she won't be happy until more are dead. Lots more.

If she wants to take on Jihadis, let her and her Hate Group go to the ME and take on THEIR HATE groups.

Once that woman is involved, there will be nothing but a continuation of HATRED and BIGOTRY.

For example they go on radio or television and stir up hatred toward a particular person or group. In her case she stirs up hate hoping extremists go to one of her events and kill people there. Thereby proving her views, the people killed show that.

In essence she is as much a murderer as the gunmen.

You are 100% correct, my friend.

Any defense of the acts of armed men attempting to kill people because their fucking feelings were hurt is abhorrent.

Fuck all people who think their religion requires them to kill those who think their religion is bullshit. And also fuck those who show even the slightest bit of sympathy towards murderers.

Whoever these two idiots were, it's not like they were trying to get congress to pass an anti-blasphemy law.

Gellar's contest was crap, much like the Holocaust/Anti-Semitism cartoon contest in Iran. However, it doesn't make the reaction that occurred "understandable", nor should it be "predictable."

And the only ones responsible for that are the thin skinned gunmen. I don't have to "understand" the gunmen, I don't have to "sympathize" with their idiocy - they were violent assholes and I'm glad they're dead.

I have no idea who these gunman are affiliated with as I know nothing of just a shooting a Muhammad drawing event but I doubt it was someone who came with the idea of their own. If they are affiliated with the Salafi-Wahhabi terror groups or the ideology itself there has been a massive propaganda effort for years they opposed the Hajj for the same reasons. They consider it idolatry and obviously the Saud Dynasty couldn't maintain credibility if they didn't compromise but the whole image thing comes from a suggestion to not worship images of Muhammad. They are an ultraconservative right wing fundamentalist sect that often preach about the West's war against Islam. Here she says specifically addressing it as such & Fox News hosts pushing a religious war playing right into their hands. The more they make it about Islam the more it confirms what these cults are preaching creating this cycle that self-perpetuates as you see in the case of playing into her hands but she played into theirs a long time ago.

Oh wait....An exhibition in Iran will mock the Holocaust. Some "sacred cows" are worthy of sacrifice without shedding blood.

You don't see Jews or anyone else gunning people down over this highly insulting exhibition. Proportioning ANY blame to the odious Geller is moronic.

anything AT ALL?

who are the dead people?

They went to this particular event, of all the events and occasions that were going on on a small little community like Dallas/Forth Worth and once there tried to kill people. As a result, they're dead and rightfully so.

Everything else is detail.

Inferences can also be drawn. They went to this particular event. Perhaps they didn't like the color scheme, perhaps they didn't like the purpose of the event, perhaps they wanted to kill the person who adopted their dog from the pound after the dog catcher had picked it up when it was stray. Perhaps they just wanted to kill people and lived around the corner from the event. Some inferences are more likely than others.

Elton Simpson - has a history about this kind of thing:

http://az.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110314_0000473.DAZ.htm/qx

Gellar was willing to risk getting cartoonists killed so that she could get just this sort of reaction, thus giving her more 'justification' for her hatred of Muslims.

That should be something we can all agree on.

I would no more attend a Islamaphobic hate convention than I would poke a lion with a stick even though both are probably legal in various places.

Given what we saw with Charlie Hebdo, she can't even pretend she was unaware of the danger in which she was placing those cartoonists.

So we can change things that are not as they should be.

For instance, people should be able to make fun of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Scientology, Mormonism with equal impunity.

As long as you are not calling for violence against Jews, Christians, Muslims, Scientologists, Mormons - you ought to be able to poke fun of the silliness inherent in each of these belief systems (just as you would for Republicanism or Conservatism).

That's a cause I am willing to stand up for.

And I honestly believe that people who believe in the supernatural are deluded.

But I don't go around ridiculing people for their religious beliefs any more than I would do the same for their skin colour, their gender, their choice of tennis shoes.

I really don't see it as a 'positive' to announce that the thing you'll 'stand up for' is the right to make other people miserable, to mock them, to piss them off.

That sounds more like the behaviour of a person I'd avoid in real life. Someone who is more interested in being a bully than in making life better for everyone.

Are you assuming the cartoonists had NO idea of the danger in pissing off fundamentalists Muslims?

I also liked that bit:

It's not like we HAVE to do it in order to prove the First Amendment exists.

Gellar isn't doing this in order to prove that the First Amendment holds. She won't be arrested for it.

The first Amendment stops at the government, but the concept of Freedom of Speech is also a cultural value. Sometimes someone is going to say something really awful that offends you - but that is never a justification for violence. Self Censorship is STILL Censorship.

There is no justification for violence. But you can still call it offensive.

We had long threads on how the use of "thug" was offensive without people going on as if someone was trying to repeal the First Amendment.

