The blood would be on the hands of the childish assholes who think a man dead for over a fucking thousand years can be insulted and that they should KILL someone for the insult.

All these fucking tired rationalizations for asshole terrorists makes DU suck. Even more.

So she could have her insane battle to the death against all Muslims.

I made no rationalizations.

You would agree that everyone should give this stupid, senselessly inflammatory"we have the right to draw Muhammad" thing a rest, though, wouldn't you? You would agree that it isn't something that's more important than preventing war, right?


Only a hate-based war-loving, world-despising reactionary would insist on pushing for such a meaningless "right".

to prevent a war? Perhaps we should close all the Planned Parenthood clinics as they are offensive to so many people. Or is that a "meaningless right" also? I think you need to sit back and really think about what you're talking about here. If you have a problem with free speech and having no right NOT to be insulted, perhaps you're living in the wrong country.

Stupid is as stupid does.

With the murdered considered "collateral damage"?

Thank you .

A lot of the countries didn't have these sort of laws until they basically started shoving them down their throats, they spent over $100 billion spreading their doctrine which is their way is the only way & covert or die.

The man dead over thousands of years had his immediate families' graves desecrated & almost had his & Saudi Arabia probably got back to it all in an effort to prevent idolatry but with so much of their beliefs marketing through propaganda I wonder how much of it is genuine or just a way to oppress & control others. Certainly don't factor the disrespect there but it isn't like he can be insulted or they kill themselves over it.

Muhammad all he said was don't worship images of Muhammad. That's it.

Nobody likes police brutality, but is there really an excuse for groups of people to gather and deliberately provoke responses from violent police officers?

And there's nothing bigoted about opposing police brutality. There's no non-hate based reason to even want to draw the prophet. You can't insist on drawing mohammad for any positive or legitimate reason.

The only people who want to do so are extreme right-wing hatemongers-people who WANT a global war against all Muslims. Nobody is fighting for that right now who also wants peace or anything progressive or humane for the world. If you want those things, you don't fight battles for the right to do things that can only make life worse.

Getting to draw The Prophet isn't more important than building a better world-and it can never be worth provoking war.

Just let this "fight" go-it's not more important than ending bloodshed or fighting bigotry or wiping out poverty and exploitation.

Plenty of artists have done just that.

Both are "goading" and the motives are completely irrelevant. In this country, you don't have the right for your religion not to be mocked or even hated. Anyone who can't handle that is free to leave.

The whole thing stems from Muhammad saying don't worship images of Muhammad just the Wahabbism sect takes this & so many more things as they should prevent the opportunity, take away the choice I'm sure it has evolved to much more than that but that is where the idea & their interpretation which in the end seems to be more about oppressing & controlling others than anything religious.

She seemed if I skimmed the OP correctly as she was using this as an us against Muslims type of event, I'd be surprised if they know why the terrorists take it so far but I wonder if they knew the basis comes from drawing an image creates an opportunity for someone to worship the image.

It's just there to make sure, as you pointed out, that no one confuses the issue and starts worshipping Muhammad himself-Muslims revere Muhammad, but don't see him as God...they see Allah as God. It's about avoiding accidental polytheism.

And again, as I said with the first words of the OP, killing people for drawing the prophet is absoutely wrong. The only reason I am getting any blowback here is that some people think THAT part of it is all that matters and some of us are simply pointing out that it isn't that simple, that the intent behind this event matters too, and we need to understand that and evaluate it if we are to come up with any non-fascist, non-warmongering response to this.

We certainly know what Pamela Geller's motivations are she is so far right but the shooter is likely somebody influenced by the Wahabbi ideology. This whole outrage over images is very recent not an issue across the board, it becomes an issue is when the depictions are very stereotypical similar to controversies over Chief Wahoo & other Native American names & mascots.

I don't support their proactive approach in preventing the possibility of the idolatry from occurring that they have descreated Muhammad's families graves they were just fine with no issues for thousands of years until al-Wahhab giving his right fundamentalist version of all "convert or die". ibn Saud was a follower and after the pact began 1st & 2nd Saudi state the Saud dynasty & the rest is history gained control in a trial of blood & beheadings never fully established it until the 1930s then California Oil Company (Chevron) discovered oil there & the rest is history.

