Maybe I can sum up all my comments.....if you know someone is violent, immoral, and evil, why would you choose to initiate a deliberate insult toward them?

For the exact same reason people choose to abuse the social welfare programs...

....because they can.

The difference being one is protected by law, the other is not.

Maybe I can sum up all my comments.....if you know someone is violent, immoral, and evil, why would you choose to initiate a deliberate insult toward them?

Perhaps to point out to them their "wrong doing" ways? 😉

I'm sorry, but that was too easy!

For those that want to learn more about Geller, one of her causes was to organize to stop the ground zero mosque in New York. THere is a documentary about this and you can find it on Youtube and its pretty well done as it captures the spirit of the protests and the complete disregard for the 911 victims families, and the links to terrorist funding to support this project.

Some of you willl instinctively label it as hate speech or right wing propoganda because Sean Hannity show and Bill O'Reiley excerpts are part of this.

[Edited on 5/7/2015 by OriginalGoober]

[Edited on 5/7/2015 by OriginalGoober]

Maybe I can sum up all my comments.....if you know someone is violent, immoral, and evil, why would you choose to initiate a deliberate insult toward them?

________________________________________________________________________

It doesn’t matter.
Whether it is a free speech event, you walking into a church or a girl wearing a bathing suit at the beach. All of these things and anything else we do insults The Islamic Extremist Terrorists.
Our very existence insults them and they have said they will kill us.
When threatened, everyone has an obligation and the right to defend themselves.

If deadly force is required so be it.

For those that want to learn more about Geller, one of her causes was to organize to stop the ground zero mosque in New York.

And I applaud her and support her 100% for that. You know why? Because it was a deliberate attempt by Muslims to insult Americans. It wasn't a sincere attempt at diversity on their part, so F whoever started the project to build a mosque at Ground Zero. She was right on the money on that one. But it looks like she got drunk with fame and started going bananas. Oh well.

Didn't that Mosque get built? Wasn't it a "community center"? And wasn't it blocks away from ground zero? And hadn't the building been planned well before 9/11?

It doesn’t matter.
Whether it is a free speech event, you walking into a church or a girl wearing a bathing suit at the beach. All of these things and anything else we do insults The Islamic Extremist Terrorists.
Our very existence insults them and they have said they will kill us.
When threatened, everyone has an obligation and the right to defend themselves.

If deadly force is required so be it.

Thank you Muleman for your articulate and insightful response. I hope you post like this more often. Probably one of the better posts of the thread.

BillyBlastoff, even if all that is true, I still think they should've canned the plans once the attack happened. In hindsigh, I realize that there's no real reason to do so, but at the time, I fully understand why most of us would consider it an insult. I know I did.

Here's a map of the neighborhood.

I lived in N.Y. (Nyack and on Staten Island) and worked in Manhattan for many years. In any two to three block area of Manhattan you are bound to pass many diverse businesses and meeting places. I'm pretty sure the media sensationalized the issue.

And again - it wasn't every Muslim that piloted those planes. The terrorist were mostly Saudis. A country we haven't bombed and invaded.

And the community center was not built. The Muslim developer apparently realized the faux pax and was sensitive to the feelings of the community.

I wonder what would have happened if he had built it? Would that have incited Muslim haters to resort to violent acts?

BillyBlastoff, even if all that is true, I still think they should've canned the plans once the attack happened. In hindsigh, I realize that there's no real reason to do so, but at the time, I fully understand why most of us would consider it an insult. I know I did.

isn't that an example of stifling free speech also?

BillyBlastoff, even if all that is true, I still think they should've canned the plans once the attack happened. In hindsigh, I realize that there's no real reason to do so, but at the time, I fully understand why most of us would consider it an insult. I know I did.

isn't that an example of stifling free speech also?

I think it is an example of free speech at work. The marketplace, or you could call it public opinion, can and often does impact behaviors and decisions.

I do not support her as a "champion of freedom." I support her right to do what she did and unequivocally condemn as anti-American anyone that suggests that provacative and even hateful speech should be banned because it might offend or cause an extreme reaction. Do you understand that?

