

Today is Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - mapleoin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day

======
potatolicious
I think this whole thing is stupid.

Don't get me wrong - I think we should have the freedom to draw whatever the
hell we want and be free from threats of deadly force. I think all the people
who threatened physical harm to the original cartoonist are despicable, but
this way of going about it is frankly extremely damaging.

Note: I am not Muslim, I am an atheist, and I want to apologize on behalf of
atheists who have unfortunately chosen to participant in this disgusting
farce. They do not speak for all of us. But, moving along...

Most Muslims are against violent reprisal. Are they offended? Yes, but like
every other controversial issue in the world, only the extremists would go to
the end of harming someone. The internet community that has fueled the
popularity of EDMD is ignorant of this, and their numbers are muddied by the
_many_ racists and bigots also in participation for the wrong reasons. It's
like if the KKK showed up at your political protest - there goes your
credibility. As organizers of a principled stand for your rights, you _need_
to make sure that your group cannot be conflated with racists, bigots, and
other nasty people. The community around EDMD has done an extremely poor job
at it (IMHO mostly because a lot of the core people spreading this around are
themselves racist).

It is, frankly, juvenile, especially once you read some of the discussion by
people who actually are participating in this.

Imagine if a group of atheists firebombed a church for making fun of atheism,
and the Christians' response is instituting a "mock atheism day". Does this
solve any problems? Does it create more understanding? Does this help improve
the view, from either side, that most people are actually reasonable, sane
people?

No, it simply promotes more polarizing viewpoints, more extremism, and
eventually more violence from both sides. It is counterproductive and I'm
embarrassed that so many atheists, who like to proclaim themselves
freethinkers, have gotten on this bandwagon.

This isn't a principled stand in response to extremist action - this is an
indiscriminate melee of offensive content that is not targeted at the groups
and people actually responsible for making threats against people's lives for
their expression. Speaking to my Muslim friends, they are as appalled by the
violence of extremists as we are - the correct course of action is to work
with moderate and liberal Muslims to combat the actions of extremists, not to
alienate and offend the allies we need most.

~~~
mike_organon
You have no business apologizing for anyone else.

Muslims that are offended need to get over it. They will if we don't treat
them like delicate children.

~~~
oldgregg
I agree, it's not very charitable. But remember we are also very isolated from
the conflict in Europe-- the whole culture is getting rocked over how Islam
functions in a modern society. My uncle in France has friends who describe
themselves as "christian atheists" -- they are still 100% athiest, but
apparently they miss the influence of Christianity.

As a Christian I certainly don't like Jesus constantly being mocked -- but I
also think he is perfectly capable of defending himself. Christianity has a
clear response. Jesus is our hero. When he was mocked, tortured and murdered
he laid down his life. Most of his closest followers died in the same way. The
whole question is central to Christianity.

Does anyone have any examples of a concise response that a "peace-loving
Muslim" might give to an "extremist Muslim?" ... why do more Muslims not speak
out more often against extremists?

~~~
iuguy
Being married to one (and being a panentheist from a Protestant and Catholic
Northern Irish family) I can tell you that my wife doesn't like pictures of
the prophet Muhammed because in their religion, the prophet is the messenger,
not the message. It's as much a part of their religion as making the old joke
about Jesus walking into a bar with two planks of wood and some nails and
asking if he could be put up for the night.

While it's fun for some to mock part of someone elses religion and I
absolutely advocate free speech we need to see this as what it is. It's
trolling. If you want to stick it to the extremists then do something the
moderates can unite with you against them. No moderate could support EDMD
because it specifically goes against the teachings of one of their holy books.

Rather than ask for a response that a peace loving muslim might give an
extremist muslim, ask yourself what a peace loving Christian would give by way
of a response to an extremist Christian should Jesus be mocked. There you will
find your answer.

Interestingly (or perhaps not) this doesn't just apply to Mohammed. This
applies to all prophets in Islam, including Jesus and Moses. It's because
idolatry is the worship of something other than god and to muslims there is
only the one god, although he's the same god as the god in all Abrahamic
faiths, just interpreted differently.

~~~
oldgregg
I thought I just gave a response. Christianity has a clear example of how to
respond to persecution in that God sacrificed himself for others. This doesn't
give me a better understanding of the Islamic perspective.