Iran has some pretty bad laws including an image ban but they tolerate it.

Painting of Mohammed in modern Iran


There is actually a sculpture of Mohammed holding a Quran on the building of the US Supreme Court. Images throughout time, Quran doesn't ban images merely mentions not to worship images of Muhammed. They go so far to take the choice or the option it is really just extreme but these draw Mohammed events don't seem to be about addressing the controversy in a way that doesn't become a hate rally.

If that's right, the whole "fight for the right to draw Mohammed" thing is just silly, and everyone should move on.

I think the OP is ridiculous. If you don't like free speech, or the fact that NO religion is beyond mocking, this isn't the country for you. Blaming the victims of violence is the same as telling a woman not to wear a short skirt if she doesn't want to be raped. Only animals can't control their own behavior.

And it's not ever worth putting anyone's life in danger.

Code Pink-style shouting? Die-ins? Bridge closures?

Hell, if anything the right-wing asshattery of this makes it even more clearly free speech: they were deliberately expressing their judgment of Islam. And that is 100% absolutely their right to do without fear.

Like using the N word or the B word. (Or "thug" as we have lately been informed).

(It's still a very sore subject in India; tens of thousands of Indians were extrajudicially murdered by the EIC and the word "thug" was borrowed to "justify" that...)

It's incredibly offensive. So was "Piss Christ", but it was also a worthwhile work of art. Were any of these cartoons worthwhile works of art? No idea. Probably not; Sturgeon's law* leans against it. Some of the Danish cartoons definitely were (others were, as Sturgeon predicted, crap).

*shrug* I don't have to respect Gellar to blame the two gunmen in this case, I think.

* "90% of everything is crap"

without being distracted into the First Amendment (nobody says she should be arrested for it) or about not blaming the gunmen (no one excuses them).

The issue is deliberately offending people. I find it interesting on DU we would never excuse use of the N word, F word or B word like this. Accuse other DUers of being against free speech because we condemn it. It can be two things at the same time. Offensive and yet not punishable under the law.

There's an anti-religion thing going on that blinds people to this. And I can say that Christians can take it better than Muslims. A very generalized statement but nobody killed anyone over "Piss Christ." But when it comes to any other group other than Muslims, we seem to respect that people are offended by certain things and condemn saying it.

The law is there for precisely this reason. You don't need to protect speech that nobody finds offensive. They knew some religious freaks would find this offensive and were prepared with their own security measures - good thing they did. But the blame is SOLELY on the gunmen.

Personally, I'd rather live in a free society instead of a safe society, but that's just me.

When it's not YOU getting killed, perhaps?


Point: I'm in favor of free speech..I'm AGAINST deliberate provocation.

I would personally take an increased change of death with freedom over safety, but that's just me. Life is short anyways.

What I am afraid of is the idea of saying nothing and letting huge numbers of OTHER people get killed over something that, in the greater scheme of things, is not worth a single human life.

I had a nice, detailed post planned out, but it boils down to that, honestly.

Sid

and yet, I could never -- would never -- even consider using violence or censorship to shut you down. If I can do it, and I'm nobody in particular, surely anyone else can do it as well. People choose how they will respond to provocation.

I am surprised.

Look, these people "responding" to you are more worried about appearing sufficiently and stylishly put off by your posts, than with correcting you, so allow me to make the effort.

First, you're right on one thing, it's not a freedom of speech issue - Congress is not passing any laws to ban blasphemy. The freedom to be an enormous dick is not in question, and two freshly-dead dudes aren't going to chill that. Even if they had succeeded. No, this "contest' is straight-up trolling. Like the Klan marching through Jewish neighborhoods. They really are trying to provoke a reaction. But... they do have the right to be trolls. Ideally they would use their rights to productive ends, but stupidity is rarely productive, so they do this instead. Whatever. So long as they steer clear of actual proscribed speech (Libel, slander, threats, etc) they're in the clear - and since Mohammed has been dead for a pretty long damn time, i don't think a libel suit would stand, so. There are some laws against incitement. However there's really no case to be made here - you can't really be accused of inciting others to attack you. Taunting is not considered incitement, basically.