Yes, and I agree. I support her right to hold the event as well, and I would never support a law to ban the event. What I expect, is if we are going to expect Muslim leaders to speak out and work hard to change their culture of violence, then we should be expected to speak out against our own wackos, and improve as well, and stop deliberate provocation. We should raise our own bar. No laws needed.....lets just hear some conservative voices telling Geller to stop being a jerk. And yes, liberals should do more to speak out against leftist wackos too.....how about we all start now and tell Geller to cool it, and find more productive avenues of expression.

Since you insist on referring to her as a "wacko" please explain why she is that anf give actual examples.

Let me ask you a question. This is about the 10th time you've compared Pamela Geller to pure hate mongers. How familiar are you with who she is and what she has to say to make that assertion. Please provide quotes and links. It is certainly not an accepted truism as much as you think it is.

Is this the woman who organized the cartoon event? Based on the interview I saw with her, by her own words, the comparison fits IMO. Maybe its not fair to for me to judge her based on one interview, but I don't really care enough about her or her cause to research it beyond that. Does that make me un-American in some way? Keep in mind that I have never once suggested she should be silenced nor her event be banned by any government imposed rule or law. That said, I am fine if she is silenced by the marketplace, i.e. she can't find an audience/market for her message because of people and/or organizations who are exercising their first amendment rights to tell her and anyone else who will listen that she is wrong.

[Edited on 5/7/2015 by gondicar]

I want to know what makes her hateful or a wacko. Because I think that term is thrown around very very loosely.

This is about the 10th time you've compared Pamela Geller to pure hate mongers. How familiar are you with who she is and what she has to say to make that assertion. Please provide quotes and links. It is certainly not an accepted truism as much as you think it is.

A quick wikipedia read shows plenty of hate, IMO. Co-founder of "Stop the Islamitization of America"??? Please. I think the better route is for you to post examples of her NOT being a hate-mongers. Here's some quotes from this peaceful hero, and the sources are clearly noted on the wikipedia page:

Geller has said that "Islam is the most antisemitic, genocidal ideology in the world." She holds the view that radical Islam is a bona fide variant of Islam, which she describes in a number of ways: "Muslim terrorists were practicing pure Islam, original Islam." Terrorists don't spring from "perversions of Islam but from the religion itself". "I believe in the idea of a moderate Muslim. I do not believe in the idea of a moderate Islam. ... I think a moderate Muslim is a secular Muslim."

Aside from these quotes, I only need to refer to the cartoon event, as this is enough of a blunder to illustrate my point.

Second, again you do the very thing that betrays your lack of commitment to free expression. WHY because Muslims are dangerously oversensitive should we refrain from criticizing or satirizing them?

We should never refrain from sincere criticism or thought-provoking satire, but that's not what Geller's event was about. Her event was to deliberately insult and instigate a fight. Big difference.

If Christians shot up the artist who created Piss Christ would you say that was an unwise thing to do?

Yes. And the attackers in Texas were pretty stupid too. I've stated this many many times in this thread.

What about if Jewish extremists attacked someone who was bashing Israel?

They should be charged and convicted for their crimes.

What if a conservative got sick of being accused of hating the poor and burned down the NY Times?

They should be charged and convicted for their crimes.

Are you suggesting that we here int he U.S. ought to refrain from all provocative speech? Or is it just speech that bother Muslims because they are so dangerous?

No, we should not refrain from all provocative speech. But we should refrain from deliberate insults and instigating fights, just because it's a nice way to be.

Do you really think a cartoon contest is something that could reasonably be expected to provoke violence?

Not a cartoon contest on who can draw the best Batman, but this particular Geller event? Yes, and Geller herself admitted to expecting it, which is why they had all that security. Do you disagree with Geller on that one?

Do you really think the best way to handle that is to attack the expression?

Of course not.

The way to respond to speech is with more speech.

Then why are there so many fist fights taking place every day in just about every town? Kids at school fight, there are street fights, and there are bar fights constantly...everywhere. Why does that happen?

