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.

And that's the problem. You don't see a difference between holding a Muslim cartoon contest designed to demonstrate that Islam is a violent faith and protesting directly outside of gay funuerals.

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.

While I disagree there is no difference, at the same time scale is everything. Scale is what makes a threat a major one.

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.

I don't think so. Nothing she has said is in any way comparable to Naziism or other serious forms of hate. I realize that Muslims (and their defenders) consider any criticism of Islam a form of hate but I do not. Show me something she has said that is the equivalent of calling Jews apes and pigs and suggesting they be killed wherever they are found. These are forms of hate coming right out of Mosques.

I don't think so. Nothing she has said is in any way comparable to Naziism or other serious forms of hate. I realize that Muslims (and their defenders) consider any criticism of Islam a form of hate but I do not. Show me something she has said that is the equivalent of calling Jews apes and pigs and suggesting they be killed wherever they are found. These are forms of hate coming right out of Mosques.

One more time then:

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.

Bosch Fawstin's winning entry:

One more time

Hatred (deeply offensive drawing contests)

The above drawing is "Deeply offensive"? Displays "hatred"?

wow

Yeah, F them dag gone Muslims!!!!! YEEE HAAAA!!!!!

It's very well known across the world that depicting Mohamed in any image is highly offensive to Islam. If you think that's silly, that's your right, but who are you to decide what should and shouldn't offend people? I bet there are tons of people that think it's silly to get upset over a burning flag or cross....after all they are just fabric and wood. Since it's well established that depicting images of Mohamed is very offensive to over a billion people, the only reason to hold such an event is to antagonize. But keep dancing around the issue all you want. You don't mind Geller and her behavior because you probably feel the same way she does about Muslims, and that's fine too. I'm just calling it like it is. No reason to hide it, just come right out and say it.

Getting antagonized is a part of life. You deal with it. Hopefully in a way that doesn't cause you to kill people.

Getting antagonized is a part of life. You deal with it. Hopefully in a way that doesn't cause you to kill people.

Is it ok to criticize the antagonist?

In order to prove my belief that Muslims are violent, I'm going to intentionally offend them in order to provoke an attack by Muslim terrorists. By doing so, I will prove my point that Muslims are violent. Great idea!!!

It's very well known across the world that depicting Mohamed in any image is highly offensive to Islam. If you think that's silly, that's your right, but who are you to decide what should and shouldn't offend people?

In this case, I do think it is "silly" and yes, that is my right. In this country, it is commonly referred to as "Freedom".

So the above drawing is "Antagonizing" and "Highly offensive"...Tough sh*t. If I ever vist a country that is predominately Muslim, rest assured I will respect their beliefs, but here?...under the Stars and Stripes?...any "Adjusting of behavior" should start with people of different cultural backgrounds, who are, at the very least, making an attempt to assimilate.

What will offend them next?

Getting antagonized is a part of life. You deal with it. Hopefully in a way that doesn't cause you to kill people.

Is it ok to criticize the antagonist?

Sure is. Knock yourself out.

Getting antagonized is a part of life. You deal with it. Hopefully in a way that doesn't cause you to kill people.

Is it ok to criticize the antagonist?

Why wouldn't it be OK?

In order to prove my belief that Muslims are violent, I'm going to intentionally offend them in order to provoke an attack by Muslim terrorists. By doing so, I will prove my point that Muslims are violent. Great idea!!!

But Christians are the dangerous ones. Maybe you should provoke them first to prove it.

I don't believe Christians are dangerous at all. I think Geller is dangerous. She doesn't represent my religion, IMO. My pastors would never approve of her behavior. And to clarify for some....no, my pastors wouldn't approve of Islamic terrorism either (a shame I even have to write that disclaimer, but for some, it's apparently necessary to clarify.)

It's funny to see people deduce "since the terrorists are bad, that must mean Geller is good." As if there is no other possible scenario that could exist. What close-mindedness.

[Edited on 5/24/2015 by BoytonBrother]

What will offend them next?

Thanks for writing this for the 10th time in this thread, as if it's some profound statement. When you say "them", are you referring to violent Islamic terrorists, or Muslims in general? Or are they the same thing to you? Regardless, this comment clearly indicates your complete lack of respect for this culture, which isn't what our Founding Fathers were going for, but I appreciate your honesty.

So my take:

Pam Geller is annoying; obnoxious and was looking to cause some sort of "trouble." That said the animals who responded this way would have found some other reason to respond with violence; there would have been some other slight. Their behavior is a million times more inexcusable than theirs.

