Two shot outside Muhammad Art Exhibit in Garland

a reply to: MystikMushroom

You know, I'd be willing to go along with the theory.

After all, it as happened that way more than a few times before, and it does ease my mind a bit living in that area. A lot easier to think they were lead in the right direction instead of a couple of crazy people went too far on their own.

Living less than 10 miles from where this happened, seeing the amount of helicopters that got scrambled from a base to the northeast of us, as well as all the police and news helicopters it makes it a little bit easier to sleep at night.

My wife was home, said she heard a bunch of them going back and forth. She usually doesn't think much of these things but the amount that were going overhead, and that they were not going up I-30 like they usually do, she could tell something was up.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Pretty sure saying that ISIS is in america cause 2 nut jobs got shot in texas is a stretch.

Supporting by twitter and actually being a part of something is 100% different.

Crazy concept I know.

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: cathouse42

Another thought...

Its amazing how shooting two muslims has some people cheering for the Police again, isn't it? - after all the negativity recently.

I see your point. However, there is a difference between these frequent reports of unarmed African Americans dying in encounters with the police and two men wearing bulletproof vests and shooting at a conference center.

a reply to: thenewguy1987

If you start doing some research, the FBI has a long history of using informants.

The FBI gave its informants permission to break the law at least 5,658 times in a single year, according to newly disclosed documents that show just how often the nation's top law enforcement agency enlists criminals to help it battle crime.

...

Agents authorized 15 crimes a day, on average, including everything from buying and selling illegal drugs to bribing government officials and plotting robberies. FBI officials have said in the past that permitting their informants — who are often criminals themselves — to break the law is an indispensable, if sometimes distasteful, part of investigating criminal organizations.

USA Today

So you take some criminals that are willing to work "undercover" for reduced sentences, allow them to break laws and build rapport and trust with people 'on the fence' about committing crimes. This allows you to justify your budgets and existence.

The days of testing someone to see if they're a cop is over -- these informants can break laws, use drugs, ect.

originally posted by: Kali74
Absolutely, it is sick. It's also sick (not to the same degree) to go around doing extremely offensive things with that very intention. Portraying the prophet, piss Christ... these are not the doings of free speech advocates they are the doings of sociopaths and hate mongers.

There's no reason why we can't simultaneously call out bigotry and defend free speech.

I'm on the fence about this. I saw Pamela Geller on CNN this morning and while she is an abrasive person I have to agree with most of what she said. If they want to draw offensive cartoons or bad mouth Muslims or put statues of Christ in piss they have the right to do that without people trying to kill them. If we're only going to defend inoffensive speech we don't really have free speech.

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: dr1234

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: Bigburgh

originally posted by: Greathouse
I wouldn't be surprised if it comes out this was a trap set up to tempt Islamic extremism.

That thought did cross my mind. But by whom? Geller or the government?

Local police FBI Department of Homeland Security who knows.

But if they are extremist and they capture one of them alive. I sure hope they don't deprive him of any sleep. (Sarcasm)

You also live in a generation that faces a greater threat from cops than terrorists.

That makes perfect sense because there are hundreds of thousands of policemen that work and live within this country 24/7. The terrorist just show up occasionally with attempts to massacre groups of people.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

originally posted by: roadgravel
I imagine this event will be used to whip up public support to fight ISIS. News of ISIS seems to have dwindled over the last few weeks.

is whipping up support to eradicate ISIS a bad thing?

They killed hundreds Yazidi this weekend

www.cnn.com...

I don't know what it is going to take to wake us up to the fact the enemy is at the gates, heck the enemy is within the gates.

If it is so meaningful and the right thing to do, why hasn't something been done yet. I get the impression power and money mean more than the average world citizen's life. It looks too much like a world power game.

I've fought in the middle east for whatever reason was given at the time. I've taken lives that shouldn't have been taken and for what? Freedom. Oil. Flapping flags of our fathers fluttering in the breeze and then folded - handed to mothers in the guise of honor and loyalty while their rotting children pay for an increased bottom line. Didn't used to be like this but this is the way thing are. It's a distraction.