It happens because people have anger issues. What she said about Islam has a large element of truth in it. The Koran is very anti-semetic and a significant number of Mosques today preach virulant anti-semtitism. It happens to be true. Pointing out the truth is not hateful. She did not say all Muslims should be killed or deported or discriminated against in any way. I don't agree with her and find her to be virulent in her style. But there is truth in what she is saying and if you disagree then show how she is wrong. You shouldn't dismiss her as hateful or a wacko. Have you ever described Al Sharpton or Reverend Wright that way? Their vitriolic hate is part of the public record. I don't think saying Islam is anti-semetic is hateful. It's a strongly expressed and legitimate opinion. I have NEVER heard her say ANYTHING that can be construed as seeking violence in any way and she is fighting an ideology that like it or not is part of Islam and is very violent as we all know. So why compare Geller, who has never advocated violence, to those she is comdenming who constantly advocate and carry out violence.

Maybe I can sum up all my comments.....if you know someone is violent, immoral, and evil, why would you choose to initiate a deliberate insult toward them?

Umm..because you see the violent immoral evil as gaining a toehold in your free society and want to call attention to it and possibly push it back or stop it or at least educate people to it? In other words the actual reason such first amendment protections exist. You know kind of like how muckrakers back int he day attacked and provoked the powers that be to bring about reform?

For those that want to learn more about Geller, one of her causes was to organize to stop the ground zero mosque in New York.

And I applaud her and support her 100% for that. You know why? Because it was a deliberate attempt by Muslims to insult Americans. It wasn't a sincere attempt at diversity on their part, so F whoever started the project to build a mosque at Ground Zero. She was right on the money on that one. But it looks like she got drunk with fame and started going bananas. Oh well.

So now what you are doing is deciding what in YOUR mind is appropriate and not appropriate. That's your right. I disagree. I think anything she does is appropriate as long as it doesn't advocate actual h.arm (not offense)

Here's a map of the neighborhood.

I lived in N.Y. (Nyack and on Staten Island) and worked in Manhattan for many years. In any two to three block area of Manhattan you are bound to pass many diverse businesses and meeting places. I'm pretty sure the media sensationalized the issue.

And again - it wasn't every Muslim that piloted those planes. The terrorist were mostly Saudis. A country we haven't bombed and invaded.

They were Al Quadea operatives. Al Quadea is an Islamist movement. What difference does it make what nation they were born in? What if they were born in America or Britain like the shoebomber?

Let me ask you a question. This is about the 10th time you've compared Pamela Geller to pure hate mongers. How familiar are you with who she is and what she has to say to make that assertion. Please provide quotes and links. It is certainly not an accepted truism as much as you think it is.

Is this the woman who organized the cartoon event? Based on the interview I saw with her, by her own words, the comparison fits IMO. Maybe its not fair to for me to judge her based on one interview, but I don't really care enough about her or her cause to research it beyond that. Does that make me un-American in some way? Keep in mind that I have never once suggested she should be silenced nor her event be banned by any government imposed rule or law. That said, I am fine if she is silenced by the marketplace, i.e. she can't find an audience/market for her message because of people and/or organizations who are exercising their first amendment rights to tell her and anyone else who will listen that she is wrong.

[Edited on 5/7/2015 by gondicar]

I want to know what makes her hateful or a wacko. Because I think that term is thrown around very very loosely.

Speaking only for myself, it is based on an interview I heard with her where she came off as someone with more hate than love in her heart.

It happens because people have anger issues.

And she is one of them. She has a lot of anger in her from what I've seen on Youtube.

What she said about Islam has a large element of truth in it. The Koran is very anti-semetic and a significant number of Mosques today preach virulant anti-semtitism. It happens to be true. Pointing out the truth is not hateful. She did not say all Muslims should be killed or deported or discriminated against in any way. I don't agree with her and find her to be virulent in her style. But there is truth in what she is saying and if you disagree then show how she is wrong. You shouldn't dismiss her as hateful or a wacko. Have you ever described Al Sharpton or Reverend Wright that way? Their vitriolic hate is part of the public record. I don't think saying Islam is anti-semetic is hateful. It's a strongly expressed and legitimate opinion. I have NEVER heard her say ANYTHING that can be construed as seeking violence in any way and she is fighting an ideology that like it or not is part of Islam and is very violent as we all know. So why compare Geller, who has never advocated violence, to those she is comdenming who constantly advocate and carry out violence.