And re: the anti-Semitic comparisons. Perhaps the difference is that things that are offensive to the orthodox (such as driving on Sat; etc) for the most are only an issue to them when their fellow members do so.) When a shop in their neighborhood opens on Saturday they do; however; boycott it. They do not; however; burn it to the ground.

I don't believe Christians are dangerous at all. I think Geller is dangerous. She doesn't represent my religion, IMO. My pastors would never approve of her behavior. And to clarify for some....no, my pastors wouldn't approve of Islamic terrorism either (a shame I even have to write that disclaimer, but for some, it's apparently necessary to clarify.)

It's funny to see people deduce "since the terrorists are bad, that must mean Geller is good." As if there is no other possible scenario that could exist. What close-mindedness.

[Edited on 5/24/2015 by BoytonBrother]

At the end of the day it was still just a cartoon contest. Are those bad?

What will offend them next?

Thanks for writing this for the 10th time in this thread

About the same amount of times you have bashed those whom you see as being antagonistic by holding a cartoon drawing contest. Point taken. It is obvioius to me that you find that behavior much more offensive than the violent actions that follow, regardless of what provoked it.

Sad.

What will offend them next?

I was set to play in a Nerf football tournament, but we started getting warned about Islamic aversion to sponges. Death threats were made. Had to pull out, and the organizer of the tournament is getting hammered by Liberals in the area.

Nerf football tournaments are irresponsible and provocative. That's the takeaway.

What will offend them next?

Eating bacon?

It's very well known across the world that depicting Mohamed in any image is highly offensive to Islam. If you think that's silly, that's your right, but who are you to decide what should and shouldn't offend people? I bet there are tons of people that think it's silly to get upset over a burning flag or cross....after all they are just fabric and wood. Since it's well established that depicting images of Mohamed is very offensive to over a billion people, the only reason to hold such an event is to antagonize. But keep dancing around the issue all you want. You don't mind Geller and her behavior because you probably feel the same way she does about Muslims, and that's fine too. I'm just calling it like it is. No reason to hide it, just come right out and say it.

Who are THEY to tell me that my life is in danger if I do something that offends them? Especially here in my own country which has a tradition of freedom of expression? Why don't you get that?

In order to prove my belief that Muslims are violent, I'm going to intentionally offend them in order to provoke an attack by Muslim terrorists. By doing so, I will prove my point that Muslims are violent. Great idea!!!

I think it's a provacative idea. The kind that is protected. The kind that our nation was built on.

In order to prove my belief that Muslims are violent, I'm going to intentionally offend them in order to provoke an attack by Muslim terrorists. By doing so, I will prove my point that Muslims are violent. Great idea!!!

But that is exactly the point. It won't be torture, or the killing of children, or anything violent that provokes them, it will be an offensive viewpoint or expression of freedom.

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.

Still waiting for

Dougrhon
Big V
EMR
Alloak41

To address the above. The silence is pretty telling where you guys are all coming from on the above.

Still waiting for

Dougrhon
Big V
EMR
Alloak41

To address the above. The silence is pretty telling where you guys are all coming from on the above.

Grab a coffee; we simply disagree

Still waiting for

Dougrhon
Big V
EMR
Alloak41

To address the above. The silence is pretty telling where you guys are all coming from on the above.

Grab a coffee; we simply disagree

True.

You support a racist bigot who defends a deranged mass child-murderer and her hate rallies and I do not supports racist bigots and their hate rallies. Fair point.

Still waiting for

Dougrhon
Big V
EMR
Alloak41

To address the above. The silence is pretty telling where you guys are all coming from on the above.

Grab a coffee; we simply disagree

True.

You support a racist bigot who defends a deranged mass child-murderer and her hate rallies and I do not supports racist bigots and their hate rallies. Fair point.

I support free speech and freedom of expression.

Still waiting for

Dougrhon
Big V
EMR
Alloak41

To address the above. The silence is pretty telling where you guys are all coming from on the above.

Grab a coffee; we simply disagree

True.

You support a racist bigot who defends a deranged mass child-murderer and her hate rallies and I do not supports racist bigots and their hate rallies. Fair point.

I support free speech and freedom of expression.

You do realize, almost every non-racist person reading this sees your statement as here as supporting racist bigotry right? (And yes, we all know you support free speech too.)

Still waiting for

Dougrhon
Big V
EMR
Alloak41

To address the above. The silence is pretty telling where you guys are all coming from on the above.

Grab a coffee; we simply disagree

True.

You support a racist bigot who defends a deranged mass child-murderer and her hate rallies and I do not supports racist bigots and their hate rallies. Fair point.

I support free speech and freedom of expression.

You do realize, almost every non-racist person reading this sees your statement as here as supporting racist bigotry right? (And yes, we all know you support free speech too.)

I don't.