extremist muslims get lit up in texas

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by armyveteran248 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I find it odd that the American Freedom Defense Initiative is labeled an "anti-muslim hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The AFDI is led by Pamela Geller - a known racist. They have another name more appropriate for their cause: Stop Islamization of America. I wonder how many news outlets are using that name.

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Samoht, your entire argument is offensive to me and could cause freedom loving Americans to engage in acts of violence. If you truly believe in the crap you espouse, then you'd agree that the only right thing is for you to stop posting. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.

If you want to talk about freedom, try doing it in places that actually need freedom. Go to China. Go to Russia. Hell, even the UK and Australia need help because of their heavy-handed censorship. This group was not trying to spread freedom in the USA. People in the USA are already free. They are trying to spread hate speech in the USA. They are trying to spread xenophobia and racism. We do not need those things in the modern world.

Originally Posted by Swish [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Most people can't even get a visa to work there but these guys are ok?

Trust me, we don't want people on work visas in America. And it's not because they're foreigners; it's because American corporations use them as cheap, virtually slave-like labor. The middle class is disappearing because they value their bottom line over having future customers. They steal all the resources for themselves and leave none for tomorrow, but that's a different argument.

[Ravager]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

People in the USA are already free.

If you say so. There are many disenfranchised groups who would say otherwise. Freedom from oppressive groups, whether they be militants or bureaucrats, isn't something that's won and done. To say we don't need to be vigilant about protecting everyone's rights, even the rights of the hatemongers, is as ignorant as the hatemonger's bigoted messages. Just as it's their right voice their idiotic opinions, it's your right to counter their idiotic opinions with rational argument, or just ignore them. You can't be selective about whose rights you protect. That's the first step away from freedom.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you say so. There are many disenfranchised groups who would say otherwise. Freedom from oppressive groups, whether they be militants or bureaucrats, isn't something that's won and done.

Other than the police, can you please name for me one militant group on our shores that is actively suppressing the local population? I agree that disenfranchised groups exist, and that we need to update certain laws so that they no longer unequally target those living in poverty, but that's unrelated to the situation that has occurred here.

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To say we don't need to be vigilant about protecting everyone's rights, even the rights of the hatemongers, is as ignorant as the hatemonger's bigoted messages. Just as it's their right voice their idiotic opinions, it's your right to counter their idiotic opinions with rational argument, or just ignore them.

Simply voicing ones opinion is a far cry from holding a hate-filled revenge rally at an educational facility because a Muslim outreach program took place there a few months prior. Pamela Geller offered an award based on hatred, not free speech. It is her right, but we do not need more people like her exercising that right with the aim to achieve the same results. We do not need copy cats.

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You can't be selective about whose rights you protect.

Who is protecting the rights of the civilians in this scenario? Innocent bystanders were not injured in the Garland incident, but if we allow the tension to scale up, it is inevitable that casualties will occur.

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's the first step away from freedom.

Violence and hatred are not synonymous with freedom. If you continue to take divisive action against your neighbor, one of you will never be free. Pamela Geller is advocating war based on the controversy that her campaign against Islam has started. If we go to war against our neighbors on her behalf, our neighbors will not be free. Freedom is for everybody. Not just white Christians.

[Ravager]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Other than the police, can you please name for me one militant group on our shores that is actively suppressing the local population? I agree that disenfranchised groups exist, and that we need to update certain laws so that they no longer unequally target those living in poverty, but that's unrelated to the situation that has occurred here.

Pretty sure those that attacked the rally with assault rifles can be considered militant.

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Simply voicing ones opinion is a far cry from holding a hate-filled revenge rally at an educational facility because a Muslim outreach program took place there a few months prior. Pamela Geller offered an award based on hatred, not free speech. It is her right, but we do not need more people like her exercising that right with the aim to achieve the same results. We do not need copy cats.

The rally holders were well within their rights to their peaceful assembly. They did not infringe on the rights of anyone else.

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Who is protecting the rights of the civilians in this scenario? Innocent bystanders were not injured in the Garland incident, but if we allow the tension to scale up, it is inevitable that casualties will occur.

The guards that were there. The police that were there.

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Violence and hatred are not synonymous with freedom. If you continue to take divisive action against your neighbor, one of you will never be free. Pamela Geller is advocating war based on the controversy that her campaign against Islam has started. If we go to war against our neighbors on her behalf, our neighbors will not be free. Freedom is for everybody. Not just white Christians.

I'm not agreeing with her. But she can scream her rhetoric all day long as it's her right and not violating anyone else's rights. It's everyone's right to listen to her or not. It is nobody's right to murder people at a peaceful assembly and everyone's right to defend themselves from people who attack them, provoked or not.

These terrorists are just assholes who want to kill people. If it's not about cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, they'll find some other reason. Being scared of them does not justify taking away people's rights.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Pretty sure those that attacked the rally with assault rifles can be considered militant.

That doesn't really scream active oppression to me...

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The guards that were there. The police that were there.

The same outcome cannot be guaranteed every time.

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It is nobody's right to murder people at a peaceful assembly

Nobody has said it was. But we can be responsible in the future and not allow people to try to copy her rally with the intent on drawing more fire.

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

These terrorists are just assholes who want to kill people.

Terrorists? Is this describing Pamela Geller, the extremists that attacked at the Garland rally, or someone else? Seems ambiguous.

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Being scared of them does not justify taking away people's rights.

We also have the responsibility to protect civilians from senseless violence.

[Ezalor]

Originally Posted by armyveteran248 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The SPLC is a politically motivated entity, and has little credibility. Hell, they listed Dr. Ben Carson, a neuro-surgeon who literally saved the lives of dying children, a "monger of hate speech" for his positions on gay marriage. Dr. Carson is wrong about gay marriage, but I seriously doubt that he is full of hate or has hate in his heart toward homosexuals

“Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery” - Ben Carson

clearly the words of an apolitical baby-rescuing intellectual oozing with credibility [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Ezalor]

Originally Posted by armyveteran248 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What was being said is that he doesn't hate homosexuals or harbor ill will toward them, even if he is against gay marriage.

you mean like when Ben Carson compared gay people to pedophiles? or when he warned that gay marriage was part of a plot by “neo-Marxists” who plan to “bring America down"” or when he said that being gay was a choice because of prison sex? or when he argued that gay marriage threatens free speech?

you, sir, are fucking retarded

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by armyveteran248 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

However, the facts speak for themselves: Dr. Carson has saved the lives of dozens of children and its on official record. As far as his credibility on Obamacare goes, he was in charge of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins, so he has more working knowledge of medical administration and healthcare costs than most.

Yeah, but has his position against gay rights earned him a spot on the "banned in the UK" list? If not, he's not even on the same level as Pamela Geller.

[dafier]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Samoht....

LOL! Truth. He reminds me of this little 90lbs Indian (from India) guy that I work with. Funny thing is; His name is Muhammed!

Anyway....

Christian vs Muslim forever.

It will ALWAYS be like that. If you have any historical and religious education you will know what I say is true.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

it's just post after post of petty bullshit and moving the goalposts.

Hi, below you will find an excerpt from my first post in this thread:

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

now i in no way support violence to retaliate against cartoons, but i can see this going too far. at some point, the extremists are going to show up with more men, more guns, and/or just plain old blowing the building up killing a lot of civilians.

Can you please show me where I have deviated from this stance, or as you phrased it, moved the goal posts?