That is because there is the expectation that people are able to endure taunting without resorting to violence. And in fairness, pretty much everyone manages this simple task, fairly often. If we all got into fistfights over daily indignities, we'd probably be extinct as a species, having bludgeoned ourselves out of the evolutionary tree. So long as the taunts do not become threats, the expectation is that you either absorb it or walk away from it.

So, is it these bigot's fault that they got attacked? No, it's the attackers' fault for attacking them. That's how it works. They're bigots, but they were bringing no threats or violence to these two men. Could they be accused of expecting or even hoping for violence? Yup, same as the Klan expects and hopes for a bottle to be chucked when they hike through minority communities, same as the Phelps clan expects and hopes for a fistfight at their funeral protests. It's still the fault of the people attacking them, because they are the ones making the choice to engage in violence. They are not acting in defense, they are not being forced, they are deciding that insults are worth violence. And that is their problem, and not the fault of the people insulting them.

As I said, if you want to argue that freedom of speech has so many better uses than bigotry and taunts, that's perfectly valid, and I'd agree with it. But again, stupid people don't tend to be constructive people, so we get bigots ant taunts. people don't deserve violence or murder for being stupid - the Darwin Award only go to literal self-inflicted harm, and would be substantially less funny if it were "This person got shot in the face after writing a nasty comment on youtube."

The ethical standard is to avoid violence, with the only exception being self-defense or defense of others. The only people in need of defense in this incident were the bigots being attacked. They should not have to fear being attacked (and I doubt any of them do, they seem to relish the idea, as it "proves them right&quot . The appropriate response to what htye do, is exactly the response the overwhelming majority of Muslims give them; mockery and getting ignored.

Right on the money

We can't carve out exceptions like this because there are crazy religious zealots in the world.

Thank you in advance.

BTW, I don't it's a question of "censoring" Pam Gellar's event, though her group is

considered a Hate Group by the SPLC, it's a question of pointing out how

STUPID and irresponsible the "contest" was.

If I am going to defend the artist in one instance it is incumbent upon me to defend the artist in another or I am being discriminatory and giving more heed to one group's sensibilities than another.

I think we who agree on that should be "allowed" to say so without others inferring

that we are in favor of censorship.

Excellent analogy.

Police seem to be kettling at every protest I see which they keep a perimeter either with orange tape (NYC usually) or line up in formations blocking the protestors in. They need permission for food, water, & toilet and while I don't know how often those requests are granted they could in theory rarely grant them that. They move closer & closer, sometimes doing the goading themselves that when something finally pops and they are already angry with cops so who is deliberately provoking a response from who? So when it pops they can move in with countless arbitrary arrests & break up the protest that way. Remember these are protests against police brutality and for whatever reason the big cities & Ferguson showed up in Blackwater tanks for a protest? I remember you mentioned you served, you know typically only took what was needed for the task.

Look, I certainly disagree with any reasons the shooter would have for shooting here or the Wahabbi sect for reasons they come up for literally anything. Saudi Arabia beheads & crucifies someone that advocated non-violent opposition remarkable for someone shot in the leg by police so we know how they feel about free speech or do we? I think a better effort could be put into pointing out the real targets rather than just blame the faith or even worry about provocation them. Typically all that ends up happening is you're insulting traditional Muslims & their free speech to express that is insulted with a suggestion to get out of the country. In the end all she is doing is helping the propaganda efforts of those that are doing this, even bulldozing Muhammad's grave. After Charlie Hedbo there were several attacks mostly at places of worship such as Mosques. There was a popular dallies in Bangladesh around for 50 some years. A cartoonist made a harmless joke on using Muhammad before your name with the kid in response to what his cat's name was said Muhammad cat they burned that place to the ground.

I agree & disagree with the OP -- I think the rhetorical device doesn't quite fit with the point its attempting. A famous image of Muhammad from 1425 or a series of images paintings that detail his journey.

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/57.51.9

My bad; glad you did catch the intent ultimately.

This shit might fly in other countries, and I might even agree, but here we have this shit, and we have to back it even if it is totally inappropriate bullshit.

This is akin to the moral panic over flag burning. Get the fuck over it.

Fuck Pam Geller. Boycott or protest that shit if you want to have an effect. Don't bemoan it after the fact.