------
dc2k08
Recently during the British elections a photographer placed on his window
looking out into the street a poster with a picture of the then candidate for
prime minister David Cameron above the caption 'David Cameron Is A Wanker'.

An elderly neighbour noticed the poster and alerted the police. A gaggle of
bobbies arrived shortly there after, pushed there way into his home and told
told the now handcuffed afacer that the poster had to be taken down.

When he asked why, he was told that it caused offense. When he asked what the
criteria was for that which is determined to be offensive, he was told "that
which any reasonable person would find alarming, harassing or distressful" In
a hilarious conversation with an inspector of the police some time later, he
asked whether he might be allowed to use the word 'tosser' in place. 'No' came
the answer. Masturbater?..still 'No'. He suggested onanist as a last resort
which flumoxed the inspector. Full article here:
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/11/david-cameron-
poste...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/11/david-cameron-poster-
police)

My point is that here is a case where freedom of speech is restricted by a
government, but we don't see anybody rallying support for 'David Cameron is a
Wanker day' not that many people wouldn't enjoy it.

Similarly The European Union's Framework decision on Racism and Xenophobia
states that denying or grossly trivialising "crimes of genocide" should be
made "punishable in all EU Member States" but we don't see anybody rallying
for a '6 million jews didn't die in the holocast' day.

Why is that? I think that although this 'everybody draw mohammed day' wants to
wear the mask of 'supporting free speech' - it is at it's heart really just an
excuse to bash religionists - an easy target. What's offensive to some, is not
offensive to others. If we are to have restrictions in society on what we can
and cannot say, do, write or draw then what exactly does and does not get
restricted will often be because of some bias on behalf of the lawmaker. In
this case the US law sides with the caricaturists, in another instance it
might not.

~~~
philwelch
Drawing Muhammed isn't taboo to Westerners, but denying the Holocaust is. So I
don't think we should expect an "Everybody Deny the Holocaust Day", or even an
"Everybody Wear A Swastika Armband Day" (though if gangs of anti-fascists
started killing people for denying the Holocaust...).

Europe has worrying levels of political censorship, of course, but they always
have and always will. The difference is that no one actually killed anyone for
saying "David Cameron Is A Wanker". "John Terry Is A Wanker" might get you
bludgeoned to death with a wadded up newspaper, of course, but then football
hooliganism is not nearly as tolerated as Islamic hooliganism. That's really
the root of the problem here, isn't it?

------
maxharris
The principle behind this must not be ignored. If you value your freedom of
speech, please participate!

Every individual has a right to speech, so long as they are speaking in public
or on property that they have a legitimate right to use (either via ownership
or by voluntary agreement with the owner). No one - no matter how offended
they might be by an idea - has any right to employ force or the threat of
force to silence another.

When people threaten violent action against someone for offending their
religious ideas, they must be challenged and stopped. Without the freedom to
speak, we lose all hope of defending our rights by peaceful means.

------
dhyasama
I can understand protesting against fundamentalists of any type. I was
initially concerned this would offend and alienate moderate Muslims. But I
have to wonder, would I be offended if someone protested extreme Christians
that blow up abortion clinics? I don't think so, and in fact would support the
protest. It's ok to protest the actions of a subset of a group. Level-headed
people won't be offended.

~~~
potatolicious
> _"But I have to wonder, would I be offended if someone protested extreme
> Christians that blow up abortion clinics?"_

But this isn't what this is. This is, to use your analogy, someone protesting
_all Christians_ in response to some extreme ones that blow up abortion
clinics.

