Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Can you cite a single action in support of free expression by Geller that wasn't focused on opposing Islam? She must have the most narrow definition of free speech that's ever been proposed.

Let's not play stupid here. People are being murdered for scribbling cartoons about Muhammed. Every other current free speech issue pales in comparison. No other issue causes writers or cartoonists in the US to fear for their lives.

I really have no interest in Pamela Geller except that she is courageous enough to openly oppose the violent intimidation of those who draw Muhammed. Once we have returned to a time when, say, a small atheist magazine can draw a cartoon of Muhammed without fearing for their lives, then I will be able to ignore Pamela Geller.

That's sort of like supporting Mussolini because he made the trains run on time. Just ignore everything else about him.

If Geller is such the advocate of free expression that you believe her to be, why has she opposed free expression by Muslims?

Even the ADL accuses her of "virulent anti-Muslim bigotry":

http://www.adl.org/civil-rights/discrimination/c/stop-islamization-of-america.html

BTW, we are constantly told that Geller only opposes "radical" Muslims. But, read her own words (from the ADL report):

"the idea of a 'moderate' Islam does not exist... because the Koran says so and Muhammad said so."

So, she only opposes "radical" Muslims, but all Muslim are radical.

If your goal is to return to a time when small atheist magazines can draw a cartoon of Muhammed without fearing for their lives, Pam Geller is the last person you want to support. Every move she makes strengthens those extremists who would kill because of drawings. It weakens and alienates moderate Muslims. IS and groups like them thrive on a clash of civilizations. The more they can demonstrate that they are defending Muslims against the enemies of Islam, the better they like it. Geller is a dream come true for them.

On the other hand, if Americans treated Geller the way they would treat an raving anti-Semite or white supremacist, it would take some wind out of the radical's sails.

Wow. You truly don't understand the goals of Radical Islam, and what motivates them.

Are you really suggesting that if people like Gellar would just shut up, radicals would behave themselves?

I am suggesting that Geller -- who opposes free expression by Muslims when that suits her -- provides ammunition to Muslim extremists to demonstrate that the West is anti-Islam. Geller's actions strengthen radical Muslims and the actions of radical Muslims strengthen Geller. I am not asking for Geller to shut up. She has the right to speak. I am asking that Americans treat her the same way they would treat an anti-Semite or white supremacist -- by showing the her values are not American values.

You say she has the right to speak, but that her values are not American. Which is it?

Both are true. The Klan has the right to speak, but their values are not American. And it is OK to hate ISIS and despise Gellar.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Can you cite a single action in support of free expression by Geller that wasn't focused on opposing Islam? She must have the most narrow definition of free speech that's ever been proposed.

Let's not play stupid here. People are being murdered for scribbling cartoons about Muhammed. Every other current free speech issue pales in comparison. No other issue causes writers or cartoonists in the US to fear for their lives.

I really have no interest in Pamela Geller except that she is courageous enough to openly oppose the violent intimidation of those who draw Muhammed. Once we have returned to a time when, say, a small atheist magazine can draw a cartoon of Muhammed without fearing for their lives, then I will be able to ignore Pamela Geller.

That's sort of like supporting Mussolini because he made the trains run on time. Just ignore everything else about him.

If Geller is such the advocate of free expression that you believe her to be, why has she opposed free expression by Muslims?

Even the ADL accuses her of "virulent anti-Muslim bigotry":

http://www.adl.org/civil-rights/discrimination/c/stop-islamization-of-america.html

BTW, we are constantly told that Geller only opposes "radical" Muslims. But, read her own words (from the ADL report):

"the idea of a 'moderate' Islam does not exist... because the Koran says so and Muhammad said so."

So, she only opposes "radical" Muslims, but all Muslim are radical.

If your goal is to return to a time when small atheist magazines can draw a cartoon of Muhammed without fearing for their lives, Pam Geller is the last person you want to support. Every move she makes strengthens those extremists who would kill because of drawings. It weakens and alienates moderate Muslims. IS and groups like them thrive on a clash of civilizations. The more they can demonstrate that they are defending Muslims against the enemies of Islam, the better they like it. Geller is a dream come true for them.

On the other hand, if Americans treated Geller the way they would treat an raving anti-Semite or white supremacist, it would take some wind out of the radical's sails.

Wow. You truly don't understand the goals of Radical Islam, and what motivates them.

Are you really suggesting that if people like Gellar would just shut up, radicals would behave themselves?

I am suggesting that Geller -- who opposes free expression by Muslims when that suits her -- provides ammunition to Muslim extremists to demonstrate that the West is anti-Islam. Geller's actions strengthen radical Muslims and the actions of radical Muslims strengthen Geller. I am not asking for Geller to shut up. She has the right to speak. I am asking that Americans treat her the same way they would treat an anti-Semite or white supremacist -- by showing the her values are not American values.