Nazi's have been run out of towns here, but not after the fact, not after it made the news, not after people got wind of it. It happens as it happens. If you wanted to stop the exhibit the time was days before it even happened.

Not in "retrospect."

Not, aww, some poor murderers were upset, and managed to get themselves killed. Had there been a remote protest it may be that the assholes would've seen it and changed their minds.

The government can't intercede to stop this kind of speech. We, the citizenry, can condemn the fuck out of it if we so choose. Personally, I think what we've got here is two distinct sets of assbuckets that the nation could do perfectly well without: on one side, we have Islamic extremists who respond to blasphemy with bullets; on the other side we have ignorant rednecks who are just aching for an excuse to shoot people with whom they disagree. If those two parties want to kill each other, my only request is that they avoid collateral damage to the rest of us.

But anything more than that, such as "two parties wanting to kill each other" is utter nonsense. That is not to be condoned in any scenario.

but she did nothing illegal and the imbecile gunmen gave her exactly what she was looking for. And you blame her for that. I blame the thin skinned gunmen who have no right not be insulted and the only ones responsible if there had been more violence would be those same gunmen. I'm glad they're dead - just two more religious freaks who think everyone should adhere to their feelings about blasphemy.

I'm just saying that there would have been no gunmen if Pam Geller hadn't intentionally caused this situation.

The right to draw The Prophet is a pointless and meaningless thing to do. There can never be a progressive or positive case for fighting for it, because there are no points about the Islamic world that can only be made by drawing the Prophet.

right here on DU. Are we "asking for it"? The fact that the gunmen gave Geller exactly what she was looking for is their problem alone.

Religious nutfucks don't get to tell decent people what they can and cannot do. The only justification I need to draw Muhammad is that someone has had the audacity to suggest that I can't.

...as she did in this situation.

Seems fairly straight forward to me. But, ask yourselves, how many should we let die before this kind of sick "free speech" is outlawed?

What exactly should be banned?

There's a reason the ACLU very effectively argues against the slippery slope of using the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy for despicable speech.

After they showed up to desecrate one soldier's funeral too many.



But that isn't a fair comparison, because the real issue is that Pam Gellar staged this event, and will stage more such events if she can, did so and will do so because she wants there to be a large-scale massacre of Prophet-drawers by Islamic extremist whackjobs so she can get the global religious/cultural war she dreams of.

This isn't about crying "fire" in a crowded theatre...it's about STARTING a fire in a crowded theatre.

Troll elsewhere.

by speaking out in defiance of people that they knew would be offended on a very deep visceral level and would react violently to said offense. And sure enough, plenty of people got hurt and killed.

I am not in the least bit OK with setting the bar for free speech at whatever violent nutters deem acceptable.

Bloodbaths ALSO have backlashes.

And this one is no different. Now there WILL be another contest, another cartoon, another provocation in some form.

And so it continues.

Ultimately although both parties can be apportioned blame, the lion's share must go to the killers. There is no excuse and such behavior should not be condoned or even given the appearance of being condoned.

There will be a payment for this and it will be two-sided.

But no, it is not Gellar who we should focus on. Sticks and fucking stones.

Wahabbism, the sect responsible for most of the terrorism & their radical view on idolatry (simply don't worship images of Muhammad) take it so much further that Saudi Arabia compromised on allowing television as long as only propaganda is shown. Same with the internet, you need a license to blog.

Anyways, when they first established power of Saudi Arabia the desecrated the grave of Muhammad's immediate family put the brakes on himself, basically bulldozing over notable graves & historical landmarks with Mecca & Medina inside its borders. A building with the Bin Laden family name with a parking lot paved over the grave of the 1st Islam Caliph in their radical interpretation to prevent idolatry to just basically preventing something to create an opportunity for someone to worship they drew of Muhammad.