One can express disapproval of a person's hateful speech and yet still defend their right to say it without fear of violent attack. Ostracizing or shaming such people is fine, but I will never accept that speech ever justifies a violent response. Many hateful people follow up speech with actions, like denial of rights or service, or persecution. And actions sometimes demand responses. But speech never does.

The problem here is that people are blaming those who want to draw cartoons for causing the attack. Bullshit. An authoritarian ideology that doesn't accept criticism or disrespect caused those men to attack the cartoonists. They really do hate the freedom to say things that they find offensive and expect us to walk on eggshells to not offend their unreasonable viewpoint. I know some here can joke about freedom, such as calling it "Freedum", but I find they are usually also smitten with the same authoritarian taint as the terrorists.

As for the use of "thug" - DU has set many community standards since we control our membership as a private group. We expect people to not be offensive (in most aspects) and try to educate people on why not to use certain hurtful phrases. But this doesn't apply outside of DU. Outside of here, I am called many offensive names by the right wingers. And even though I find their orthodoxy disgusting and often think of them as knuckle dragging cavemen, I never think of hurting them for saying ignorant shit. Such is the cultural value of Freedom of Speech.

For the record, I'm an ACLU member.

expressing disapproval of Geller and company's actions and yet still defend their right to say it without fear of violent attack.

But there's nothing you can say with a guarantee you won't be violently attacked. There are crazy people out there.

What's the point of offending the peaceful Muslims? The ones who are simply offended and don't make violent attacks.

After all, there are so many words on DU verboten due to their offense of others. These people are criticized on the same grounds.

exceptions.

Would I draw the line with Gellar's stuff? Probably not. But considering the crap she is putting out there I think the conversation is worthwhile to have.

Your lack of appreciation for your rights is just sad.

I was in France when Charlie Hebdo got snuffed. Idiots said the same shit about that as you are saying now. Fucking disgusting.

Do you ever not use straw men with people you disagree with?

but that in no way excuses anyone shooting at anyone else.

Damn, but this country has so many good people...and so many nutcases!

Was someone hired to spring it?

I would be certain.

This elton simpson clown has a history:

http://az.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110314_0000473.DAZ.htm/qx


If you were hoping for a false flag, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed.

No doubt he's still looking for "heaven."

And it's damn effective goading and needs to be done. What difference do you see?

a "deliberate provocation" if they were saying "hands up - shoot me."

And, Geller's hate-filled "contest" was hate speech - period.
It is not free - there is always a price to pay in some way. Never
would I condone shooting anyone as a price.

I hope they're happy, they have blood on their hands.

Two more religious freaks who think everyone should live by their edicts. And you can bet the mortgage that Geller is thrilled about what happened. The gunmen gave her exactly what she wanted - and then died to make her day even better.

I haven't heard a single peep yet.

A doctor that performs abortions gives an interview stating that he will continue to perform abortions, and he doesn't care about whether or not people oppose abortion.

The next day, he's shot dead as he walks from his car to the clinic...some religious whacko has decided to take matters into his own hands and stop that doctor from performing abortions.

Would you blame the doctor for being open about performing a Constitutionally protected medical procedure? I wouldn't. I'd blame the right wing whacko that killed him.

So why would you blame people that are taking part in a different Constitutionally protected activity?

Blame lies with the shooters, and no one else.

In this case, Gellar was staking out other people to do the dying.

I'm sure there are more than a few Islamist nut jobs who would live to kill her.

Malcolm X's entire life was deliberate provocation.

People get shot at.
With guns.
But, hey, it's their fault: they were drawing cartoons.
And Geller's venom is word venom, it's not actual lethal poison.

How many Charlie Hebdos will it take for RandySF to realize shooting cartoonists is a bad idea?

Even if I try hard, there is no way I can see how anybody can equate vitriolic rhetoric (Geller's) with assault rifles and explosives.

I you think those two things are on par in anyway, I fear you completely lost your bearings.

Not to mention that freedom of speech would die quite fast if it relied on people like you to defend it.

I am not prone to hyperbole, which is why I won't even try to quantify how much your 'moral' position horrifies me.

They're all intentionally provocative. France, Texas, doesn't matter.

Nothing! They do nothing.

There are 7+ billion people, and if human history tells us anything, it's that we can be kind of crazy sometimes. For a lot of different reasons.

there are some crazies among the Muslims who will kill over it.

</Alex Jones mode>

Bunch of deluded violent babies....

...I wish every paper in the world would print Mohammed cartoons DAILY for years on end till they got over it.

Yet we don't know their names, where they're from, how they got to this event that people only seem to know about now that it's been shot at, etc.

I don't want to use the cliche of 'waiting until all the facts are in', but something really does not add up here.

Intentionally challenging people who think that drawing pictures of Mohammed should be banned is a good thing to do.

