I guess what you don't like watching is the reaction to their vile behavior. I don't like either.
We are in agreement here. There is no excuse, none.
I think we all agree with that. At least I do. That's not the issue.
The issue IMO is that having a right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do. I can believe what she did was wrong, even though it was her right to do it. Goes without saying that what the attackers did was wrong. And condemning her actions does not condone the attackers, or vice versa. It's not an either/or, it's more like two wrongs not making a right.
But lets look at the result. Two terrorists were taken out and will never harm anybody. Nobody is talking about that. This cartoon contest could have saved no telling how many innocent lives. Maybe two wrongs DID make a right.
Was the NFL behind this sting operation as well?
The risk of hurting someone's feelings vs. Two dead terrorists
I'll take the latter. Looks like a win to me.
Ao you really think it was a sting operation? Wow. Ok.
I guess what you don't like watching is the reaction to their vile behavior. I don't like either.
We are in agreement here. There is no excuse, none.
I think we all agree with that. At least I do. That's not the issue.
The issue IMO is that having a right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do. I can believe what she did was wrong, even though it was her right to do it. Goes without saying that what the attackers did was wrong. And condemning her actions does not condone the attackers, or vice versa. It's not an either/or, it's more like two wrongs not making a right.
But lets look at the result. Two terrorists were taken out and will never harm anybody. Nobody is talking about that. This cartoon contest could have saved no telling how many innocent lives. Maybe two wrongs DID make a right.
Was the NFL behind this sting operation as well?
The risk of hurting someone's feelings vs. Two dead terrorists
I'll take the latter. Looks like a win to me.
Ao you really think it was a sting operation? Wow. Ok.
Your words, not mine.
I guess what you don't like watching is the reaction to their vile behavior. I don't like either.
We are in agreement here. There is no excuse, none.
I think we all agree with that. At least I do. That's not the issue.
The issue IMO is that having a right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do. I can believe what she did was wrong, even though it was her right to do it. Goes without saying that what the attackers did was wrong. And condemning her actions does not condone the attackers, or vice versa. It's not an either/or, it's more like two wrongs not making a right.
But lets look at the result. Two terrorists were taken out and will never harm anybody. Nobody is talking about that. This cartoon contest could have saved no telling how many innocent lives. Maybe two wrongs DID make a right.
Was the NFL behind this sting operation as well?
The risk of hurting someone's feelings vs. Two dead terrorists
I'll take the latter. Looks like a win to me.
Ao you really think it was a sting operation? Wow. Ok.
Your words, not mine.
Is that a yes or a no?
But lets look at the result. Two terrorists were taken out and will never harm anybody. Nobody is talking about that. This cartoon contest could have saved no telling how many innocent lives. Maybe two wrongs DID make a right.
Was the NFL behind this sting operation as well?
The risk of hurting someone's feelings vs. Two dead terrorists
I'll take the latter. Looks like a win to me.
Ao you really think it was a sting operation? Wow. Ok.
Your words, not mine.
Is that a yes or a no?
Negative. I haven't heard anybody besides you float that possibility, but it's still a win in the end.
[Edited on 5/19/2015 by alloak41]
But lets look at the result. Two terrorists were taken out and will never harm anybody. Nobody is talking about that. This cartoon contest could have saved no telling how many innocent lives. Maybe two wrongs DID make a right.
Was the NFL behind this sting operation as well?
The risk of hurting someone's feelings vs. Two dead terrorists
I'll take the latter. Looks like a win to me.
Do you really think it was a sting operation? Wow. Ok.
Your words, not mine.
Is that a yes or a no?
Negative. I haven't heard anybody besides you float that possibility, but it's still a win in the end.
Well, I didn't really float it, I was actually making a joke about the NFL which I thought was kinda obvious. But based on your response it seemed like the follow up question had to be asked.
As for being a win, I just say that I certainly won't lose any sleep over a few dead terrorists, but dead men can't talk either.
