Sunday, May 03, 2015

Jihad, Texas Style or Trolling For Jihadis

Events that occurred Sunday evening in Garland, Texas brings judgement to the table, good and bad. I have criticized censorship and reminded those that insist on political correctness that our constitution guarantees freedom of speech.

But freedom of speech isn't total. It is against the law to yell, "Fire" in a crowded theater. It is also against the law to incite a riot, though some radical ministers seem to get away with it.

The Jihadis in Garland, Texas attacked a cartoon convention that was featuring cartoons aimed at the Prophet Mohammed. What strikes me, is that though these jerks have the right to make fun of Mohammed, is it smart to grab the tail of a lion? This where the right of free speech comes in contact with deliberately baiting the known radicals that predictably retaliate.

It would seem that a small radical church showing up at funerals to debase our fallen military, is doing the same thing. One wonders how bad judgement will be viewed.

The first thing I would do for those obvious taunting groups, is yes, tell them have the right to be stupid, but they would need to post huge bonds to protect the community, in addition, hire private armed guards, rather than have a community that isn't necessarily  in agreement with the Dutch jerk who incidentally needs to be put on a no fly list, to bear the cost, which when the Police, FBI, County Sheriffs, ATF  are done, be huge.

Along with freedom comes responsibility. This situation needs some close looks at what in Moslem terms is in fact shouting fire in a packed theater. We have enough rabble raisers domestically, without inviting a predictable outcome at public expense. Freedom, yes, but with judgement applied.

For those of you that question my spelling, I spent 18 months in Morocco before the media changed the spelling to Muslim, which I think started with the American devotees that as many athletes have, adopted Arabic names and a version of the religion. Followers of Mohammed were also called Mohammedans. Webster acknowledges both spellings are correct.

Unless we form guidelines with programs as predictably spots of religious taunting, need to bear the cost in security, and the results of their folly. Pouring flammable liquids on a fire is not smart, legal or not.

Unfortunately, the middle aged Dutchman will not have to answer to anyone. It will be our young men and women who will go to battle for those that stir crap. Such as it always is, the older politicians that create the need for our youth that will go to war. Anyone other than perhaps Obama, that doesn't think we are hell bent speeding into WW111 just aren't paying attention.


Annette said...

Do you really think we only have freedom of speech when it is something that everyone agrees upon and feels peaceful about? General commentary on political, religious, or social matters may not be punished, even if some people are so upset by it that they want to attack the speaker. They were not out on the street hawking their beliefs. You must know by now that it takes very little to provoke these terrorists. You must also remember that cartoonists have been around since newspapers began and is a part of culture worldwide. This Dutch jerk as you call him just had a member of their community horribly killed by these terrorists. If anything, I wouldn't call them jerks but peaceful protests as a result of the attacks on them. The day this countries people begin curbing their speech to avoid conflict is the day this country and everything it stands for is over.

Bay Views said...

OK I'll call him a rabble rouser. I feel freedoms also have responsibility. Publicizing a group of this size and of it's purpose is very close to shouting fire in a crowded theater. You perception that I said everyone has to agree is bs and is coming from your attitude, not words of mine.

As I pointed out, this event was trolling for Jihadis. The results were predictable with a swat team ready to go. Baiting one's hook such as that cost the city, county and federal government a nice piece of change. There is nothing unconstitutional about requiring a bond or reimbursement for security. This, unlike the occasional cartoon was an invitation, and I called them on it. If you go back a few posts you will see where I supported the French. But please, if you are going to comment on this blog, try very hard to not put either words or motives in my mouth. I'm not an absolutist.