Texas art show terrorists identified. Both muslims.

For those not aware, late Sunday evening at an art show promoting art that depicts the Prophet Muhammad, two armed men opened fire at a police car outside the building hosting the event. Both gunmen were killed by an officer and later identified. Both men were Muslims that had openly supported ISIS.

Another Charlie Hebdo avoided, in Texas no less. I would have liked to see some of the supposed art for some lulz, but most media blackout the pictures like they're Showgirls on TBS.

My question to OT is which is more responsible for the attack: the art show or the shooters?

Should be obvious, not?

ISIS can't mess with Texas.

In other words, they were ISIS fanboys.

The "art".

I think we should all lose our fucking minds and riot over this.

It's not hard to speculate that the ones (or should I say the "one") who held this event, beforehand had armed these two gunmen. I mean I consider myself a resourceful Muslim and the best thing I can get my hands on in my own chaotic country is a Kalashnikov. On the other hand the attackers from Charlie Hebdo had freaking rocket launchers for God's sake. It's quite obvious that someone from the inside lend them a hand and got them what they needed. Someone quite Islamophobic.

Really makes you wonder why some feel the need to spit in the face of someone's religion; how much self loathing exist that there is a need to antagonize another group?

What it makes me wonder about is how fragile, psychotic, and barbaric a person has to be to think killing other people is an okay response to some perceived religious insult.

Are you seriously trying to defend terrorists? why does it matter if they insulted their religion?

In other news a women paraded downtown holding a sign depicting black men as gorrilas, she soon got happy slapped across the face so hard which resulted with lots of tears and a broken ego.

the terrorist was identified as a black man.

For those wondering about the winning piece from the show...

Such subversion.

Both.

@alim298: Don't you think it is a little far fetched to resort to conspiracy theories?

No not really. I think we can establish the fact that there are some people among westerns, both Muslim and non-Muslim who mentally train these people and then give them the necessary gear to carry out attacks or join terrorists.

What we know for certain is that a great number of the ISIS supporters for instance have been brainwashed that way in THE WEST. If you look at the polls you'll see that in fact the majority in most Arab countries despise ISIS. So where is this love coming from? Yeah those Muslims who are living in the west.

We also know that there are madrasas and mosques in the west (and in the Arab world too) that encourage people to become "jihadists" so to speak.

What has not been known for certain yet, is that who is financially supporting these mosques and madrasas and jihadists? Where do these "gunmen" get their guns from?

That leads me to believe that while the ones promoting jihadi thought and the ones who carry out these attacks, are indeed Muslim, they have been subjected to the fitnah of some non-Muslims who want to see the Muslim world and the Muslim ideology burn.

The reason I believe this is not a conspiracy theory is because it is in fact not so "far-fetched". I mean let's say I really hate the nation Y. And that I'm resourceful. Given the chance wouldn't I (assuming that I'm a corrupt person) want to harm the nation Y? It's not far-fetched at all. There are some people out there who really hate Muslims. They hold these costly exhibitions and contests just to rub it in the faces of the Muslims. A couple of guns and a bomb aren't really costly compared to what they publicly do. Yet it's more effective. Again this is something I would have done myself if I were corrupt so I don't see it as a far-fetched conspiracy theory.

"both Muslims" - surprise surprise, the guys who tried to shoot up a Mohammed-drawing contest we're Muslims. And I was expecting it to be animal-rights activists. BTW, I'm not trying to offend Muslims, I'm just saying given the target it is fairly obvious what the motivation of the attackers was.

To me the surprising thing is that the two terrorists were armed with assault rifles and were wearing body armor, but they were both killed, when they confronted an unarmed security guard (who was injured because he got shot in the ankle), and a cop working as security for the event who only had a service pistol. Quite amazing that nobody except the two attackers was killed, and that probably has a lot to due with the fact that the security detail knew that an attack was a rather likely possibility and so weren't really taken by surprise.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to attend such an event, not only because of the disrespectfulness of it but also because I would figure that it would be dangerous to be there given the possibility of someone trying to attack it.