You say she has the right to speak, but that her values are not American. Which is it?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Can you cite a single action in support of free expression by Geller that wasn't focused on opposing Islam? She must have the most narrow definition of free speech that's ever been proposed.

Let's not play stupid here. People are being murdered for scribbling cartoons about Muhammed. Every other current free speech issue pales in comparison. No other issue causes writers or cartoonists in the US to fear for their lives.

I really have no interest in Pamela Geller except that she is courageous enough to openly oppose the violent intimidation of those who draw Muhammed. Once we have returned to a time when, say, a small atheist magazine can draw a cartoon of Muhammed without fearing for their lives, then I will be able to ignore Pamela Geller.

That's sort of like supporting Mussolini because he made the trains run on time. Just ignore everything else about him.

If Geller is such the advocate of free expression that you believe her to be, why has she opposed free expression by Muslims?

Even the ADL accuses her of "virulent anti-Muslim bigotry":

http://www.adl.org/civil-rights/discrimination/c/stop-islamization-of-america.html

BTW, we are constantly told that Geller only opposes "radical" Muslims. But, read her own words (from the ADL report):

"the idea of a 'moderate' Islam does not exist... because the Koran says so and Muhammad said so."

So, she only opposes "radical" Muslims, but all Muslim are radical.

If your goal is to return to a time when small atheist magazines can draw a cartoon of Muhammed without fearing for their lives, Pam Geller is the last person you want to support. Every move she makes strengthens those extremists who would kill because of drawings. It weakens and alienates moderate Muslims. IS and groups like them thrive on a clash of civilizations. The more they can demonstrate that they are defending Muslims against the enemies of Islam, the better they like it. Geller is a dream come true for them.

On the other hand, if Americans treated Geller the way they would treat an raving anti-Semite or white supremacist, it would take some wind out of the radical's sails.

Wow. You truly don't understand the goals of Radical Islam, and what motivates them.

Are you really suggesting that if people like Gellar would just shut up, radicals would behave themselves?

I am suggesting that Geller -- who opposes free expression by Muslims when that suits her -- provides ammunition to Muslim extremists to demonstrate that the West is anti-Islam. Geller's actions strengthen radical Muslims and the actions of radical Muslims strengthen Geller. I am not asking for Geller to shut up. She has the right to speak. I am asking that Americans treat her the same way they would treat an anti-Semite or white supremacist -- by showing the her values are not American values.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Can you cite a single action in support of free expression by Geller that wasn't focused on opposing Islam? She must have the most narrow definition of free speech that's ever been proposed.

Let's not play stupid here. People are being murdered for scribbling cartoons about Muhammed. Every other current free speech issue pales in comparison. No other issue causes writers or cartoonists in the US to fear for their lives.

I really have no interest in Pamela Geller except that she is courageous enough to openly oppose the violent intimidation of those who draw Muhammed. Once we have returned to a time when, say, a small atheist magazine can draw a cartoon of Muhammed without fearing for their lives, then I will be able to ignore Pamela Geller.

That's sort of like supporting Mussolini because he made the trains run on time. Just ignore everything else about him.

If Geller is such the advocate of free expression that you believe her to be, why has she opposed free expression by Muslims?

Even the ADL accuses her of "virulent anti-Muslim bigotry":

http://www.adl.org/civil-rights/discrimination/c/stop-islamization-of-america.html

BTW, we are constantly told that Geller only opposes "radical" Muslims. But, read her own words (from the ADL report):

"the idea of a 'moderate' Islam does not exist... because the Koran says so and Muhammad said so."

So, she only opposes "radical" Muslims, but all Muslim are radical.

If your goal is to return to a time when small atheist magazines can draw a cartoon of Muhammed without fearing for their lives, Pam Geller is the last person you want to support. Every move she makes strengthens those extremists who would kill because of drawings. It weakens and alienates moderate Muslims. IS and groups like them thrive on a clash of civilizations. The more they can demonstrate that they are defending Muslims against the enemies of Islam, the better they like it. Geller is a dream come true for them.

On the other hand, if Americans treated Geller the way they would treat an raving anti-Semite or white supremacist, it would take some wind out of the radical's sails.

Wow. You truly don't understand the goals of Radical Islam, and what motivates them.

Are you really suggesting that if people like Gellar would just shut up, radicals would behave themselves?

Interesting question.

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the work of one crazy person, but still disturbing...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/anti-semitic-flyers-left-on-chevy-chase-driveways/2015/05/27/7e3e0c6a-04be-11e5-a428-c984eb077d4e_story.html?hpid=z2

Disturbed people are everywhere among us, perhaps even the Georgetown Rabbi. I know of no 'group' of people without mental illness.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Can you cite a single action in support of free expression by Geller that wasn't focused on opposing Islam? She must have the most narrow definition of free speech that's ever been proposed.

