Pamela Geller is nuts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently this has never occurred to many posters here, but it is possible to be critical of Geller's goals as well as the terrorists who attacked the event.

That's true.

Does it bother anyone that Geller's hypothesis was proven correct and an attack claimed by ISIS actually occurred?

It doesn't bother me in the sense that I am surprised. If I did something offensive to Christians in front of people going to a church in the south, I would expect to eventually get assaulted. Maybe not every time and at every church. But once in a while, somebody is going to do it.

These men were going in to kill them. With guns. They tweeted that they were going to martyr themselves. That is not assault.

Westboro Baptist church goes to funerals of Soldiers and other innocent people and wave to most vile signs and say the most vile things.

I have never heard of a plot to kill the Westboros.

If you stood outside a gay bar with sign that insulted gay people, you probably would get assaulted eventually, too. Not every time at every bar. But once in a while, somebody is going to do it.

Uh, exactly. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Free speech is free speech. But deliberately provoking an attack is really low. I have zero faith that this "art exhibit" had any purpose other than provocation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Legal activities that offend me = smh, go about my day. Deal with it, we all do.

Who needs a "strategy?" Free speech is free speech. Do you have any advice on strategies for people who insult Christianity?

Pam Geller is correct for opposing radical Islam. We all should. I have lived and worked in muslim countries for years.

They treat women terribly, kids terribly, animals terribly. It is the worst possible life, brutal and disgusting. They kill homosexual men routinely.

And Pam Geller is being counseled for her "craziness?"

Pure insanity.

Yes it is. Viva progressivism

[Muslima]

I have no sympathy for the Islamophobe Pam Geller, she is filled with hate and will not succeed in changing the discourse nor the sentiment of Muslims anywhere. You are fooling yourself if you think she's a defender of free speech. She has zero credibility in Muslim living rooms and the Muslims who showed up at the event to protest should have just stayed home and ignore her and the event like the Majority of other Muslims did. If we spent as much time trying to implement the character of the Prophet s.a.w as we do reacting to every Tom, Dick and Harry's nonsense diatribe against him, we move a lot further. People attacked him verbally and physically and he bore it with patience. The lion is not interested in , or affected by the opinion of sheep.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Radical Muslims are murdering Christians, raping children, forcing women to be sex slaves and this is what has people's panties in a bunch.Really?

If your problem is with "radical" Muslims, why do you support insulting all -- or at least the great majority -- of Muslims? I am sure that you don't think other religions should be judged by their most radical members, so why treat Islam that way? Wouldn't you want to encourage a more targeted strategy that didn't actually alienate more Muslims?

I was very specific to indict radical Islam and not Islam as a whole. The potential for offense is a consequence of free speech--whether that offense is taken by Muslims, Christians, Jews, Republicans, Democrats, Women, Men, Blacks, Whites, Asians, Europeans, etc. Millions of people are "offended" by satire and by direct and indirect acts every day. Millions of people do not expect the world to bow to their narrow world view. I am not defending the actions of Gellar. I am defending her right to act, just as I defend the rights of other offensive groups and people to act. I simply pointed out the misplaced, in my opinion, angst over a cartoon contest in light of horrible atrocities--murders, rape, sexual slavery. Radical Muslims--or even Muslims--are not the only people who are subject to offense in this world. The difference, most of us don't murder in response.

Geller's right to act is not in dispute. You seem to believe that an act -- for instance, criticism of Geller instead of criticism of radical Muslims -- can be legal but "misplaced". Can you not conceive that the same might be true of Geller? While her actions are indisputably legal, they are insulting in a way that is not deserving of praise and support. If Geller had hosted an anti-Semitic display of some sort, she would be shunned by polite society. Polite society might well support her right to be anti-Semitic (as happened when the Nazis wanted to march through Skokie), but she would be shunned just the same. I assume that you, for instance, would not respond by criticizing critics of anti-Semetism and suggesting they should focus on the worst actions committed by other members of the group being offended. While criticism of Geller may well be misplaced, it is far less misplaced then her actions.

