic of many itt - shouldn't Muslims already be out there doing it to prove a point about free speech? And if they did shouldn't we be supporting them and spending all our efforts condemning the stupid rednecks?

And of course the larger point is this has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with a bunch of bigots trying to drive off the 10% or so Muslim minority that they have in Garland, TX. Garland wasn't chosen at random.

Ok....comparing random things to Hitler and the quick rise (and fall) of fascism in Europe pretty much always sucks. Especially in this case when there is a far better analogy with communism in Europe. We are making the same mistakes again with unnecessary civil rights restrictions (McCarthyism/NSA snooping) and bizarre, nonsensical proxy wars (Vietnam/Iraq) that don't seem to really be helping. I think we can make a strong case that we should largely ignore radical islam because its not really a serious threat to western civilization like we now know communism really wasn't with the benefit of hindsight.

Granted, I also think Hitler appeasement gets a bad rap when it was likely the correct way to go.....at least thats what i got from a random Harvard senior thesis written by a person of no note.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...ee-speech-case

ITT explain to me how it's possible to do both regarding the event in question. You either support free speech and the event or you don't because it offends Muslims

The article I posted above sums it up. I think Geller has every right to publish her message and assemble to discuss it without the threat of violence, she should be well protected and no harm should come to her or anyone who listens to her, but I reject her message.

I can also exercise my right to call her a bigoted *******.