^^^^^That's a nice theory. Got any evidence?

The shooters. They decided to try killing people over a piece of art. If you don't like it, don't go view it. Simple as that.

No hence the name theory.

@Master_Live said:

For those wondering about the winning piece from the show...

Such subversion.

Btw I'm dying to see any of these "freedom of speech drawings" that does the turban right.

Until then I guess I'm not really going to be offended by the depiction of sikhs.

The shooters. The art show is a display of free speech. The shootings are a straight up crime. The people offended by it should exercise self-control instead of taking other peoples' lives because they think it's blasphemous to draw their god. Boo fucking hoo. Too many people living in this century right now really belong in the 1200s.

What is to be gained by insulting their religion? All it seems to do is incite violence from the fringe of that community; is that the end goal?

Plenty of theories have evidence.

It's not within my racial ancestry to riot.

LOL

Because Muhammad was an evil person that deserves to be insulted. Why should that statement incite violence? If you are prone to aggregation then the problem is entirely with you, don't blame the victims. Saying that violence is ok because they mocked some paedophile warlord from 1400 years ago is even more stupid than saying they deserved it because they looked at me funny.

I'm still waiting to hear the argument that because someone drew a picture of a guy that in one religious text is not allowed to be drawn that they no longer have the right to live. As far as I'm concerned you have the right to express yourself and anybody who's offended by some picture of a guy who's been dead for centuries needs to deal with it. It's not 800 A.D anymore.

Good to know. But this one unfortunately doesn't.

I never said it was ok; I'm just questioning a person's need to go out of their way to mock another group, as it doesn't seem there is any value in those actions.

Were they mocking a group? It seems to me that they were making fun of a very evil person. Only evil people would get mad about that.

The value comes from them demonstrating their freedom of speech. Just because some crazy people get offended by something that doesn't mean they were wrong. We shouldn't censor what we say based on the thoughts of overly aggressive people.

Do you have any proof for this nonsensical theory?

Because my freedoms trump a religious persons sensibilities.

Everyone's a critic.

Why is this kind of victim blaming considered okay? It's the equivalent of saying "she was asking for it because of the way she dressed". No one is to blame besides the shooters.

Why don't you? Like the other poster said it's no better than blaming a rape victim for dressing in a provocative manner.

It is defending terrorists as he is shifting the blame from the terrorists onto the victims. Victim blaming is absolutely repugnant behaviour.

So you're just trolling? I don't see the point in posting a "theory" that doesn't have a shred of evidence to support it.

It speaks pretty ill of you that you would believe such a theory.

"I'm not saying she deserved to be raped. What I'm saying is that when she dresses like that what did she expect to happen?"

Ah ok, I didn't know their the worth of their freedom of speech was challenged by anyone. Seemed more like a circle jerk of individuals that have an ax to grind against another group; terrible that the fringe of that group brought guns to an ax fight.

You don't get out much do you? Crazy Muslims have been killing people to try and silence freedom of speech for quite some time now.

You do realise that this thread is about a shooting?

I didn't know they were actively seeking out individuals and killing them for having freedom of speech; I only noticed that they killed people for expressing that freedom of speech in a defaming manner towards them (again, why you would time after time go after them is beyond me).

@Fuhrer_D: So what's your point? Don't ever disagree with a lunatic?

You are yet to say what is wrong with mocking Muhammad. Should we stop mocking Hitler since that might offend neo-Nazis? Just because someone is offended by something that doesn't mean it's wrong. What you need to ask yourself is why are they offended?

What part of this thread is about a shooting don't you get? Read the op, then read his post. How are you this dense?

what he said is no different then going into a thread about a girl being raped and saying "Isn't it horrible that a girl would go outside wearing something like that!" Sure they didn't mention rape directly, but you have to be insanely stupid to not see the connection.