I don't know why people seem to make a target and I mean mostly for the satire ridicule rather than the possible kind of drawings here

All that needs to be said is contrast the Constitution of Medina from Muhammad himself to the House of Saud who rules over Medina

In Muhammad's last years in Mecca, a delegation from Medina, consisting of the representatives of the twelve important clans of Medina, invited him as a neutral outsider to Medina to serve as the chief arbitrator for the entire community.[6][7] There was fighting in Medina mainly involving its pagan and Jewish inhabitants for around a hundred years before 620. The recurring slaughters and disagreements over the resulting claims, especially after the Battle of Bu'ath in which all the clans were involved, made it obvious to them that the tribal conceptions of blood-feud and an eye for an eye were no longer workable unless there was one man with authority to adjudicate in disputed cases.[6] The delegation from Medina pledged themselves and their fellow-citizens to accept Muhammad into their community and physically protect him as one of themselves.[8]

After emigration to Medina, Muhammad drafted the Charter of Medina, "establishing a kind of alliance or federation" among the eight Medinan tribes and Muslim emigrants from Mecca, which specified the rights and duties of all citizens and the relationship of the different communities in Medina (including that of the Muslim community to other communities, specifically the Jews and other "Peoples of the Book&quot .[6]

<snip>

Rights of non-Muslims

The non-Muslims had the following rights:[36]

The security of God is equal for all groups,[37]
Non-Muslim members will have the same political and cultural rights as Muslims. They will have autonomy and freedom of religion.[38]
Non-Muslims will take up arms against the enemy of the Ummah and share the cost of war. There is to be no treachery between the two.[39]
Non-Muslims will not be obliged to take part in religious wars of the Muslims.[40]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1002

Muhammad was exactly the kind of innovator of Islam al-Wahhab preached again but obviously didn't say Muhammad was but they have managed to advance further back in civilization than the goal they had in mind. Especially on the education front, Muslim mathematics added some significant advancements during this era. Algebra.

I mean the people with their images deliberately slamming Muhammad as if he's responsible or suggesting blow up somebody if they draw picture of me but its OK to build a hotel over my grave so people won't be allowed to worship. Its like the holy book suggests to not use alcohol they take it so far to mean to have an outright ban on alcohol. Though possession is typically religious instruction and a public whipping. Drug possession they execute.

People making assumptions without knowing shit about who shot up the place.

It is logical they would be behind something like this or the ideology influenced him likely with the help of propaganda. If I turn out wrong, then why did he shoot it up? Had nothing to do with the images but the hate? I'm confused because you don't come out and say what your point is. The Charlie Hedbo had some Cleveland Indians images of Muhammad but not just them its like those with Muhammad drawing events or especially in her case calling for a global war against the entire sect (Sunni Islams outnumber the Christian population alone) she to me is the one making assumptions without knowing shit. I don't support the shooters at all or the House of Saud especially, they push this on their population.

The destruction of Mecca: Saudi hardliners are wiping out their own heritage

Almost all of the rich and multi-layered history of the holy city is gone. The Washington-based Gulf Institute estimates that 95 per cent of millennium-old buildings have been demolished in the past two decades.

Now the actual birthplace of the Prophet Mohamed is facing the bulldozers, with the connivance of Saudi religious authorities whose hardline interpretation of Islam is compelling them to wipe out their own heritage.

It is the same oil-rich orthodoxy that pumped money into the Taliban as they prepared to detonate the Bamiyan buddhas in 2000. And the same doctrine - violently opposed to all forms of idolatry - that this week decreed that the Saudis' own king be buried in an unmarked desert grave.

A Saudi architect, Sami Angawi, who is an acknowledged specialist on the region's Islamic architecture, told The Independent that the final farewell to Mecca is imminent: "What we are witnessing are the last days of Mecca and Medina."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-destruction-of-mecca-saudi-hardliners-are-wiping-out-their-own-heritage-304029.html

They are bullldozing over the grave of the prophet they don't want people to create an image of on the chance someone will worship it. It is so obvious where the idea comes from whether he was directly aligned with al-qaeda-like group.

Not yet.

Just like Charlie Hebdo- shooting people over cartoons is wrong, yakno, butbutbutbut



"in theory you should be free to draw the Prophet if you want-but"

butbutbutbutbut!

butbut!

It's not about whether there's a "point". People make statements all the time that don't have a POINT.

Rational people either ignore them, or say "that's fucked up", or maybe they say "fuck you" or make an offensive statement back of their own.

PERIOD. No buts.

It's like their heads are one giant but or stuck in their but.

I'm not usually a conspiratorial-type person.

America is a country for all-types of people, every nationality, every religion.

