Quick n the draw

[Gob]

Two gunmen have been killed and a security guard injured during what appears to be an attack on a contest for cartoon depictions of the prophet Muhammad in a Dallas suburb.

The gunmen drove up to the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland shortly before 7pm on Sunday where the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) were hosting the exhibition and contest.

According to city authorities an unarmed guard at the event was shot at before the men were engaged and killed by police.

Authorities immediately locked down the center, evacuating the 200 participants at the event and sealing off large areas including a nearby shopping mall.

A bomb squad was called in after reports of a possible incendiary device at the scene of the incident. Police said a “bomb container trailer” had also been deployed in which to place any suspect device.

A police spokesman said two males had been killed and their bodies were still lying outside their car hours later.

Police spokesman Harn said they had not immediately determined the identity of the two gunmen.

“I have no idea who they are, other than they’re dead and in the street,” he told Reuters.

Earlier a statement from the City of Garland read:

As today’s Muhammad art exhibit event at the Curtis Culwell Center was coming to an end, two males drove up to the front of the building in a car. Both males were armed and began shooting at a Garland ISD security officer. Garland police officers engaged the gunmen, who were both shot and killed.

Police suspect the vehicle may contain an incendiary device and the bomb squad is on the scene. The surrounding businesses including Academy Sports, Walmart and Sam’s are being evacuated. Event participants are also being evacuated from the Curtis Culwell Center for their safety.

The Dallas Morning News had earlier reported that two men pulled up in a car near the event and shot at a security officer. The security officer involved received injuries that were not life-threatening and was quickly released from hospital.

The shootings were also reported by a local NBC reporter near the event.

[Gob]

Authorities have identified the suspected gunmen who attacked an event near Dallas exhibiting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, US media say.
Officials have named them as Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, according to the New York Times and the Washington Post newspapers.
Agents were searching an apartment in Phoenix, Arizona, where Simpson reportedly lived, an FBI official said.
Officials believe that Simpson sent several Twitter messages before Sunday's shooting, including one with the hashtag #texasattack part of which read: "May Allah accept us as mujahideen" [holy fighters]. The Twitter account was later suspended.
Simpson was convicted several years ago for lying to authorities about his plans to travel to Somalia, court documents show.
The FBI's John Lannarelli told US media that both suspects appeared to have lived in the same Phoenix apartment, although this has not been officially confirmed.

[MajGenl.Meade]

As the chief said: "Damn good shooting" by the cop

[wesw]

I told em not to try that Charlie hebdo crap in texas.....

[MajGenl.Meade]

Nice try by Obama's secret coup force - once again, Walmart evacuated so it can be infiltrated by the special police force

[Lord Jim]

ISIS Claims Credit For Shooting In Garland, Texas

The self-declared Islamic State is taking credit for a thwarted attack on a Muhammad drawing contest in Garland, Texas.

According to SITE, a company that monitors jihadist groups, ISIS took credit for the attack in the latest edition its al-Bayan news bulletin. The group identified the two suspects as "two soldiers from the soldiers of the Caliphate."

The AP reports that the Sunni extremist group goes on to warn the United States that more attacks are coming. The wire service adds:

"The statement did not provide details and it was unclear whether the group was opportunistically claiming the attack as its own. It was the first time the Islamic State, which frequently calls for attacks against the West, had claimed responsibility for one in the United States."

Police say two men who have been named as Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi came out of a car firing assault rifles on Sunday.

One officer fired back and killed the men. As we reported, Simpson had been in trouble with the law in the past. In 2011, he was convicted of lying to the FBI, which was investigating a planned trip to fight in Somalia.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... land-texas

[rubato]

Holdng a "Muhhamad drawing contest" is as patently racist/bigoted and offensive as holding a "Nigger drawing contest" or a "Jew drawing contest". Simply because speech which is offensive is protected does not morally justify such speech.



yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

I agree rubato, but I still defend the rights of the organizers to do so. Immoral or not, it is at least bad etiquette to openly (and oiffensively) attack people or their beliefs. And even if it is immoral, its immorality pales in comparison to some killing others over it in the attempt to prevent those who choose to do so from being heard. I'll still remain on the side of free speech.