This is going to do very little good, but a whole lot of harm to inter-faith
relations everywhere.

~~~
theorique
_But this isn't what this is. This is, to use your analogy, someone protesting
all Christians in response to some extreme ones that blow up abortion
clinics._

It isn't really like protesting _Christians_ per se.

It's a bit more like using a symbol dear to Christians' hearts (say, Jesus
himself) and then creating a political cartoon that shows Jesus operating as a
terrorist and shooting doctors who perform abortions, or blowing up clinics.

While depicting Jesus as a terrorist would be offensive to most or all
Christians, this is a perfectly permissible political cartoon. [1]

This "Draw Muhammad" exercise is a perfectly sensible way for those of us who
don't wish to bow down to the threats of Islamic-inspired fascism to
contribute our little part to a protest. To say "I live in a republic where
the rule of law includes freedom of speech, and not a freedom not to be
offended. If you don't like it, draw something that offends me right back."

[1] Coincidentally, it would do a great job of contrasting the message of
peace that Jesus preached, with the wanton violence perpetrated by some of his
contemporary followers.

------
jk4930
Good thing. We (in most of Europe and parts of the US) tamed much of the
Christian violence, now comes the next one. If their "protest" means killing
artists, bombing embassies and planes and discotheques, we have to fight back
the way fanatics hate most: Laughing into their hateful faces. (If laughing
won't help, we still have bombs, too.) And those who think that Muslim
extremists aren't a threat to our freedoms (which includes the freedoms of the
moderate/secular Muslims as well) should visit Western or Northern Europe and
see for themselves.

edit: That's what happens in Europe now. (A mild example.)
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIsC2_KbZfo>

------
maqr
This is clearly a juvenile attempt to troll a religious group for their
beliefs. Everyone who values free speech and reason should support it.

~~~
cscotta
Pardon me, but I'd like to disagree.

The murder of Theo van Gogh and subsequent threats against other artists,
authors, etc. are terrible acts. No one should be killed for such expression.

But I have to say - I find any "juvenile attempt to troll a religious group,"
well, juvenile and trollish. It is uncivil and rude. It promotes division and
distrust, and actively destroys the work many have put into creating safe
atmospheres of expression and mutual respect by ridiculing a religious
community.

I am not a Muslim. The closest affiliation I'd claim might be with some
liberal emerging christianities. But I believe in respecting others enough not
to make fun of deeply-held beliefs, which I myself do not hold and which do
not impact my life but are absolutely central to the worldviews and
spirituality of a very signification portion of the world's citizens.

I'd suggest that "valuing free speech and reason" needn't involve encouraging
socially destructive behavior intent on marginalizing a people group, self-
selected or not.

~~~
WestCoastJustin
I disagree with you.

When I first watched the south park episode I was very confused.. then I
watched the backlash unfold.

I think this movement is needed to get this out into the open. What would you
say if Skin Heads, KKK, or any other racist organization threaten violence and
we bowed out.. stopped the presses and let them have their way.

This is what we are doing by tip toeing around the issue in our country,
censoring our media, and for what? We need exactly this movement because it is
"uncivil and rude".

------
OmarIsmail
What do people honestly expect to come from this?

Anybody that would have been against drawing the Prophet (pbuh) before, will
be even moreso now. This day will only 'prove' their assertions that Islam and
the West are 'against' one another.

And for rational people that just let things slide... well they're not going
to be affected by this either.

So what is really happening here?

I can tell you that as a Muslim I do feel attacked and provoked. Pretty much
every one of my regular community sites has a discussion/thread on this topic,
so it's difficult for me to avoid it without changing my regular Internet
routine for the day.

Now, I know that the stupidness of this day isn't directed at me. I'm entirely
cognizant that this is a natural reaction by certain groups of people that
feel strongly about censorship.

So as a Muslim I'm not offended. But I am annoyed. I'm annoyed with the people
promoting and enacting this day. I'm annoyed with the extremists that caused
the violence that triggered this reaction. I'm annoyed with the oppressive
history that helped create these extremists. I'm annoyed with the corrupt
politicians and self-seeking 'religious' folk that manipulate people into
doing evil acts.

Essentially this stupid day is just reminding me that there are a lot of
stupid and annoying people out there. Most days I can ignore that and focus on
the great things that people do (like here on HN).

So what this day did is just made me feel annoyed.

I also know that I'm pretty reasonable and rational. If someone like me feels
annoyed I know there are other people out there that are going to find even
more reason and justification to fuel their violent acts. And that's just
going to escalate the situation with an escalated response. All of which will
annoy me.

Ahh screw this. I'm going outside. ---- without my iPhone.

~~~
tome
You're annoyed, free speech has been defended. I'm sorry if you're upset about
that but it sounds like a net win to me, and frankly very little if any harm
has been done to you at all.

You may not understand this, but censoring South Park _was_ a huge harm to
liberal principles.