[Edited on 5/19/2015 by gondicar]
But lets look at the result. Two terrorists were taken out and will never harm anybody. Nobody is talking about that. This cartoon contest could have saved no telling how many innocent lives. Maybe two wrongs DID make a right.
Was the NFL behind this sting operation as well?
The risk of hurting someone's feelings vs. Two dead terrorists
I'll take the latter. Looks like a win to me.
Do you really think it was a sting operation? Wow. Ok.
Your words, not mine.
Is that a yes or a no?
Negative. I haven't heard anybody besides you float that possibility, but it's still a win in the end.
Well, I didn't really float it, I was actually making a joke about the NFL which I thought was kinda obvious. But based on your response it seemed like the follow up question had to be asked.
As for being a win, I just say that I certainly won't lose any sleep over a few dead terrorists, but dead men can't talk either.
That's true. Another point to consider.
But lets look at the result. Two terrorists were taken out and will never harm anybody. Nobody is talking about that. This cartoon contest could have saved no telling how many innocent lives. Maybe two wrongs DID make a right.
Was the NFL behind this sting operation as well?
The risk of hurting someone's feelings vs. Two dead terrorists
I'll take the latter. Looks like a win to me.
Do you really think it was a sting operation? Wow. Ok.
Your words, not mine.
Is that a yes or a no?
Negative. I haven't heard anybody besides you float that possibility, but it's still a win in the end.
Well, I didn't really float it, I was actually making a joke about the NFL which I thought was kinda obvious. But based on your response it seemed like the follow up question had to be asked.
As for being a win, I just say that I certainly won't lose any sleep over a few dead terrorists, but dead men can't talk either.
That's true. Another point to consider.
______________________________________________________________________
The "Do you really think it was a sting operation? Wow. Ok. " line comes from a left-wing view of terrorism.
Reality eludes them.
When someone is threatening to kill you, as we have been by The Islamic Extremist Terrorists, they must be taken out. Period.
That concept is so foreign to the liberals they so often criticize Patriots for defending their rights.
When someone is threatening to kill you, as we have been by The Islamic Extremist Terrorists, they must be taken out. Period.
That concept is so foreign to the liberals they so often criticize Patriots for defending their rights.
Are you saying Pam Geller is a "Patriot" who is "defending rights"?
Leading a cartoon contest for the purpose of making a (proven) point about the deep intolerance of Islam is not reckless, it is provocative free expression which is perfectly and totally appropriate.
Would you prefer all the anti-Jewish bigots in this country and across the globe would somehow learn to respect the religion and treat Jews with respect? Would you prefer that these bigots cease their verbal assaults on the religion? It's within my right to blame everything on the Jews, but is that attitude something we should embrace because of free speech? Or would you support the right to say it, but condemn the content?
To use your rather inapt analogy, if someone ridiculed Jews in a manner similar to what Geller does and a Jew went and shot that person, I would not say "Well he had the right to free speech BUT he WAS being offensive and that was reckless." I would say that it is a blight on the Jewish people that someone used violence to counter expression in our name.
Your problem is you have accepted the premise that political discourse is wrong if its offensive. Such is not the case. Geller does not do what she does for the purpose of ridiculing or hurting the feeling of Muslims. She is making a legitimate political point about Islam's intolerance and the danger of creeping Shariah law in our Western society. She has every right and indeed some would say an obligation to bring these things to the forefront and she is doing it in a highly charged way (and really any attack or criticism of Islam is highly charged due to their bizarre sensitivity) Up in Canada a writer named Mark Steyn was actually tried for "hate speech" because he was critical of Islam. It needs to stop and whether she is over the top or not, Geller is serving that cause.
A big reason the focus here is not on the lunatics V is because you keep referring to Geller's actions as an "opinion" which is like labeling a person who has a anti-Semitic or racist cartoon drawing contest not as a racist it's just someone with an opinion.
Do you get that point?