So do the don't draw Mohammad rules apply to people that are not Muslim?
'

It just seems to me they have been more anal about this recently,

here is an old one

floppingaces.net...

originally posted by: DelMarvel
If we're only going to defend inoffensive speech we don't really have free speech.

Quoted for truth.

Polite, politically correct, nice, innoffensive speech requires no protection.

The 1st Amendment was designed to protect speech that others would find disagreable.

Somewhat off topic but the "no images of Mohammed" rule was to stop idol worship which was common in that region at the time.

They shouldn't have to worry about that by this point. It's just another example of religion entrenched in calcified legalism.

originally posted by: DelMarvel
Somewhat off topic but the "no images of Mohammed" rule was to stop idol worship which was common in that region at the time.

They shouldn't have to worry about that by this point. It's just another example of religion entrenched in calcified legalism.

Which is highly ironic, considering they idolize Mohammed SO much they're willing to kill people over pictures and drawings of him.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Stormdancer777

Pretty sure saying that ISIS is in america cause 2 nut jobs got shot in texas is a stretch.

Supporting by twitter and actually being a part of something is 100% different.

Crazy concept I know.

Got news for ya. There's more than two ISIS members in America right now, book it. They're just waiting for the signal. Like the call on 9-11.

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: Kali74
Absolutely, it is sick. It's also sick (not to the same degree) to go around doing extremely offensive things with that very intention. Portraying the prophet, piss Christ... these are not the doings of free speech advocates they are the doings of sociopaths and hate mongers.

There's no reason why we can't simultaneously call out bigotry and defend free speech.

I'm on the fence about this. I saw Pamela Geller on CNN this morning and while she is an abrasive person I have to agree with most of what she said. If they want to draw offensive cartoons or bad mouth Muslims or put statues of Christ in piss they have the right to do that without people trying to kill them. If we're only going to defend inoffensive speech we don't really have free speech.

www.youtube.com...

Nothing I said is contrary to that. I don't understand the misconception, what I said was clear. People must absolutely have the right to do what Geller did and people should also be able to shout, not to be confused with shoot, her down for it.

And if what you are asking is that people elect not to use their free speech to shout her down, I have one answer for you. No.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I'm sorry, but from what little I know about this event ...



it reeks



I wonder which agency's informant "encouraged" these two? They always use throwaway "informants" for these types of things...plausible deniability.



And the sad thing? We eat up whatever the TV/radio news tells us. We nod our heads with blank states and dull eyes. No one ever digs deep enough or uncovers the truth about these things until many years later when it doesn't matter.

So, instead of the 'lone gunman' theory we are now doing 'two gunmen'? Boston Bomber, Charlie Hebdo and now Garland shooting. Interesting...

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Bigburgh

But hey it is her right to do this...

Which I get, but how hard do we need to poke the bear to prove a point.

Hate begets hate.

Hey it brought two Islamic nut job terrorist out of hiding so i say keep them coming. If your so thin skinned that someone making a cartoon bothers you, then that is YOUR issue, not some innocent person or someone laughing at you for getting all mad. Bravo to the cop who shot both of them and sent them straight to Allah. This cop stopped many innocents from being shot. That's what real police do!!!!

a reply to: UnBreakable

Got news for ya. There's more than two ISIS members in America right now, book it. They're just waiting for the signal. Like the call on 9-11.

Hopefully they all meet the same type of Marksman that will send them straight to hell before they kill innocent people. Our ignorant inept government lets them walk right over the border so its us Americans that will likely be stopping them. Everyone needs to watch out for terrorist no matter what you think of racial profiling. Its not a crime to keep an eye on someone acting shady.

[Self-Purged by Railgun]

I won't break the T&C today. ^__^

originally posted by: cathouse42

originally posted by: roadgravel
So did the Patriot Act make it illegal and punishable for a person to say they want to join what is labeled a terrorist group.

Punished for the words, not the action.

Kind of like saying "i can hack this plane electronics" on twitter but not actually do it?

www.forbes.com...


Thought crime is real.

Thought crime is nonsense...

Conspiracy to commit *insert crime* with reasonable suspicion is always gonna be illegal.


Thought crimes do not exist.