Yes, I hold Sharpton and Wright in the same category, and believe they are more wacked out than Geller. I hate those morons too....because they instigate trouble where there is none. People like that are the true cancers in our society. And I agree with the rest of this paragraph actually. I fully respect this opinion about Islam based on what happens everyday in Islamic countries, and I respect her effort to be vocal about it. What I don't respect, and what I consider to be crossing a line, is this event....it does nothing to teach or raise awareness.....it was a deliberate insult to instigate a fight. She was not trying to be productive.

And I don't compare her to jihadists. I compare her to Westboro.

[Edited on 5/8/2015 by BoytonBrother]

So now what you are doing is deciding what in YOUR mind is appropriate and not appropriate. That's your right. I disagree. I think anything she does is appropriate as long as it doesn't advocate actual h.arm (not offense)

We all do that. Everyone sees bad behavior and criticizes it. You've done it here about those who abuse welfare. Those people don't advocate any physical harm, but you frown upon that lifestyle, which is perfectly fine. I guess I'm confused as to why she gets the break, and welfare abusers don't.

Let me ask you a question. This is about the 10th time you've compared Pamela Geller to pure hate mongers. How familiar are you with who she is and what she has to say to make that assertion. Please provide quotes and links. It is certainly not an accepted truism as much as you think it is.

Is this the woman who organized the cartoon event? Based on the interview I saw with her, by her own words, the comparison fits IMO. Maybe its not fair to for me to judge her based on one interview, but I don't really care enough about her or her cause to research it beyond that. Does that make me un-American in some way? Keep in mind that I have never once suggested she should be silenced nor her event be banned by any government imposed rule or law. That said, I am fine if she is silenced by the marketplace, i.e. she can't find an audience/market for her message because of people and/or organizations who are exercising their first amendment rights to tell her and anyone else who will listen that she is wrong.

[Edited on 5/7/2015 by gondicar]

I want to know what makes her hateful or a wacko. Because I think that term is thrown around very very loosely.

Speaking only for myself, it is based on an interview I heard with her where she came off as someone with more hate than love in her heart.

And now she's even failed to issue an apology!!!!!

Talk about some screwed up thinking. You should apologize for almost getting killed over a cartoon. Wow.

Is that "wacko" enough for you??

What a profound retort. Thank you alloak.

[Edited on 5/9/2015 by BoytonBrother]

You've done it here about those who abuse welfare. Those people don't advocate any physical harm, but you frown upon that lifestyle, which is perfectly fine. I guess I'm confused as to why she gets the break, and welfare abusers don't.

Because they willingly ABUSE the system. Because they knowingly CHEAT. Because they are THIEVES.

"Frown upon that lifestyle"...You are hilarious. And let me guess, You condone it?

And as far as "Advocating" violence, once again you come to the defense of those who actually showed up at the event with the INTENT to do harm.

Sorry, but that post isn't worth a thoughtful response. Peace.

And as far as "Advocating" violence, once again you come to the defense of those who actually showed up at the event with the INTENT to do harm.

Carry water for Muslims. Ridicule Christians.

Beats the hell out of me. I guess it's trendy and cool.

Let me ask you a question. This is about the 10th time you've compared Pamela Geller to pure hate mongers. How familiar are you with who she is and what she has to say to make that assertion. Please provide quotes and links. It is certainly not an accepted truism as much as you think it is.

Is this the woman who organized the cartoon event? Based on the interview I saw with her, by her own words, the comparison fits IMO. Maybe its not fair to for me to judge her based on one interview, but I don't really care enough about her or her cause to research it beyond that. Does that make me un-American in some way? Keep in mind that I have never once suggested she should be silenced nor her event be banned by any government imposed rule or law. That said, I am fine if she is silenced by the marketplace, i.e. she can't find an audience/market for her message because of people and/or organizations who are exercising their first amendment rights to tell her and anyone else who will listen that she is wrong.

[Edited on 5/7/2015 by gondicar]

I want to know what makes her hateful or a wacko. Because I think that term is thrown around very very loosely.