It's racist to point out that Islam has a serious problem with tolerance towards Jews, Christians and anyone else? I think not. Racist would be to say something like " Muslims are stupid and incapable of rational thought. Their genetics make it impossible for them to undserstand higher concepts like toelrance and pluralism. Therefore we must walk on eggshells around them and be very careful not to offend them because their genetics make them muchmore likely to go bezerk." That would be racist.
To respond to your point here, I used the Analogy of rascism ("is LIKE labeling" not "is exactly the same thing as") to illustrate how deeply bigotted Geller's event is to many muslims (and non-muslims for that matter). "Hate speech" is clearly not demonstrative enough as you and several others seem to think this sort of thing is simply an "opinion" that is "offensive." Like racism, this is beyond simply "offensive." Also, SIMILAR to racism, you say here "Islam has a serious problem with tolerance towards Jews" not "radical Islamicists" thus judging the entirety of a group of people based on the actions a small segment and deeming them all anti-semetic.
As far as "Jew hatred that is in the Quaran" I am sure you can find a segment of Christians who will explain to you which part of the Bible justified the bombing of abortion clinics, burning people at the stake, the Spanish Inquisitions and all the other abominable thing lunatics do and have done. I couldn't tell you their "logic" any more that I could tell you what that nut that shot up Geller's event or others like him are thinking. I can tell you the majority of people in the world, regardless of their faith, are not interested in psychotic activities.
As far as I can tell, ALL of us have 1) condemned the shooters and 2) agree that Geller has the right to say this stuff as vile as it is.
What I find really disturbing it seems that you, V and others seem to recoil and avoid the question when asked to name Geller's event for what it is: pure bigotry. Do you agree that this was a bigotted hate-rally? Or do you actually think this was some sort of art contest or "Free Speech" statement?
Please explain how it is a bigoted hate rally? Really I want to hear how it is that. I am very familiar with bigoted hate rallies. The KKK holds them. The Nazis held them obviously. I want to know how what she did qualifies as that.
As for the Jew hatred in the Koran. The Koran has flat out anti-Jewish passages. That is simply a fact. There is a LOT of Jew hatred preached in Islamic Mosques. It's certainly not all but it is most CERTAINLY not just a few. It simply isn't. As someone with a vested interest in this sort of thing I follow many sources that monitor this.
When someone is threatening to kill you, as we have been by The Islamic Extremist Terrorists, they must be taken out. Period.
That concept is so foreign to the liberals they so often criticize Patriots for defending their rights.Are you saying Pam Geller is a "Patriot" who is "defending rights"?
________________________________________________________________________
Pam Geller is a "Patriot" who is practicing her rights.
Leading a cartoon contest for the purpose of making a (proven) point about the deep intolerance of Islam is not reckless, it is provocative free expression which is perfectly and totally appropriate.
Would you prefer all the anti-Jewish bigots in this country and across the globe would somehow learn to respect the religion and treat Jews with respect? Would you prefer that these bigots cease their verbal assaults on the religion? It's within my right to blame everything on the Jews, but is that attitude something we should embrace because of free speech? Or would you support the right to say it, but condemn the content?
To use your rather inapt analogy, if someone ridiculed Jews in a manner similar to what Geller does and a Jew went and shot that person, I would not say "Well he had the right to free speech BUT he WAS being offensive and that was reckless." I would say that it is a blight on the Jewish people that someone used violence to counter expression in our name.
I agree, and my bet is that in the absence of violent retribution on your part, nobody would be saying the provocateur was "reckless and ignorant." No matter how you cut it, the tragedy of this incident is on the Muslim gunmen, not Gellar.
IMO.
Ok doughron, by failing to answer my direct question, I think you answered everything. In all seriousness, tell me if I have this right...you DO prefer that the anti-Jew bigotry would stop since it's wrong and hurtful, but if a neo-nazi (ex, held a nazi rally to blame Jews for all the world's problems) was killed by a Jew out of retaliation, you'd only criticize the Jew for the crime, and defend the neo-nazi's right to free speech?