------
tzs
I lack the artistic skill to draw Mohammed. If I had the skill, my drawing
would be of him rubbing himself down with peanut butter. The title would be
"Mohammed, peanut butter upon him".

~~~
etravers
And what would be your reason for doing this? I really don't understand. I do
not follow any religion, but that does not give me the right to ridicule
things that others hold dear.

It is _my_ opinion that anyone who participates in this is a sheep with a "me
too" mentality.

~~~
WiseWeasel
"but that does not give me the right to ridicule things that others hold
dear."

No, that would be the US Constitution's first amendment. Conversely, you do
not have a right to not have the beliefs you hold dear ridiculed. There is no
legal protection against having one's beliefs ridiculed. That's because it's
not a big deal. Get over it.

~~~
etravers
First, there is nothing to get over. I am not emotionally involved. Second,
just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean you should do it.
It's not about laws and amendments. It is about people's feelings. I have the
right to draw Jesus, Mohammed and Moses having sex. That doesn't make it any
less offensive to a great many people. So should I do it just because I can
and want to see what kind of reaction I get?

So your cartoon was censored. Maybe you are the one who needs to get over it.

~~~
WiseWeasel
I'm just saying that expression shouldn't be limited in any way. Then, you can
go on debating morality with everyone else for as long as you want.

As for the cartoon, it was likely a mistake to give in to the threats, as it
simply validates them and invites more.

~~~
etravers
I agree 100%. Expression should not be limited. The issue I have with this is
that the participants aren't expressing themselves. They're expressing someone
else, "huh-huh... that's funny. I'm going to do that too."

And just to put it out there; I have no problem with you (I don't know you)
and I am not trying to argue directly with you. Your's was just the reply link
I clicked.

------
ErrantX
As echoed elsewhere... this is childish, proves nothing and solves nothing.

The extremists will be delighted; they get to propagate fear and use this as
propaganda.

Moderate Muslims will probably consider it a bit childish (and may be
offended, that's their right I suppose)

Anti-westernism will be bolstered a little more in the Muslim states

And people like myself just feel a bit embarrassed to be on the "same side" as
these people.

Now, if someone wants to sit down and discuss how we could perform a grown up
show of strength and unity against extremism then I'm all for it.

(I think the first point is the most important one; clearly this is going to
backfire because it is the reaction the extremists where looking/hoping for.
It's progressing to the point where they don't need to bother trying the
actual terrorism any more - certain elements in Western society are scared to
death and reacting to just words...)

~~~
tome
Frankly I don't care if anyone is anti-western, so long as "anti-western"
means "anti people who are harmlessly drawing pictures".

If someone is "anti-western" because of exploitative child labour, pillaging
natural resources of the third world, etc. then great, let's sit down and
talk.

But harmlessly drawing pictures? Come on.

~~~
ErrantX
_Frankly I don't care if anyone is anti-western, so long as "anti-western"
means "anti people who are harmlessly drawing pictures"._

What I'm trying to say is that the profile of the US (the general symbol of
Westernism in Islamic states) is already extremely low. A lot of people
consider the US rude and intolerant; that's just the image that has
unfortunately developed.

Ordinary people in those states are probably looking at this and thinking
"well this just proves it doesn't it".

I'm not sure alienating people further is a clever idea (us vs. them is one
reason why extremism is fostered on both sides).

It's not even really about causing offence (as already pointed out, everyone
is offended by someone) but about "proving" to people in those states we don't
really understand the problem...

This is pitched as sticking a finger up to extremists; a sentiment I utterly
agree with. What it actually is is feeding them ammunition, and potentially
causing more resentment in Mulsim countries. I can't help feeling there is a
better way to stick that finger up :)

Also; this stinks of fear to me.

~~~
tome
I don't think we _do_ understand the problem. What _is_ understandable about
being offended when someone draws a picture of a person? It's absolute
nonsense and doesn't require any respect whatsoever.

What if I'm offended when you wear your hat backwards and threaten to kill
you? What's less special about me than about muslims?

~~~
ErrantX
> What is understandable about being offended when someone draws a picture of
> a person?

It's a culture thing. Like.. why do some innocent (to us) gestures in Japan
cause offence? It appears inexplicable.

> What if I'm offended when you wear your hat backwards and threaten to kill
> you?

What if your whole street is made uncomfortable by me wearing my hat backwards
- but don't want to kill me for it. Is me walking up and down the street for a
day with my hat on backwards a particularly good way to denounce you?

I'd argue there are better ways; like exposing you to the wider world
(obviously, the solution to extremism is a harder problem)

~~~
tome
Hmm, I don't see this as an attempt to expose muslim extremists to muslim
moderates.