Is something going on behind the scenes??

The House of Saud descends from a follower of the original Wahabbi cult from the tribal area of Najd. Thanks to petrodollars it helped them spread their ideology building religious universities but I don't think its a conspiracy from Geller. People genuinely believe the fundamentalist sect is representative of the entire faith. So for some reason the US still downplays it or it seems like they pretend they don't notice the connection going so far to block efforts from the 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia, the "28 pages", and so forth. This from a leaked cable something they won't say publicly

US embassy cables: Hillary Clinton says Saudi Arabia 'a critical source of terrorist funding'

2. (S/NF) Summary: In August 2009, Special Representative to the President for Afghanistan and Pakistan (S/SRAP) Ambassador Richard Holbrooke in coordination with the Department of Treasury established the interagency Illicit Finance Task Force (IFTF). The IFTF is chaired by Treasury A/S David Cohen. It focuses on disrupting illicit finance activities in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the external financial/logistical support networks of terrorist groups that operate there, such as al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, and Lashkar e-Tayyiba (LeT). The IFTF's activities are a vital component of the USG's Afghanistan and Pakistan (Af/Pak) strategy dedicated to disrupting illicit finance flows between the Gulf countries and Afghanistan and Pakistan. The IFTF has created a diplomatic engagement strategy to assist in the accomplishment of this objective. The strategy focuses on senior-level USG engagement with Gulf countries and Pakistan to communicate USG counterterrorism priorities and to generate the political will necessary to address the problem. The IFTF has drafted talking points for use by all USG officials in their interactions with Gulf and Pakistani interlocutors. These points focus on funding for terrorist groups threatening stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan and targeting coalition soldiers. These points have been cleared through the relevant Washington agencies.

3. (SBU) Action request: Drawing on the background materials for respective countries, and in preparation for the upcoming visits by Ambassador Holbrooke and Treasury U/S Levey in January, the Department requests all action posts deliver the general talking points in paras 5-6 and country specific talking points contained in the following paras: (1) Saudi Arabia ) para 8, (2) Kuwait ) para 10, (3) UAE ) para 12, and (4) Pakistan ) para 13. The talking points should be delivered by Ambassadors/Charge D'Affaires.

4. (C) In response to State 112368, the Department has received responses from Embassies Riyadh, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, Doha, and Islamabad regarding the resource capabilities devoted towards these efforts. The Department also received each Mission's evaluation of the effectiveness of host country institutions working on combating terrorism financing along with post's recommendations on ways forward.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/242073

I just wonder what it is Pam Gellar really sees it as so I doubt there is a conspiracy angle. I don't think she knows what she hates or aspects, just wants to indict the entire sect where a sect such as Sunni Islam outnumber the entire Christian population I really oppose both the gunman (especially his influence) & Gellar suggesting a global war which would play into their hands because that is what their propaganda preaches all-the-time. I don't even think the gunman knows exactly, except being disrespectful when the whole image thing came about because of idolatry, to prevent it. Saudi Arabia has long been bulldozing over graves of Muhammad's immediate family (had plans to move his grave to a mysterious location so no one will know where his grave is to worship it). All I can say is there isn't something the US isn't telling us but for recruiting purposes US policies in the region create more chaos which breeds more terrorists and seem to keep up with this status quo instead of addressing Saudi Arabia not just for terrorism but for a brutal human rights records but ISIS who we hear about governs the territories they can control the same way Saudi Arabia does. Everything from the religious courts to the Hisbah(morals police) checking in on you. No coincidence they get a lot of money from Gulf investors with Qatar really sticking out. Instead the US supports Jordan's Houthi embargo so the Saudi coalition can bomb the shit out of a religious minority. Really quite sad but I don't the US ever was whatever marketing was about themselves. Indefinite detention in American run detention facilities was great for recruiting.

Well, free speech is all well and good, but but but

it's wrong to shoot people over a cartoon of course but

It's like Charlie Hebdo. I predict a lot of buts flying around GD.

No! And drawing should not be banned either.
You have a right to live you life the way you want to; you do not have the right dictate how others live their lives.

Simple.

The blood of those who died in this shooting is entirely on their own hands; the security guard who shot them was quite right to do so.