Your problem is you have accepted the premise that political discourse is wrong if its offensive. Such is not the case. Geller does not do what she does for the purpose of ridiculing or hurting the feeling of Muslims. She is making a legitimate political point about Islam's intolerance and the danger of creeping Shariah law in our Western society. She has every right and indeed some would say an obligation to bring these things to the forefront and she is doing it in a highly charged way (and really any attack or criticism of Islam is highly charged due to their bizarre sensitivity) Up in Canada a writer named Mark Steyn was actually tried for "hate speech" because he was critical of Islam. It needs to stop and whether she is over the top or not, Geller is serving that cause.
I don't have a problem....just a view like everyone else.
I agree.....but there's a difference between political discourse and instigation, and you are not being honest if you believe this event was sincere political discourse. You are not dumb so if you are going to base your whole premise on the fact that Geller was making a sincere attempt at political discourse, then there's nothing for us to discuss further.
As for the Jew hatred in the Koran. The Koran has flat out anti-Jewish passages. That is simply a fact. There is a LOT of Jew hatred preached in Islamic Mosques. It's certainly not all but it is most CERTAINLY not just a few. It simply isn't. As someone with a vested interest in this sort of thing I follow many sources that monitor this.
Have you got a link?
I thought Abraham was considered a prophet in the Koran.
I've not read the Koran and am not versed in its verses, but if you could supply some links I'd like to know about their jew hatred.
For those who think Pam Geller is a "patriot" or some sort of hero:
If you have a “vested interest” and “follow many sources and monitor this” I do recommend you check out your champion of pure and noble intention Pam Geller.
You seriously think she is doing this to promote “legitimate political discourse”?
Here is some discourse from her blog on a picture of the kids who were murdered in Norway a few years back. Be sure to read the caption at the bottom:
What do you make of this picture she posted on her blog DEFENDING that nut who killed over these 30 CHILDREN and several more adults at a youth camp because they weren't of "pure blood"?
IF - you are serious in wanting to get to the truth of what Geller is doing here you should look up Edward Bernays and how he managed to turn the taboo act of women smoking in public into a Noble Cause by convincing them smoking was part of the “Women’s liberation” movement. Selling product (deadly no less) in the name of liberty! Geller is using the same bait and switch tactics here to convince you that Hatred (deeply offensive drawing contests, ads inciting hatred) is actually some kind of noble pursuit and play you for a fool.
The bait and switch is what makes these things hate rallies. They convince people that hate speech is some sort of “legitimate discourse” as if there were no other way to have this discussion, and to fool people into people in to thinking that Pam Geller, who as you can see from above in her defense of the killing of children who are not “pure Norwegian” among other things, is some sort of hero.
Dougrun's example of a Jew reacting murderously to something that offended him would NOT be a “blight on the Jewish people.” It would be the depraved actions of a lunatic. Judging a whole group of people based on the actions of lunatics is not accurate. The sicko who murdered all those kids in Norway, the one Geller later defended, quoted Pam Geller extensively in his sick manifesto. I am sure – seriously, no sarcasm – that you Geller fans do not condone shooting up kids and that is the point: just because some psychotic lunatic justifies his depravity with a bunch of quotes it does not mean that the majority of that group, Muslim, Geller fan, or whomever, agree with those actions.
I sincerely hope you at least consider these points.
Geez, take a deep breath. I haven't seen one post on here supporting Geller's views, only her right to express them. What has she done that violates any laws or anyone's rights? I support anyone's right to respond to her or anyone else's views in a manner consistent with the laws governing our society. What is there to argue about?
I support anyone's right to respond to her or anyone else's views in a manner consistent with the laws governing our society.
Isn't this exactly what we are doing here?
America Snores When Christian Terrorist Threatens to Massacre Muslims
An ordained minister pleaded guilty to threatening to burn down a New York town full of Muslims. Where's the FBI press conference and Fox News panic?
Have you heard about the Christian terrorist Robert Doggart, who was plotting a violent attack against a Muslim-American community in New York state? Probably not, because as opposed to when U.S. law enforcement officials arrest a Muslim for planning a violent assault, they didn’t send out a press release or hold a press conference publicizing Doggart’s arrest.