I see it as an attempt for us as a liberal society to join in an affirmation
of our principles.

Perhaps others will be offended, but uniting as a society around our treasured
values is more important. Bringing the moderate muslims into the fold can
happen later, once we're sure that our fold actually exists and is what we
think it is (tolerant and liberal).

~~~
ErrantX
> Hmm, I don't see this as an attempt to expose muslim extremists to muslim
> moderates.

Sorry, that was just an example of IMO a better way to react to your
hypothetical extremism. It was a bad one but I was trying to avoid suggesting
reporting you to the police (which was a worse one :P).

i.e. it was a solution rather than a "show".

In terms of a real solution to this problem.. well clearly the most sensible
one is to ignore the majority of the threats (it avoids propagating fear and
forces the extremists out of the limelight - one of their greatest weapons).

------
jokermatt999
[http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/05/20/the-new-free-
speec...](http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/05/20/the-new-free-speech-
movement/)

This article basically sums up my thoughts on it. Yes, it's not nice to
unfairly antagonize people. However, when it comes down to freedom of speech
and being too worried about offending someone on their ridiculous standards,
something has to be done. I'm all for living in peace and harmony with people,
but I'll be damned if I'm going to censor myself like that or be threatened
for drawing a picture. I'm fine if you want to follow whatever rules you feel
your god or prophet would like you to uphold (as long as they don't lead you
to harming someone else) and as long as you don't try to impose them on
others. That's when a line is crossed.

------
aagha
There's an excellent response to this day by Nihad Awad:

CAIR: A Muslim Response to 'Draw Muhammad Day'
[http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cair-a-muslim-
respon...](http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cair-a-muslim-response-to-
draw-muhammad-day-94333684.html)

------
mike_organon
I'd love to see Google celebrate today with their logo. CNN sort of has a
drawing on the front page.

~~~
natrius
I don't know what you're talking about. That's clearly Muhammad Ali. It looks
nothing like the prophet Muhammad.

------
Mistone
Muslims should be offended by both the South Park episode and this continued
effort to offend Muslims by drawing offensive pictures of the Prophet Mohammed
(peace be upon him), precisely because its extremely offensive. Are death
threats by rogue terrorist groups or chat room nerds (who knows) wrong, yes,
quite simple everyone gets it.

However that does not make dragging this out and going to extremes to further
offend a group of people ok. I am Muslim myself, though not devout and lived
my my entire life in America (luckily traveled a lot as well). My father
converted to Islam so we also don't have a long ancestral/cultural tradition
around Islam.

I find South Park utterly offensive and choose not to watch it, whether they
are making fun of Jews, or Jesus, or whatever. The big difference here is that
Jesus has been depicted in pictures for thousands of years, in churches and
everywhere, so a stupid tee shirt with Jesus drinking a beer has somehow
become not so terribly offensive in 2010.

In Islam it is Haram(not advised) to create depictions of the Prophet Mohammed
(pboh). There are no pictures of any Prophets in Mosques, and just because
people of other religions or no religion don't find it offensive does not make
it so. Muslims have a very bad image right now so there is an feeling of
antagonism in these types of situations. Its all a bit weird, but intelligent
people should just respect other peoples differences rather then dictating how
and what is viewed as offensive.

------
gexla
Uh, oh, Pakistan is going to ban Wikipedia now.

------
jfager
This whole thing is so lame.

Anyone who wants to kill you for drawing a picture already wants to kill you
for other reasons, they just haven't singled you out yet. If you're
participating in this because you want to stand up to a violent threat, you
fail. You're simply saying "I'm afraid of the boogieman, and I can't stand up
to him without a herd to hide me".

The censorship argument is equally ridiculous. The media censors all kinds of
information that would piss of their advertisers and audiences, and a cartoon
of a dead religious figure surely ranks among the least significant to
anyone's daily life. If you want to get pissed about something, get pissed
about the utterly insignificant bullshit that gets paraded around as news
every day (hint: EDMD would be a good start).

------
jacquesm
So, am I to conclude we now also have fundamentalist atheists?