If Jewish people in Israel were throwing gay men to their death, not allowing women to drive, killing women for being raped, selling young girls into temporary marriages to rich men and allowing them to be discarded and abused, I think I'd react the same way to a hypothetical Geller bash.

You are falsely comparing Judaism to Islam. Islam kills gay men daily. Islam subjugates women daily. Judaism and Christianity embrace morals and values on which modern society is based.

There are none so blind that will not see.

Are any of you who are defending Geller willing to challenge this poster? Or, do you think you should reserve your criticism for Muslims and those who speak up for them?

I support Gellar. This poster is 100% correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently this has never occurred to many posters here, but it is possible to be critical of Geller's goals as well as the terrorists who attacked the event.

That's true.

Does it bother anyone that Geller's hypothesis was proven correct and an attack claimed by ISIS actually occurred?

That's exactly what bothers progressives. Conservatives were proven correct. Hence, why they are attacking Gellar. She exposed reality and broke the utopian bubble

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:I have no sympathy for the Islamophobe Pam Geller, she is filled with hate and will not succeed in changing the discourse nor the sentiment of Muslims anywhere. You are fooling yourself if you think she's a defender of free speech. She has zero credibility in Muslim living rooms and the Muslims who showed up at the event to protest should have just stayed home and ignore her and the event like the Majority of other Muslims did. If we spent as much time trying to implement the character of the Prophet s.a.w as we do reacting to every Tom, Dick and Harry's nonsense diatribe against him, we move a lot further. People attacked him verbally and physically and he bore it with patience. The lion is not interested in , or affected by the opinion of sheep.

Reacting? Try attempting to kill. Try threatening to kill. Call it what it is

[Muslima]

What it is, is a reaction to a provocation...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently this has never occurred to many posters here, but it is possible to be critical of Geller's goals as well as the terrorists who attacked the event.

That's true.

Does it bother anyone that Geller's hypothesis was proven correct and an attack claimed by ISIS actually occurred?

That's exactly what bothers progressives. Conservatives were proven correct. Hence, why they are attacking Gellar. She exposed reality and broke the utopian bubble

Give it a rest, buddy. Everybody is well aware what she was doing, and what reaction we could expect.

What she did was to pick a fight under cover of the First Amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Radical Muslims are murdering Christians, raping children, forcing women to be sex slaves and this is what has people's panties in a bunch.Really?

If your problem is with "radical" Muslims, why do you support insulting all -- or at least the great majority -- of Muslims? I am sure that you don't think other religions should be judged by their most radical members, so why treat Islam that way? Wouldn't you want to encourage a more targeted strategy that didn't actually alienate more Muslims?

I was very specific to indict radical Islam and not Islam as a whole. The potential for offense is a consequence of free speech--whether that offense is taken by Muslims, Christians, Jews, Republicans, Democrats, Women, Men, Blacks, Whites, Asians, Europeans, etc. Millions of people are "offended" by satire and by direct and indirect acts every day. Millions of people do not expect the world to bow to their narrow world view. I am not defending the actions of Gellar. I am defending her right to act, just as I defend the rights of other offensive groups and people to act. I simply pointed out the misplaced, in my opinion, angst over a cartoon contest in light of horrible atrocities--murders, rape, sexual slavery. Radical Muslims--or even Muslims--are not the only people who are subject to offense in this world. The difference, most of us don't murder in response.

Geller's right to act is not in dispute. You seem to believe that an act -- for instance, criticism of Geller instead of criticism of radical Muslims -- can be legal but "misplaced". Can you not conceive that the same might be true of Geller? While her actions are indisputably legal, they are insulting in a way that is not deserving of praise and support. If Geller had hosted an anti-Semitic display of some sort, she would be shunned by polite society. Polite society might well support her right to be anti-Semitic (as happened when the Nazis wanted to march through Skokie), but she would be shunned just the same. I assume that you, for instance, would not respond by criticizing critics of anti-Semetism and suggesting they should focus on the worst actions committed by other members of the group being offended. While criticism of Geller may well be misplaced, it is far less misplaced then her actions.

If Jewish people in Israel were throwing gay men to their death, not allowing women to drive, killing women for being raped, selling young girls into temporary marriages to rich men and allowing them to be discarded and abused, I think I'd react the same way to a hypothetical Geller bash.