So let me tell you about Doggart and his deadly plan to use guns and even a machete to attack American Muslims in upstate New York. Doggart, a 63-year-old Tennessee resident, is an ordained Christian minister in the Christian National Church. In 2014, he unsuccessfully ran for Congress as an independent, espousing far right-wing views.
But don’t dismiss Doggart as some crazed wingnut howling at the moon. He served in the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps, worked for 40 years in the electrical generation business, has a master’s degree and a Ph.D. from La Salle University, and claimed he had nine “committed” men working with him to carry out this attack.
No, Doggart can’t be dismissed as simply a loon; he’s a lethal threat. That is why Muhammad Matthew Gardner, the spokesman for the local Muslim community in the Islamberg, New York, community that was Doggart’s intended target, explained to me, “Our community has been traumatized.” Islamberg is a hamlet in upstate New York, right along the Pennsylvania border, that was founded in the 1980s by a group of Muslims who left New York City to escape racism, poverty, and crime. Gardner added, “Our community consists of veterans, doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. We are true American patriots, unlike Doggart, who is not representative of Christianity, but more like the American Taliban.”
The criminal complaint against Doggart, filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Tennessee, paints a bone-chilling picture of a plan to launch a violent military-style assault on Islamberg, home to about 200 predominately black Muslim Americans. Right-wing media outlets have in the past made outlandish claims about the town, which have been consistently debunked by local law enforcement.
Doggart came to the FBI’s attention via postings on social media and a confidential informant. Why attack these Muslims? Doggart’s own words highlight his motive being grounded in at least partially in his view of Christianity: “Our small group will soon be faced with the fight of our lives. We will offer those lives as collateral to prove our commitment to our God.” Doggart continued, “We shall be Warriors who inflict horrible numbers of casualties upon the enemies of our Nation and World Peace.”
Doggart, who was also recorded via wiretaps speaking to militia members in Texas and South Carolina, didn’t mince words about his plans for the Muslims of Islamberg: “We will be cruel to them. And we will burn down their buildings [Referring to their mosque and school.] ...and if anybody attempts to harm us in any way... we will take them down.”
He also detailed the weapons he would use in the attack, including an M-4 military assault rifle, armor-piercing ammunition, explosives, pistols, and a machete, because “If it gets down to the machete, we will cut them to shreds.”
Doggart expressed a hope that he would survive the terror attack, but explained, “I understand that if it’s necessary to die [in this attack] then that’s a good way to die.”
Doggart planned to travel to Islamberg on April 11 to do some reconnaissance. However, the FBI arrested him on April 10, before he could depart. Doggart was charged with violating a federal statute that makes it a crime to damage or destroy any religious property (or attempt to do so) and to use interstate communication to plan to injure persons. Astoundingly, however, he was not charged with any terrorism-related crimes.
On April 24, Doggart entered into a plea agreement, pleading guilty to one count of making threats via the phone, and he will be fined up to $250,000 and spend as much as five years in prison pending a judge’s approval of the deal.
It goes without saying that if Doggart had been Muslim and had planned to kill Christians in America, we would have seen wall-to-wall media coverage. Fox News would have cut into its already-daily coverage of demonizing Muslims to do a special report really demonizing Muslims. And few can doubt that a Muslim would’ve been charged with terrorism-related crimes.
One big reason for the lack of media coverage was that neither the FBI nor the U.S. Attorney’s Office put out a press release about Doggart’s arrest. In contrast, the FBI office in Knoxville, the one that handled this investigation, has posted press releases for numerous other recent arrests, such as for drug crimes and robbery charges. (My calls to the FBI about this issue have not been returned.)
However, when a Muslim is arrested in a sting-type operation, as we saw recently in Brooklyn, the FBI touts that arrest to the media with a detailed press release. We have also seen U.S. attorneys hold press conferences to announce the arrest of Muslims, as we witnessed recently with the six Minnesota men charged with planning to join ISIS. But not here.