[wesw]

rube, muslims are not killing people, and raping people, and enslaving people all over the world because people are drawing cartoons, people are drawing cartoons because muslims are doing these things (why does my computer say that I spelled muslims wrong?)

we should be able to draw a cartoon of the Baltimore rioters and the gangs and the nation of islam guys too. we should be able to draw hillbilly political cartoons too. gay cartoons as well should be fair game.

the right to draw these things , to dissent, to free thinking and debate is the basis of the 1st amendment. people are drawing these cartoons to make a valid statement. the attack on them demonstrates the validity of their position.

do you wish to amend the constitution?

[Lord Jim]

Holdng a "Muhhamad drawing contest" is as patently racist/bigoted and offensive as holding a "Nigger drawing contest" or a "Jew drawing contest".

I wasn't aware that Muhammad was a race or a religion...you learn something new every day...

A real analogy would be something like a "Jesus drawing contest" or a "Moses drawing contest" or a "Martin Luther King drawing contest" where the purpose of the contest was to encourage drawings that ridiculed, defamed and insulted an iconic figure held in reverence or great respect by a group of people...

Pam Geller is an inflammatory bigot and nutcase of the first order, (if I recall DBA was a big fan of hers) and her organization is an odious hate group...

But that having been said, that certainly doesn't excuse or justify the actions of the shooters. As Big RR said, "its immorality pales in comparison to some killing others over it in the attempt to prevent those who choose to do so from being heard."

It seems to me the bigger issue now is what connection (if any) ISIS has with this. As has been pointed out in the press, this is the first time ISIS has claimed credit for a terrorist attack on US soil. That claim could simply be a change in tactics, or there could be some substance to it. This needs to be thoroughly investigated.

[rubato]

I agree rubato, but I still defend the rights of the organizers to do so. ... "

Right, as does everyone else here. Since I think everyone here has made that point at least a dozen times in different contexts.


But if Texas were a moral state there would have been crowds of people protesting the racism of the event. Instead -silence-. Where moral leadership was needed, it was absent and bigots ruled the day.


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Jim--

A real analogy would be something like a "Jesus drawing contest" or a "Moses drawing contest" or a "Martin Luther King drawing contest" where the purpose of the contest was to encourage drawings that ridiculed, defamed and and insulted an iconic figure held in reverence or great respect by a group of people...

No, I don't think so; making similar fun of other religious or respected figures would not be the same. As I understand it, depiction of Mohammed at all is seen to be a grievous wrong so which is punishable by death (the orthodox might say physical death, the more modern ones would say a more spiritual death); making it humorous or offensive only compounds that. I don't see anything is Christianity or Judaism which even approaches this (well maybe the OT rule against uttering or writing the name of god, but I don't think it carries through to this day--indeed, I've seen a game company called Yahweh and the Jehovah's Witnesses). I think rubato's example approach the offense this is as seen with by many moslems much better than the examples you posed.

Not that it makes any difference whatsoever to my own conclusions, but it may make it more understandable why some react so violently (sometimes even literally) to these depictions. Face it, some here react violently to the burning of the US flag in pretty much the same way--I've seen it lead to riots and cracked heads.

rubato--

Since I think everyone here has made that point at least a dozen times in different contexts.

everyone? I don't think so; some defend free speech, some like to raise hell and piss off moslems (look at the post Charlie Hebdo demonstrations and the offensive imagery in some of the signs--was it to piss off the moselms or to defend free speech?); some even say "hate speech" is a type of speech which should not be protected. As for crowds of people protesting, while they were not mentioned, who knows what was going on there? And who knows how well publicized the event was. And face it, acts like this, while they don't change people's opinions, often deter them from taking up the cause of those who are on the receiving end of the offense. I don't think that apathy is limited to Texas, I'd bet you'd see it in most states.

[MajGenl.Meade]

(why does my computer say that I spelled muslims wrong?