You don't advance a cause by being antagonistic like this. If you have a
problem with Muslims committing violence because of insults to Mohammed (and
you should have a problem with that, no matter what your creed) then you don't
achieve much by insulting him some more.

The better way would be to take it one-on-one with people that display such
tendencies (and i'm thinking of moderate Muslims here) that can express in
terms that both parties understand why this is not a big deal. Not in a group
confrontation like this, mob intelligence is on the whole a lot lower than
individual intelligence.

The original cartoons were a provocation, this is raising the stakes. What is
needed is de-escalation and _less_ fundamentalism, by all parties.

You will not change peoples minds by antagonizing them and polarizing the
issue.

Religious people (of _all_ religions) will have to come to terms with the fact
that their religious laws do not apply to those that do not share that
religion. This will take another 1,000 years and a few more actions like this
and it might take 2,000 years.

~~~
natch
Tell that to Abraham Lincoln. He effectively ended slavery in the US, you will
recall. Antagonizing people and polarizing the issue were necessary to achieve
what he did.

~~~
araneae
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution
of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to
do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

-Abraham Lincoln, first inaugural address <http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html>

~~~
natch
But then he changed his mind, didn't he? And we had a war, and the
Emancipation Proclamation, and finally the Thirteenth Amendment.

------
poppysan
OK, I think that legally anyone can make fun of anything, but there should be
a limit morally or socially.

Why do people feel that because they disagree with someone they must be rude
and hurt their feelings. This is a really bad example of protest in my
opinion...

------
gokhan
If you want to fight extremism, try aiming what's fueling it, not the end
result.

------
icey
Hacker News??

~~~
pixelbath
I'm a hacker; this is relevant to my interests. I'm sorry that you don't feel
the same, but I do support your right to question your beliefs on what this
site should be.

~~~
cturner
How can you be 'sorry' that someone else doesn't feel the same as you? Their
feelings are their business. But were you genuinely sorry for something you
were doing to cause their ill feeling you wouldn't be apologising in the same
breath that you did the thing you were apologising for.

~~~
kevinh
You can be sorry because you believe their viewpoint is inferior or
destructive.

Sorry doesn't necessarily mean that you are apologizing; it simply means that
something is causing you sorrow, and I can certainly see how it could cause
someone sorrow that someone else holds a viewpoint that you believe is
inferior.

~~~
cturner
Thanks for respectful answer.

I disagree. You wouldn't say 'but' after it. You might say, "I'm sorry, and" -
explaining why, and indicating why you thought otherwise. But that's not what
happened here.

"I'm sorry, but" is trash-talk. It doesn't belong here.

~~~
cturner
I reread pixel's phrasing and I'm wrong. Usage still annoys me but kevinh is
right.

------
hristov
And when is everybody draw Yahweh day? Or do we defend our precious freedoms
of speech by only insulting Muslims.

~~~
tome
I think the point is we only respond when a response is necessary. Avoiding
offence is important, but standing up for our rights is more important.

~~~
saikat
So why decide to insult one giant group of people who didn't threaten anyone
(all the Muslims that didn't send out death threats) instead of another (all
the Christians that didn't send out death threats)?

~~~
tome
The outcry is about censorship of a "depiction" of Mohammed on Comedy Central.
In order to respond to this censorship we are drawing Mohammed. We're not
targeting a particular group of people. Offence is a side-effect. The _aim_ is
to stand up against censorship.

~~~
saikat
That's great, but you are aiming very broadly. The vast majority of people
won't know or care what was your aim and what was the side-effect. You are
responding to censorship by Comedy Central caused by a subset of Muslims by
doing something that offends many Muslims. My point was - if you are already
broadening the people you intend to attack for the cause of defending freedom
of speech, why limit it to only some that are innocent? You may not be aiming
for every Muslim, but that's like me blowing up a building and claiming I was
only aiming for one guy in the building that we can all agree was a bad guy.

~~~
tome
I disagree. If I really _was_ killing other people your argument would be
valid. Causing "offence", whatever that means, doesn't even rank on the scale
upon which killing is bad.

A more accurate analogy would be like blowing up one bad guy and the blast
knocking the hats off some nearby good guys. They might get mortally offended
that you knocked their hats off, but they should get over themselves. There
are more important things to worry about in life.

------
itistoday
I feel like this is something Anonymous would be all over. Any
activity/response from "them"?