In fact, this incident would have likely been ignored but for the local Islamberg community reaching out to the media. They even posted a powerful photograph on social media of the children of the town sitting under a big banner that asked: “Why do you want to kill us Robert Doggart?”
But here’s the reality: This will likely not be the last time we hear about a planned attack on Muslim Americans by right-wing groups. Alarmingly, a recent poll found 55 percent of Americans hold anti-Muslim views, the highest numbers ever recorded.
Obviously the images of ISIS committing horrific actions has fueled this sentiment. But Republican politicians like Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindhal claiming Muslim Americans want to create “no-go” zones, where Islamic law rules, and other Republicans alleging that Muslims aren’t loyal to America has ginned up the hate to levels that take some to the doorstep of violence.
And there’s another issue of great concern here. If Doggart had succeeded at his attack and slaughtered Muslims, ISIS would have been ecstatic. ISIS is hoping for these very types of attacks, which is why they release videos when they kill Christians. ISIS desperately wants Christians to attack Muslims in the West so that it makes ISIS’s recruitment pitch resonate more strongly with young Muslims.
Even though Doggart has been arrested, this case is far from over. As the Islamberg community’s spokesman explained, “We will not feel safe until he and his co-conspirators are behind bars.”
The FBI should be commended for its work in arresting Doggart before he could complete his terrorist plot. But the FBI needs to publicize these types of arrests the same way as when they arrest a Muslim on similar charges and also not hesitate in charging non-Muslims with terror-related crimes. That sends a clear message that the U.S. government is taking these incidents seriously and that Muslim lives matter. Plus, it serves as a powerful deterrent to the Doggarts of this country. This not only upholds our nation’s values, it protects all Americans by undermining ISIS’s sales pitch.
Ok doughron, by failing to answer my direct question, I think you answered everything. In all seriousness, tell me if I have this right...you DO prefer that the anti-Jew bigotry would stop since it's wrong and hurtful, but if a neo-nazi (ex, held a nazi rally to blame Jews for all the world's problems) was killed by a Jew out of retaliation, you'd only criticize the Jew for the crime, and defend the neo-nazi's right to free speech?
I prefer it to stop. I don't expect it to. I don't think we need me or anyone to criticize Neo-Nazis. We all know what they stand for. My concern would be with the chilling effect on free expression. I am a civil libertarian. I believe in free expression even of hate speech. I see WAY too many people beginning a process that can only culimate in the suppression or chilling of speech the majority (or powerful and dangerous minority) finds noxious. I fear that.
At the same time I have seen absolutely no evidence that the provaceuteur Pamela Geller is in ANY way comparable to Nazis or other forms of hate. On the other hand there is LOADS of hate speech coming out of Mosques and heck SOME of that speech even leads to direct violence by those who hear it. Where is the outcry over that? It is time to wake up.
On the other hand there is LOADS of hate speech coming out of Mosques and heck SOME of that speech even leads to direct violence by those who hear it. Where is the outcry over that? It is time to wake up.
And what about Robert Dogcart and the Judaeo Christian terrorist threat? I just heard of Dogcart today because of the vast media conspiracy that protects blood thirsty Christians. Surely something must be done to stop these terrorists. Perhaps we should drone a bunch of their wedding parties?
As for the Jew hatred in the Koran. The Koran has flat out anti-Jewish passages. That is simply a fact. There is a LOT of Jew hatred preached in Islamic Mosques. It's certainly not all but it is most CERTAINLY not just a few. It simply isn't. As someone with a vested interest in this sort of thing I follow many sources that monitor this.
Have you got a link?
I thought Abraham was considered a prophet in the Koran.
