Posted on 05/04/2015 8:18:52 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
When political commentators note that there is no justification for sexual violence, they aren’t adhering to doctrinal feminism but the tenets of civilized Western thought. No woman, a responsible citizen would say, invites violence merely because their assailant was uncontrollably stimulated by their victim’s choice of attire. This is such a bedrock principle of human decency that it barely needs to be said. Only the most brutish and crude among us would contend otherwise. Why then does it appear vogue to imply that a terrorist attack on a Texas American Freedom Defense Initiative event organized by the group’s president, Pamela Geller, was the inevitable result of provocation on the part of the victims?
Yes, the event that was targeted by Islamist militants in Texas was specifically designed to provoke an inflamed response. The AFDI event promised a $10,000 reward for the attendee who drew the best caricature of the Islamic Prophet Mohammed – an offense that inspired the massacre of editors and cartoonists at the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo.
Far from being spontaneous, this act of violence was preceded on Twitter by users praising the attackers as “mujahideen” and approving of their decision to martyr themselves for the cause of radical Islam....
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Oh, and then there is also that whole beheading, torturing, burning alive, stoning, forcing into sex slavery and crucifying thing.
Like it or not, Islam has declared war on us and they are fighting that war while we refuse to accept that we are at war and are in the process of being attacked all over the world.
Guys like these two Jihadi are just doing their part to further the Jihad. We need to remind the rest of the would be Jihadi that they live in our world and play by our rules here in the United States.
I had mixed emotions about Geller's provocative and intentionally offensive contest but these two Jihadi pretty much validated the point she was trying to make.
The media is putting forth a version of the old “she wanted to be raped” defense of the muslims on this story.
It also seems to be fading very fast off of the news cycle too.
The Left, being philosophically female in orientation, only exhibits aggressive behaviors when they are reasonably secure their target is unable, or unwilling, to respond in kind.
As if.
Curious as to exactly what went down. How many officers engaged and what weapons did they have? Bad guys supposedly had rifles.
Some thoughts regarding our loss of freedom of speech at the hands of the jihadists....
What the first amendment protects us from is the government (specifically Congress) from abridging the freedom of speech and the press.
It does not protect us from any person or group restricting our free speech. For example, the islamists have learned that by terrorizing (or simply threatening to terrorize) people that say and do what offends them they can shut them up the constitution be damned.
They willingly sacrifice a few of their own to achieve that. And by setting an example such as Charlie Hebdo, they managed to effectively silence all public outlets of speech that they don’t like. And our constitution ain’t going to do squat to get that back for us. No media that has a public presence is going to publish a cartoon of mohammed, even if they’re anti islam. The reason of course is that they don’t want to be massacred.
So how do we get our freedom of speech and of the press back?
Well since the reason the media has chosen to self-censor themselves out of FEAR of getting killed, then the solution would seem to lie in eradicating that fear.
How does one do that? Well there are two options:
1. exterminate the source of the fear, or
2. protect yourself from the source of the fear, or
3. some combination of 1 and 2.
Option 1, exterminating the source of the fear would mean exterminating the jihadists. But that’s easier said than done because you would have to first identify them. And after you identify them, on what basis would you arrest them before they’ve committed any crime? And would any law that allows that violate the freedom of religion portion of the first amendment? I would think some smart legal mind ought to be able to come up with something acceptable, since similar laws existed for Nazi and communist sympathizers during WW2 and the Cold War.
Option 2, taking well planned and a priori protective measures before you “offensively speak” (and forever more). This is essentially what Pamela Geller and Co. did in Texas. That works pretty well but it’s quite expensive and restrictive. Imagine the armies that would be needed to protect the NYT or LAT or any big public outlet and all their workers and families. Also, even though it might protect you from being massacred, you might have to do the massacring (as in this case in Texas), and who wants to go through that hell.
It may take both 1 and 2 to solve the problem. We need many more Pamela Gellers, whom I truly admire for her courage and her dedication to protecting our freedom of expression.
If many other public outlets would do what Geller did in a coordinated way, it would flush out (and end up killing) quite a few of these islamists. Also in the investigations that follow a lot of intelligence would be gathered that would point to other islamists in the network and they could be arrested, thus putting into operation option 1.
Of course it would be extremely helpful in carrying this out if we had a leader that orchestrated this and made abundantly clear that there is a war against enemies of our cherished freedoms. Unfortunately right now not only we don’t have that, but we have someone who himself is an enemy of our freedoms.
Initial reports from law enforcement was a traffic officer saw the two get out of their car and start shooting. He engaged and quickly took out one of the two with a head shot, more exchange of gunfire and then another headshot for the second terrorist. Both were killed with a handgun. Both shot in the head because the terrorists appeared to be wearing body armor of some sort. That may turn out to be non-protective tactical vests, but so be it. Engaging two AK toting freaks with a handgun takes some serious guts. Hitting them in the head takes some serious calm under fire.
Where is the ACLU?
They went to court to affirm the KKK’s right to march through Skokie, Illinois (a predominately Jewish neighborhood).
Do they support the AFDI’s right to fee speech, too?
I sincerely suspect the reason no moslems were there to protest is because they knew what was going to happen. Being peaceful and moderate like we are told they all are, the simply “forgot” to tell authorities about the coming attack.
By that statement, they would also assert that those who insult Christians would also get what they deserved if Christians decided to start killing those who insulted them.... they would, wouldn’t they?
Yeppers...
The District of Criminals LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVES Muzzies.
My ex wife, Morgan Fairchild, told me I make “The Queens” breakfast.
Exactly. Trump is (in)famous for his highly public, highly petty squabbles. He burns through the yellow ink faster than most. I guess the takeaway is that Trump is just another “Do as I say, not as I do” klown.
Oh, no. He’s a liberal. He spews the hate on which their narrow little worldview depends.
OK, then, how about Islamofascist?
If the media can’t pronounce the word “jihadist” then “Islamofascist” just becomes mush in their mouths.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.