You are falsely comparing Judaism to Islam. Islam kills gay men daily. Islam subjugates women daily. Judaism and Christianity embrace morals and values on which modern society is based.

There are none so blind that will not see.

How many muslims are killing gay people?

How many muslims did she have to offend in order to piss off the extremists?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Radical Muslims are murdering Christians, raping children, forcing women to be sex slaves and this is what has people's panties in a bunch.Really?

If your problem is with "radical" Muslims, why do you support insulting all -- or at least the great majority -- of Muslims? I am sure that you don't think other religions should be judged by their most radical members, so why treat Islam that way? Wouldn't you want to encourage a more targeted strategy that didn't actually alienate more Muslims?

I was very specific to indict radical Islam and not Islam as a whole. The potential for offense is a consequence of free speech--whether that offense is taken by Muslims, Christians, Jews, Republicans, Democrats, Women, Men, Blacks, Whites, Asians, Europeans, etc. Millions of people are "offended" by satire and by direct and indirect acts every day. Millions of people do not expect the world to bow to their narrow world view. I am not defending the actions of Gellar. I am defending her right to act, just as I defend the rights of other offensive groups and people to act. I simply pointed out the misplaced, in my opinion, angst over a cartoon contest in light of horrible atrocities--murders, rape, sexual slavery. Radical Muslims--or even Muslims--are not the only people who are subject to offense in this world. The difference, most of us don't murder in response.

Geller's right to act is not in dispute. You seem to believe that an act -- for instance, criticism of Geller instead of criticism of radical Muslims -- can be legal but "misplaced". Can you not conceive that the same might be true of Geller? While her actions are indisputably legal, they are insulting in a way that is not deserving of praise and support. If Geller had hosted an anti-Semitic display of some sort, she would be shunned by polite society. Polite society might well support her right to be anti-Semitic (as happened when the Nazis wanted to march through Skokie), but she would be shunned just the same. I assume that you, for instance, would not respond by criticizing critics of anti-Semetism and suggesting they should focus on the worst actions committed by other members of the group being offended. While criticism of Geller may well be misplaced, it is far less misplaced then her actions.

If Jewish people in Israel were throwing gay men to their death, not allowing women to drive, killing women for being raped, selling young girls into temporary marriages to rich men and allowing them to be discarded and abused, I think I'd react the same way to a hypothetical Geller bash.

You are falsely comparing Judaism to Islam. Islam kills gay men daily. Islam subjugates women daily. Judaism and Christianity embrace morals and values on which modern society is based.

There are none so blind that will not see.

Are any of you who are defending Geller willing to challenge this poster? Or, do you think you should reserve your criticism for Muslims and those who speak up for them?

Challenge the poster on what exactly. Seems to me that PP is spot on.

[Muslima]

Then , you are part of the problem.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:Then , you are part of the problem.

Not really. Radical Islam kills for their own twisted reasons. I am a Jew and they would kill me just for being so. Pis being a Jew part of the problem?

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:Then , you are part of the problem.

Not really. Radical Islam kills for their own twisted reasons. I am a Jew and they would kill me just for being so. Pis being a Jew part of the problem?

Maybe you need to read again the post you were quoting and responding to. I don't think you understood what the poster said. On another hand. radicalized people kill for their own twisted reason be they Jews, Muslims, Christians, Atheists or Zorastrians.

[Anonymous]

I love how on this thread, conservatives finally found a use for gay people.

[jsteele]

At least we have gained some clarity in this thread. A poster writes:

Islam kills gay men daily. Islam subjugates women daily. Judaism and Christianity embrace morals and values on which modern society is based.

And Geller's supporters weigh in to say the poster is "spot on" and is "100% correct". So, let's not hear any more of the "we are only concerned about 'radical' Islam" hogwash. Not one Geller supporter jumped into to advise the poster that the issue is freedom of expression, not hatred of Islam.

It is perfectly legal and within your rights to be Islamophobes. But, you are no different than anti-Semites, racists, or any other run of the mill bigot. Wrapping yourselves in the 1st Amendment doesn't change that.