I've not read the Koran and am not versed in its verses, but if you could supply some links I'd like to know about their jew hatred.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/koranjews.html
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/quranhadith.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html
There are many more. But the thing is that it is not so much what is in the Qran as it is what modern Islamic preachers are preaching and they are preaching a most virulent form of vicious Jew hatred (and Christian hatred toof or that matter) in not just a small minority of Mosques. There are radicalized Mosques not just inthe Middle East but throughout the West, particularly in places like London and Paris and here in the United States as well. This is what drives the fanaticism and terrorism. Obviously not everyone believes like this and even those that do most will not act ont heir beliefs. But enough do and will. Geller is pointing this out and doing so does not make her a promoter of hate speech. The hate speech is what she is exposing at great risk to herself.
America Snores When Christian Terrorist Threatens to Massacre Muslims
An ordained minister pleaded guilty to threatening to burn down a New York town full of Muslims. Where's the FBI press conference and Fox News panic?
Maybe because only a left wing hack attempting to absolve Muslim terror and trying to sell Christian terrorism as a real problem would care? Just a guess.
All fair points Doug. I agree that it's pretty clear that Muslims are extremely bigoted towards Jews on a widespread level, even among the peaceful population. I share your same sentiment....just as you feel there is no need to criticize neo nazis, I don't feel a need to point out the obvious that terrorists are the worst people on the planet and must be eradicated. Where we differ, is how we view Geller and her messages. I don't see a difference between her and Westboro.
America Snores When Christian Terrorist Threatens to Massacre Muslims
An ordained minister pleaded guilty to threatening to burn down a New York town full of Muslims. Where's the FBI press conference and Fox News panic?Maybe because only a left wing hack attempting to absolve Muslim terror and trying to sell Christian terrorism as a real problem would care? Just a guess.
_______________________________________________________________________
Exactly.
"threatening"?
Al Sharpton is an ordained Christian minister and he is a threat.
A I don't see a difference between her and Westboro.
Nor do I, or between Doggart, abortion clinic bombers, and Bin Laden, except in scale.
Ok doughron, by failing to answer my direct question, I think you answered everything. In all seriousness, tell me if I have this right...you DO prefer that the anti-Jew bigotry would stop since it's wrong and hurtful, but if a neo-nazi (ex, held a nazi rally to blame Jews for all the world's problems) was killed by a Jew out of retaliation, you'd only criticize the Jew for the crime, and defend the neo-nazi's right to free speech?
I prefer it to stop. I don't expect it to. I don't think we need me or anyone to criticize Neo-Nazis. We all know what they stand for. My concern would be with the chilling effect on free expression. I am a civil libertarian. I believe in free expression even of hate speech. I see WAY too many people beginning a process that can only culimate in the suppression or chilling of speech the majority (or powerful and dangerous minority) finds noxious. I fear that.
At the same time I have seen absolutely no evidence that the provaceuteur Pamela Geller is in ANY way comparable to Nazis or other forms of hate. On the other hand there is LOADS of hate speech coming out of Mosques and heck SOME of that speech even leads to direct violence by those who hear it. Where is the outcry over that? It is time to wake up.
I find the bolded part of Doughron's statement here disingenuous at best given my previous reply to his question to me.
Exactly.
"threatening"?
Al Sharpton is an ordained Christian minister and he is a threat.
You only say that because you are a fascist right wing nut job who wants to irradicate anyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh.
Exactly.
"threatening"?
Al Sharpton is an ordained Christian minister and he is a threat.
You only say that because you are a fascist right wing nut job who wants to irradicate anyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh.
__________________________________________________________________
Well, it would seem the the liar is also a mind reader.
On the other hand there is LOADS of hate speech coming out of Mosques and heck SOME of that speech even leads to direct violence by those who hear it. Where is the outcry over that? It is time to wake up.
And what about Robert Dogcart and the Judaeo Christian terrorist threat? I just heard of Dogcart today because of the vast media conspiracy that protects blood thirsty Christians. Surely something must be done to stop these terrorists. Perhaps we should drone a bunch of their wedding parties?
Seriously dude. If you actually believe the threat from Judeo Chrsitan radicals is equivalent to the threat from Islamic radicals then we are basically done here. There is no reasoning with that.