"mitigating" and "aggravating" circumstances . In the law, someone

can be held as partially or wholly responsible -- it's really not "simple" at all.

nt

Ugh, the twisted fucked up pretzel logic is unreal.

if the OP has no respect at all for LGBT people or for the rights of women. Our direct and righteous challenges to him are ignored. That's very telling.

I have never understood it.

Never will.

nt

Not sure drawing Mohamed serves any purpose but to upset Muslims, some small tiny minority of which we know would kill over it.

It's free speech. But with Pam Gellar, we know her intent. I wouldn't draw Mohamed just to upset Muslims, and wouldn't draw him generally as I know it offends them. (Leaving aside my drawing abilities are such that nobody would know it was Mohamed).

Antichoicers don't see the "purpose". In fact, they call it murder and feel violence is justified.

Still there is less use in drawing Mohamed. People don't get abortions solely to upset anti-choices. They have their own reasons.

I suppose there could be some serious artist out there who really feels they have something to say with the portrait. Reminiscent of Salman Rushdie and his novel. It is truly hard for the rest of us to understand what they find so offensive. I'm figuring that without the death threats from the extremist, the average Muslim is still offended much like we would be to be called the B word. Not that it's not covered by free speech, or that it justifies killing, but people are still offended as we know we discuss this on DU all the time.

To act as though some non-violent offensive acts or speech "serve a purpose" and others do not is incredibly arrogant and wrong-headed. In addition, the "purpose" is 100% totally irrelevant.

No non-violent acts or speech, no matter what "purpose" or how "offensive" to ANYONE justify violence and murder.

None. Ever.

but the people drawing Mohamed are doing it solely to taunt Muslims. The average ones who don't kill over it are likely still offended.

One of my county's clubs protested her and got one of her speeches moved a couple of years ago

...to talk about how horrible she was? They actually were involved in getting rid of a hatemonger before there was a chance to spread hate?

Amazing concept!

PS just being sarcastic. Good for you guys!

religion or would LGBT people be somehow given warrant to attack the many religious persons who provoke us daily with vile and personalized hate speech that they claim comes from their Goddy God, Mo the Pro, Jesu the Son, whoever it is they declare to be divine that week?

Who has the right to fist blood? Who is the offended party?

The body of the OP starts with what, at best, is a boilerplate, toss-away perfunctory, "No one SHOULD die for drawing Mohammed," but then spends the balance of its time telling why people who draw Mohammed should expect to die.

You even end this pap with, "She has to be stopped"

Oh really? How? Do you really want to use the power of government to enforce censorship on behalf of violent radicals?

Stop defending and apologizing for killers.

I wouldn't cross the street to piss on Gellar if she were on fire, but this victim blaming crap is insane.

The usual suspects are, predictably, quite predictable.

Because I'm going to make this very clear - if they can't stand some speech - fuck 'em. I will never condone self censorship. Should we give up on Gay Marriage because it will goad radical Christians into attacking gay events? Should we give up on a Woman's Right to Choose because it does goad some radicals to attack clinics and doctors?

The answer is simple and clear - NO!

other situations. I think you owe it to DU to very specifically and clearly state what you think about these things. Religious people 'offended' by LGBT, attack and kill us. Religious people 'offended' by reproductive choice, attack clinics and kill people. Are you saying those who do so are somehow justified in doing so, because they are 'offended' or are you saying that LGBT people and women would be somehow justified in taking up arms against those who insult us constantly and murder us occasionally?

have to battle all too frequently from people who broad brush them and have in threads here today.

The Muslim community is not so sensitive, as a group, do not need nor are asking for hate crimes laws
nor delegating the crime to blame Geller. Is Geller free to speak, yes. Is Geller spreading hate? Yes.

Muslims Defend Pam Geller’s Right to Hate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016121615

By the kind of victim blaming and twisted logic you use here.

It's wrong to kill people who offend you.

Period. Full stop. No more needs to be said.

And it's disgusting to try and say that someone is to blame for people killing over being offended on someone's speech. Your whole premise that we should just shut up and give in to violent assholes instead to placing the blame where it belongs- 100% on the shoulders of people who would kill because their religion was offended and people like you who would rather cower and give in to their violent demands instead of decrying them.

They had it coming?!