Speaking only for myself, it is based on an interview I heard with her where she came off as someone with more hate than love in her heart.

And now she's even failed to issue an apology!!!!!

Talk about some screwed up thinking. You should apologize for almost getting killed over a cartoon. Wow.

Is that "wacko" enough for you??

Now I have no idea what you are talking about. I never said she was "wacko" or that she should issue an apology.

[Edited on 5/11/2015 by gondicar]

So now what you are doing is deciding what in YOUR mind is appropriate and not appropriate. That's your right. I disagree. I think anything she does is appropriate as long as it doesn't advocate actual h.arm (not offense)

We all do that. Everyone sees bad behavior and criticizes it. You've done it here about those who abuse welfare. Those people don't advocate any physical harm, but you frown upon that lifestyle, which is perfectly fine. I guess I'm confused as to why she gets the break, and welfare abusers don't.

I don't know what you are talking about. I've never said any such thing. What "lifestlye" ? Meanwhile you don't see why she gets a "break" and welfare abusers don't? I don't know what yo mean by abusers but if you mean cheats then maybe because she is exercising her constitutional rights and they are breaking the law?

Obama Judge Let Muhammad Cartoon Terrorist Go
05/05/2015 06:06 PM ET

Jihad: More than 300 people attending a free-speech event in Dallas dodged a massacre by IS terrorists because of quick action by local police — and despite an Obama-appointed judge, who in 2011 freed one of the terrorists.

At least one of the two AK-47-armed, body-armor-clad terrorists who tried to gun down the crowd gathered at the Muhammad Art Exhibit & Contest in the Dallas area was well known to the FBI. Agents had arrested Elton "Ebrahim" Simpson, a Muslim convert, in 2010 for lying to them about his plans to join al-Qaida in Somalia.

But then-U.S. District Judge Mary Murguia released him from custody the next year, despite recordings in which he made it clear he sought to kill himself and others in "jihad" and despite his ties to a former U.S. Navy sailor busted for leaking details about warship movements to al-Qaida.

Murguia, a liberal Democrat whose twin sister heads the radical, pro-illegal immigrant group La Raza, bought the defense's argument that by "jihad," their client didn't mean to imply any violence and that jihad means things other than holy war.

The judge argued in her 2011 ruling that FBI agents made "inferential leaps" when they charged Simpson with involvement in international terrorism based on his statements that he wanted to go to the "battlefield" in Somalia to "fight" non-Muslims in a "martyrdom" operation.

Though his intentions seemed clear, Murguia ruled that Simpson wasn't lying about engaging in terrorism. She concluded that he was simply a devout Muslim who was lying about things suspiciously terroristic.

As a result, she dismissed the terrorism charges against Simpson and gave him a slap on the wrist — three years' probation — for making false statements. Obama promoted Murguia to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and has her on his short list for the U.S. Supreme Court, should a seat on the high bench open up.

Luckily, sharpshooting Texas police covered for Murguia's error. Simpson and his accomplice, Pakistani-American Nadir Soofi, were gunned down before they could enter the building. Both died at the scene. Their only victim was an off-duty cop who was shot in the leg.
After Simpson's probation ended last year, federal agents lost track of the potential terrorist, despite his radical Internet trail. The agency even blew off warnings that IS was threatening the Dallas event.

But Texas authorities took the danger seriously and beefed up security around the building, even deploying a SWAT team that effectively hardened what the terrorists hoped would be a soft target.

IS has now formally claimed responsibility for the attack — its first on U.S. soil — and called the two lone wolves its "soldiers." It's clear that the FBI doesn't really know what it's dealing with in terms of the homegrown threat from IS. And the federal bench is dangerously naive about the broader threat posed by jihad.

If it weren't for Texas law enforcement, IS could have claimed a far bigger victory. This case signals that terrorism is fought better locally — where political correctness doesn't handcuff authorities — than federally.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/050515-751157-obama-judge-let-muhammad-cartoon-terrorist-go.htm#ixzz3ZrfZFfop

ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack? I guess that means Ms. Gellar is off the hook.