Is it because the spelling, grammar and punctuation features only work 0.1% of the time?

[Lord Jim]

If you're using Firefox wes, the reason you're getting the red underline is because "muslims" is supposed to be capitalized. (You'll find the same thing happens if you type "christians" or "jews")

If you put your cursor on the word when the red line appears and right click, you'll see that.

[Big RR]

Yep, I get the same thing, and I use internet explorer. It wants to capitalize those proper nouns.

eta:

from a web search--According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies,"Moslem and Muslim are basically two different spellings for the same word." But the seemingly arbitrary choice of spellings is a sensitive subject for many followers of Islam. Whereas for most English speakers, the two words are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different. A Muslim in Arabic means"one who gives himself to God," and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means"one who is evil and unjust" when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z. - See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/5 ... PDTCe.dpuf


That is something I did not know, but picking a particularly offensive pronunciation is a time honored form something/someone you don't like is a time honored tradition. I recall during gulf war 1 when Bush Sr consistently referred to Hussein as Sad--dam with the accent on the first syllable which apparently sounds a lot like the Arabic word for garbage (Iraqis put the accent on the last syllable).

[liberty]

I am very tolerant of others until they try to restrict my liberty. If you say that I can not criticize the prophet Mohammed; I am more inclined to do it, even if I really don’t want to criticize, just to defend my right to do so.

I have nothing against Moslems or Mormons, mainstream or fundamentalist, for that matter as long as they don’t try to impose their will on me or my people. I think one of the most disgraceful things the federal government ever did was to force the Mormons to give up polygamy. If a woman is willing to accept four or five sister wives that is their business. And, if a Muslim woman accepts her husband as her lord and masters and accepts whipping from him to help her stay on the right path, do we have any right to interfere in their religious beliefs.

If I said this to my wife, I would get a whipping, maybe we western men could learn something from the Muslims.


Edited: General, it is so frustrating .

[MajGenl.Meade]

Hmm, there's abundant evidence here that liberty and wesw use the same computer... the one that fails to correct things. I'm thinking it's not Joe at all - he do spell good and gramer.
(N Farage, Pendant-elect)

[Sue U]

I think one of the most disgraceful things the federal government ever did was to force the Mormons to give up polygamy. If a woman is willing to accept four or five sister wives that is their business. And, if a Muslim woman accepts her husband as her lord and masters and accepts whipping from him to help her stay on the right path, do we have any right to interfere in their religious beliefs.

The basis for outlawing polygamy has been explained to you before, in great detail. We can explain it for you, but we can't understand it for you. You will have to do the work of comprehension yourself.

And in our country, because we believe in the rule of law, laws of general application -- including laws prohibiting domestic violence -- supersede any contrary religious or cultural practice. The First Amendment protects your freedom to believe what you want to believe, but it does not protect conduct that violates the law. Otherwise, anyone claiming a "sincerely held religious belief" would become a law unto himself.

[Guinevere]

I am very tolerant of others until they try to restrict my liberty. If you say that I can not criticize the prophet Mohammed; I am more inclined to do it, even I really don’t want to criticize, just to defend my right to do so.

Entirely belied by the hateful, ignorant, and uneducated things you spout about "liberals."

[Guinevere]

I think one of the most disgraceful things the federal government ever did was to force the Mormons to give up polygamy. If a woman is willing to accept four or five sister wives that is their business. And, if a Muslim woman accepts her husband as her lord and masters and accepts whipping from him to help her stay on the right path, do we have any right to interfere in their religious beliefs.

The basis for outlawing polygamy has been explained to you before, in great detail. We can explain it for you, but we can't understand it for you. You will have to do the work of comprehension yourself.

And in our country, because we believe in the rule of law, laws of general application -- including laws prohibiting domestic violence -- supersede any contrary religious or cultural practice. The First Amendment protects your freedom to believe what you want to believe, but it does not protect conduct that violates the law. Otherwise, anyone claiming a "sincerely held religious belief" would become a law unto himself.

Five old white men on the Supreme Court apparently believe differently, and we are going to be in deep deep crap because of it.