The tags prove nothing at this point.
The tags prove nothing at this point.
They are probably saving the raids for the real terrorist, vets, 2A activist, and the truly terrorizing constitutionalist.
The school security guard was injured in the ankle. He is out of the hospital.
Vehicle and bodies still on the ground.
This is the same school facility that the Islamic community used earlier this year to put on a "stand with the Phophet" to combat Islamiphobia to create some dialog that not all of the Islamic faith are terrorists. The school just leases the space.
There were a lot of protests at the time by people that disagreed with what was going on. No violence occurred. There were a lot of angry words though.
This event was a response to that event.
Vehicle and bodies still on the ground.
This is the same school facility that the Islamic community used earlier this year to put on a "stand with the Phophet" to combat Islamiphobia to create some dialog that not all of the Islamic faith are terrorists. The school just leases the space.
There were a lot of protests at the time by people that disagreed with what was going on. No violence occurred. There were a lot of angry words though.
This event was a response to that event.
Ask me about hating Muslims, for fun and profit. Drudge actually has the headline "ISIS strikes in Texas", that's quite a leap from two Mohammedans to ISIS. I guess whatever scares joe and Jane 6pack the most will always win out.
ISIS is claiming responsibility and one of the attackers tweet his devotion to ISIS
I'm sorry, I meant that as tongue in cheek. My sarcasm font was not on. I simply meant, that is the way the media would spin it.
I'm afraid that the only raids to come out of this will be the government going after the event organizers for hate crimes. Hope like hell I'm wrong.
I had to look up who Pamela Geller was. Some very very strange behavior regarding this event.
If you wanted to publish photos of Christ or Christians in a derogatory manner, would that be allowed? Would politicians speak out against it, try to get the government to intervene to stop it? We see attacks on Christianity all the time and from every quarter. Yet in this instance, several members of Congress tried to get the keynote speaker barred from even entering the United States. He comes from a country that is literally being reinvented due to the influx of Muslim immigrants and the influence they are exerting there (Netherlands). I believe we read some things about the changes occurring similarly in France. The first-world political correctness leading to "extreme tolerance" particularly of anything Muslim/Islamic is leading to some major changes in the structure of their societies. I believe this event and others like it were designed to call attention to the danger of such creeping change.
People (some in high political office) frequently claim Muslims/Islam are/is by-and-large peaceful. That is perhaps true, perhaps more true here in the US than other places, I don't really know. Although there were plenty of Muslims here in the US taking to the streets in joy, cheering the attacks on the Towers. While I find that behavior reprehensible and feel those people should be shunned, fired, their businesses voluntarily boycotted by anyone and everyone, I also feel they have a right to express their feelings, so long as they aren't attacking anyone physically or actively trying to incite violence. I remember at Boy's State back in... I dunno, 92 I guess, when I took the very very unpopular position of defending the burning of the American flag. I lost the cause, because (as I saw it) the opposition got everyone's attention as it was a hot-button emotional topic. However, I agree with the article posted here not so long ago that said, essentially, "if you truly support freedom, allow yourself to be offended." It seems to me that these days many Christians will allow freedom to offend them - though they will speak out against it - but Muslims/Islam will NOT. If they are offended, there is routinely a violent response - by some of them. Not all, but enough to make it more widespread than I find acceptable.
Tolerance extends in both directions... if you want your viewpoint/lifestyle/religion to be tolerated by others, then you need to be tolerant of those others, so long as they are not harming you. If you (generally, as a group) continue to respond with violence, expect the same in return. We have a term in our society for those who demand tolerance, yet extend hatred. It's called hypocrisy.
Just my not-so-humble opinion.
If you wanted to publish photos of Christ or Christians in a derogatory manner, would that be allowed? Would politicians speak out against it, try to get the government to intervene to stop it? We see attacks on Christianity all the time and from every quarter. Yet in this instance, several members of Congress tried to get the keynote speaker barred from even entering the United States. He comes from a country that is literally being reinvented due to the influx of Muslim immigrants and the influence they are exerting there (Netherlands). I believe we read some things about the changes occurring similarly in France. The first-world political correctness leading to "extreme tolerance" particularly of anything Muslim/Islamic is leading to some major changes in the structure of their societies. I believe this event and others like it were designed to call attention to the danger of such creeping change.
People (some in high political office) frequently claim Muslims/Islam are/is by-and-large peaceful. That is perhaps true, perhaps more true here in the US than other places, I don't really know. Although there were plenty of Muslims here in the US taking to the streets in joy, cheering the attacks on the Towers. While I find that behavior reprehensible and feel those people should be shunned, fired, their businesses voluntarily boycotted by anyone and everyone, I also feel they have a right to express their feelings, so long as they aren't attacking anyone physically or actively trying to incite violence. I remember at Boy's State back in... I dunno, 92 I guess, when I took the very very unpopular position of defending the burning of the American flag. I lost the cause, because (as I saw it) the opposition got everyone's attention as it was a hot-button emotional topic. However, I agree with the article posted here not so long ago that said, essentially, "if you truly support freedom, allow yourself to be offended." It seems to me that these days many Christians will allow freedom to offend them - though they will speak out against it - but Muslims/Islam will NOT. If they are offended, there is routinely a violent response - by some of them. Not all, but enough to make it more widespread than I find acceptable.
Tolerance extends in both directions... if you want your viewpoint/lifestyle/religion to be tolerated by others, then you need to be tolerant of those others, so long as they are not harming you. If you (generally, as a group) continue to respond with violence, expect the same in return. We have a term in our society for those who demand tolerance, yet extend hatred. It's called hypocrisy.
Just my not-so-humble opinion.
I heard there were two citations issued, for hunting in a baited area.
Similar threads