Let's not play stupid here. People are being murdered for scribbling cartoons about Muhammed. Every other current free speech issue pales in comparison. No other issue causes writers or cartoonists in the US to fear for their lives.

I really have no interest in Pamela Geller except that she is courageous enough to openly oppose the violent intimidation of those who draw Muhammed. Once we have returned to a time when, say, a small atheist magazine can draw a cartoon of Muhammed without fearing for their lives, then I will be able to ignore Pamela Geller.

That's sort of like supporting Mussolini because he made the trains run on time. Just ignore everything else about him.

If Geller is such the advocate of free expression that you believe her to be, why has she opposed free expression by Muslims?

Even the ADL accuses her of "virulent anti-Muslim bigotry":

http://www.adl.org/civil-rights/discrimination/c/stop-islamization-of-america.html

BTW, we are constantly told that Geller only opposes "radical" Muslims. But, read her own words (from the ADL report):

"the idea of a 'moderate' Islam does not exist... because the Koran says so and Muhammad said so."

So, she only opposes "radical" Muslims, but all Muslim are radical.

If your goal is to return to a time when small atheist magazines can draw a cartoon of Muhammed without fearing for their lives, Pam Geller is the last person you want to support. Every move she makes strengthens those extremists who would kill because of drawings. It weakens and alienates moderate Muslims. IS and groups like them thrive on a clash of civilizations. The more they can demonstrate that they are defending Muslims against the enemies of Islam, the better they like it. Geller is a dream come true for them.

On the other hand, if Americans treated Geller the way they would treat an raving anti-Semite or white supremacist, it would take some wind out of the radical's sails.

Wow. You truly don't understand the goals of Radical Islam, and what motivates them.

Are you really suggesting that if people like Gellar would just shut up, radicals would behave themselves?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

One man is pictured. That man happens to be Muhammad, not just some run-of-the-mill guy. He is presented holding a sword.

Why do you think the man picture is Muhammed? The cartoon doesn't say that

http://newsandbull.com/?p=127

To me he represents all the evil thugs who are murdering cartoonists.

Let's not play stupid. That's a waste of time. The cartoon was the winner of a "Draw Muhammad Contest". Evil thugs have nothing against pictures of themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

More importantly, you can't divorce any of Geller's actions from her history of anti-Islamic hatred.

Why not? Let the cartoon speak for itself. Criticize Gellar when it is appropriate. Don't criticize her if she is raising money for the Nepalese earthquake victims or fighting for free speech.

Again, let's not play stupid. Geller has both opposed and supported freedom of expression. The common denominator was hatred of Islam. Can you cite a single action in support of free expression by Geller that wasn't focused on opposing Islam? She must have the most narrow definition of free speech that's ever been proposed.

I really don't understand the eagerness of posters like yourself to whitewash Geller's history. I am pretty sure that you wouldn't do the same for someone with a history of anti-Semitism or racism.

Isn't Gellar allowed to hate Islam?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Can you cite a single action in support of free expression by Geller that wasn't focused on opposing Islam? She must have the most narrow definition of free speech that's ever been proposed.

Let's not play stupid here. People are being murdered for scribbling cartoons about Muhammed. Every other current free speech issue pales in comparison. No other issue causes writers or cartoonists in the US to fear for their lives.

I really have no interest in Pamela Geller except that she is courageous enough to openly oppose the violent intimidation of those who draw Muhammed. Once we have returned to a time when, say, a small atheist magazine can draw a cartoon of Muhammed without fearing for their lives, then I will be able to ignore Pamela Geller.

That's sort of like supporting Mussolini because he made the trains run on time. Just ignore everything else about him.

If Geller is such the advocate of free expression that you believe her to be, why has she opposed free expression by Muslims?

Even the ADL accuses her of "virulent anti-Muslim bigotry":

http://www.adl.org/civil-rights/discrimination/c/stop-islamization-of-america.html

BTW, we are constantly told that Geller only opposes "radical" Muslims. But, read her own words (from the ADL report):

"the idea of a 'moderate' Islam does not exist... because the Koran says so and Muhammad said so."

So, she only opposes "radical" Muslims, but all Muslim are radical.

If your goal is to return to a time when small atheist magazines can draw a cartoon of Muhammed without fearing for their lives, Pam Geller is the last person you want to support. Every move she makes strengthens those extremists who would kill because of drawings. It weakens and alienates moderate Muslims. IS and groups like them thrive on a clash of civilizations. The more they can demonstrate that they are defending Muslims against the enemies of Islam, the better they like it. Geller is a dream come true for them.