Geller is wrong about a lot, but she's right about that.

Geller and Robert Spencer co-founded Stop Islamization of America.[12] Geller is a co-founder of Stop Islamization of Nations, an umbrella organization that includes Stop Islamization of America and Stop Islamisation of Europe.[56][57] Both SIOA and FDI are described as exhibiting anti-Muslim bigotry by the Anti-Defamation League.[26][58] The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies them as hate groups.[59] According to the Center, Geller is the "anti-Muslim movement's most visible and flamboyant figurehead. She's relentlessly shrill and coarse in her broad-based denunciations of Islam."[60] Geller dismissed the SPLC as an "uber left" organization.[61]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Geller

None of that changes the truth of the post you responded to, which you have not addressed.

I'm so glad I am registered as "no party affiliation."

constant hate speech, as they do daily in public, in private and in the halls of power, are they intentionally egging on violent responses? They attack us personally, our families, children and friends, not some historic figure, real living people. There are hundreds of anti gay assaults and other bias crimes each year in the US, murder is not uncommon and religion is very often the stated motive of the criminal. This suggests that they are intentionally provoking us with word and with deed.
So. Would it be ok if violence came to those who spend all day every day degrading LGBT people in the name of their cartoon Gods?

My other question is this. If you feel this way, why are you not spending all day every day trying to stop hate speech that streams out of religion, pointedly, regularly and without reservation?

I'm not going to spend all day going through all the times I've spoken out in real life, let alone online. And it's obvious very few people around know much about Pam Geller and her crusade against billions of people.

I could, hypothetically, stand in the public square and say whatever I want about any group of people until someone gets angry enough to punch me in the nose. That person is legally guilty of assault and personally responsible for not looking the other way, BUT there I logically should have anticipated that it might not end well.

the Westboro Baptist church and the KKK. This country has a long tradition of allowing despicable speech without fear of being killed for it.

You evaded everything I said and called it dumb. You shimmer with respect for those unlike yourself.

You are freely condemning them for what they say. But some of the response on this issue seems to be akin to asking you how dare you deprives the Pope of his first amendment rights by saying he shouldn't say that?

The issue is really that nobody says you can't draw Mohamed. But you can be criticized for doing it as someone who is being offensive, like the Pope with his disrespect of gay people.

on issues relating to terrorism and fundamentalist Islam. I've pretty much given up even TRYING on this board. But I'll K&R for your effort.

Kudos to you.

No one was forced to attend the exhibition.

If some Muslims are such immature assholes that they can't behave like civilized human beings, then I'm glad the attackers are dead.

Being an atheist, I think the world spends too much time, energy, and money trying not to offend various religious beliefs.

The religious need to grow up.

Let's get some big-time anti-Islamic riffs on air, and see if public exposure cleans up some of this vile thinking.

something is seriously wrong with the enablers of the attacks.

the Christian right would go ballistic! Guns, bombs, screaming on Fox the whole smack!

They cannot stand behind the founding fathers and do this shit. The founding fathers came here to get away from religious tyranny, among other things.

A friend of mine said all of this is the final chapter of white Christian majority rule in the US. He indicated that this chapter is bound to be much more violent than others since they see it as the end of the 50's. I agree, so many of the right wing nuts are afraid of anyone outside their race and religion they have gone into their fox holes to plan the overthrow of the government. Thankfully, I don't think there are enough of them, and I don't think they are smart enough to pull it off.

People draw Jesus all the time in ways that could be considered blasphemous and no one gets shot over it.

Has he ever take a shot at spoofing the prophet?

New England culture, Christian, maybe Catholic, upbringing. He's done some mocking of Arab culture here and there (a "road" episode on FG and a "Stan moves to Saudi Arabia" one on American Dad) where Islam was part of the scenery, but he hasn't delved too deeply.

Not much of a TV person, but I think if it were an "event" advertised as a Jesus Cartoon contest it would get some serious attention. I could be wrong, but the people I see where I live would not do well with that image.

I didn't see your post before I posted my comment!

A. It's not a sin to draw Jesus
B. Muslims likely wouldn't defile Jesus since he is a prophet in their religion
C. Things like Piss Christ happen all the time and are largely ignored unless there is some weird confluence of events

No. And, LOL.

Or what a monster she is. Even assholes have freedom of speech.

would happen if a Muslim group hosted an event with a
contest as to who could create the most disrespectful and
hate-filled cartoon about Jesus.

Would their "free speech" be protected by Texans? hahahaha

I would never, ever condone violence of any kind. People seem
to forget that hate speech is not free. There is always some
type of price to pay.

Someone made their own decision, on their own free will, to retaliate to a stupid Mohammed Art Contest by shooting at people. Nobody forced anybody to shoot anyone.