On the other hand, if Americans treated Geller the way they would treat an raving anti-Semite or white supremacist, it would take some wind out of the radical's sails.

jsteele wrote:Can you cite a single action in support of free expression by Geller that wasn't focused on opposing Islam? She must have the most narrow definition of free speech that's ever been proposed.

Let's not play stupid here. People are being murdered for scribbling cartoons about Muhammed. Every other current free speech issue pales in comparison. No other issue causes writers or cartoonists in the US to fear for their lives.

I really have no interest in Pamela Geller except that she is courageous enough to openly oppose the violent intimidation of those who draw Muhammed. Once we have returned to a time when, say, a small atheist magazine can draw a cartoon of Muhammed without fearing for their lives, then I will be able to ignore Pamela Geller.

Anonymous wrote:What exactly are the police investigating? Were threats made in the leaflets? If not, I'm not sure what the investigation entails.

The police must be afraid of getting slapped with an antisemitic label.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

One man is pictured. That man happens to be Muhammad, not just some run-of-the-mill guy. He is presented holding a sword.

Why do you think the man picture is Muhammed? The cartoon doesn't say that

http://newsandbull.com/?p=127

To me he represents all the evil thugs who are murdering cartoonists.

jsteele wrote:

More importantly, you can't divorce any of Geller's actions from her history of anti-Islamic hatred.

Why not? Let the cartoon speak for itself. Criticize Gellar when it is appropriate. Don't criticize her if she is raising money for the Nepalese earthquake victims or fighting for free speech.

She's not a free speech advocate. She is an anti-muslim crusader who occasionally uses the First Amendment to pursue her agenda. And other times, she attacks people exercising their First Amendment rights.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

One man is pictured. That man happens to be Muhammad, not just some run-of-the-mill guy. He is presented holding a sword.

Why do you think the man picture is Muhammed? The cartoon doesn't say that

http://newsandbull.com/?p=127

To me he represents all the evil thugs who are murdering cartoonists.

Let's not play stupid. That's a waste of time. The cartoon was the winner of a "Draw Muhammad Contest". Evil thugs have nothing against pictures of themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

More importantly, you can't divorce any of Geller's actions from her history of anti-Islamic hatred.

Why not? Let the cartoon speak for itself. Criticize Gellar when it is appropriate. Don't criticize her if she is raising money for the Nepalese earthquake victims or fighting for free speech.

Again, let's not play stupid. Geller has both opposed and supported freedom of expression. The common denominator was hatred of Islam. Can you cite a single action in support of free expression by Geller that wasn't focused on opposing Islam? She must have the most narrow definition of free speech that's ever been proposed.

I really don't understand the eagerness of posters like yourself to whitewash Geller's history. I am pretty sure that you wouldn't do the same for someone with a history of anti-Semitism or racism.

so apparently they can't arrest the guy. It's not like graffiti. It apparently does fall under free speech. I hope they can at least hook him up with mental health services....

jsteele wrote:

One man is pictured. That man happens to be Muhammad, not just some run-of-the-mill guy. He is presented holding a sword.

Why do you think the man picture is Muhammed? The cartoon doesn't say that

http://newsandbull.com/?p=127

To me he represents all the evil thugs who are murdering cartoonists.

jsteele wrote:

More importantly, you can't divorce any of Geller's actions from her history of anti-Islamic hatred.

Why not? Let the cartoon speak for itself. Criticize Gellar when it is appropriate. Don't criticize her if she is raising money for the Nepalese earthquake victims or fighting for free speech.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you support Geller's right to free speech then you have no case to stop the distribution of anti-semitic flyers.

To me both are outrageous and despicable but one cannot pick and choose what are acceptable insults and falsehoods - and in the same breath support free speech.

Gellar wants to display a cartoon on Metro showing two men talking. One says "You can't draw me" and the other says 'that is why I must draw you"
Can you please tell me why this is despicable? There is no incitement to violence, no stereotyping, nothing even anti-Muslim. By no standard can this be considered hate speech.

One man is pictured. That man happens to be Muhammad, not just some run-of-the-mill guy. He is presented holding a sword. The real Muhammad never told anyone they couldn't draw him. The picture is based on negative stereotyping. More importantly, you can't divorce any of Geller's actions from her history of anti-Islamic hatred. The proposed poster is part of an ongoing campaign -- not to support free speech (something Geller's opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque showed she doesn't actually support) -- but to spread her campaign of hatred.

All of that said, I'm not sure the Metro decision was the best one. I would prefer to see the posters run and provoke a strong reaction of disgust from the general public much in the manner of the flyers that are the topic of this thread. As I have said in other threads, Geller should be treated exactly as an anti-Semite or white supremacist would be treated.