They got balls in Dallas: Muhammad art exhibit

[maryjane48]

lakevixen wrote:

yup if anyone thinks texans wont use a gun they a truly misguided , but i hope you wont defend miss gellar as she is the head of a hate group, and surely a israeli supporter , knows all about how hate speech works out . i myself am against all and any hate speech


you must really not like this guy then...


just incase you missed that part of what i wrote

[JLives]

no one is disagreeing , but to support a hate group such as gellar's is not much better

Let's not lose sight of the fact that one group is drawing cartoons and the other is killing people. They are not "just as bad".

[Smurf]

In my opinion to support, condone or make stupid excuses for killers is much, much worse, yet some on here seem to continually do it.

[maryjane48]

In my opinion to support, condone or make stupid excuses for killers is much, much worse, yet some on here seem to continually do it.

lets see a post to support this

[maryjane48]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that one group is drawing cartoons and the other is killing people. They are not "just as bad".

but that hypocritical , do we have degrees of a hate group? that guy in sweden that killed all them folks at the outdoors camp used mz gellar as inspiration to kill the kids



On Friday, anti-Islamist blogger Pamela Geller pounced on news of a massacre in Oslo. "Jihad in Norway?" she asked. She posted a second item—"You cannot avoid the consequences of ignoring jihad"—and linked to a previous one: "Norway: ALL Rapes in Past 5 Years Committed by Muslims." As the Oslo body count grew, she piled on: "if I hear another television or radio reporter refer to muhammad as 'the Prophet Muhammad,' I think I am going to puke. He's not your prophet, assclowns."

Then things went horribly wrong. It turned out that the suspected terrorist in Norway wasn't a Muslim. He hated Muslims. And he admired Geller.

In a manifesto posted online, the admitted killer, Anders Behring Breivik, praised Geller. He cited her blog, Atlas Shrugs, and the writings of her friends, allies, and collaborators—Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch, Islam Watch, and Front Page magazine—more than 250 times. And he echoed their tactics, tarring peaceful Muslims with the crimes of violent Muslims. He wrote that all Muslims sought to impose "sharia laws" and that "there are no important theological differences between jihadists and so-called 'peaceful' or 'moderate' Muslims." He reprinted, as part of the manifesto, a 2006 essay by "Fjordman"—a blogger whose work appears frequently on Geller's site—which argued that "radical Muslims and moderate Muslims are allies" and that because Islam teaches deception, no Muslim who claims to be moderate can be trusted.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... orism.html

is there really difference when your words inspire murder, or you pull the trigger?

[FreeRights]

For one, there's absolutely no evidence that these gunmen were responding to "hate speech." Drawing a picture of Mohammad is not hate speech. Sure, it very well may be offensive, but taking offense to something does not mean that it's hate speech.

Geller may well be a terrible person and she may well have participated in actual hate speech in the past. To any of our knowledge, this event was not hate speech - it was essentially a combination between a protest and an art contest. It's a shame if me drawing Mohammad offends you, but that is your belief that I can't, not mine.

[Atomoa]

Confrontation is a necessary part of the cycle to bring this into the public eye until things change. It is not OK to kill people for drawing a picture you find offensive. It is not OK to kill people for calling you names. It is not OK to kill people who deliberately provoke you. Killing people is not OK. Until we can agree on that without adding disclaimers (*unless you draw Mohammed) then we still need to deal with the issue.

There are many, many "things" a person can do (calling a Harley rider a name, calling a group of ethnic people names in their homeland, burning a flag, wearing a tshirt) that will provoke violence. It doesn't make it right, but it is a reality.

Something tells me that the folks in Texas were not embarking on a conflict resolution social experiment. This was a "hahaha let's *bleep* on their flag" event.

They were looking for a fight, and they got one. The Quran burning contest in Florida a few years back was the same thing, and I believe even the State Department chimed in and said "*bleep* guys - what are you thinking?".

CSIS and the RCMP has expressed to the government repeatedly not to use inflammatory language regarding terrorism. Are they trying to repress free speech or address the fact if you slap a bear on the *bleep* you might get killed? Should Stephen Harper commission the National Gallery to create a giant painting of Muhammad and then cry foul when a terrorist attack eventually occurs? Maybe he could spit on Putin's shoe as a symbolic gesture and then later get "upset" that Canada starts to have trade issues and Arctic military issues?

I see what you are saying, but insulting a religion (or anyone or their culture) is not a way to build bridges. If the US wants to befriend the Islamic community, they could perhaps stop blowing up Islamic countries or setting up and/or supporting brutal regimes. Naw...much easier to pour salt in a wound and slap faces!

[FreeRights]

There are many, many "things" a person can do (calling a Harley rider a name, calling a group of ethnic people names in their homeland, burning a flag, wearing a tshirt) that will provoke violence. It doesn't make it right, but it is a reality.

Something tells me that the folks in Texas were not embarking on a conflict resolution social experiment. This was a "hahaha let's *bleep* on their flag" event.

They were looking for a fight, and they got one. The Quran burning contest in Florida a few years back was the same thing, and I believe even the State Department chimed in and said "*bleep* guys - what are you thinking?".

CSIS and the RCMP has expressed to the government repeatedly not to use inflammatory language regarding terrorism. Are they trying to repress free speech or address the fact if you slap a bear on the *bleep* you might get killed? Should Stephen Harper commission the National Gallery to create a giant painting of Muhammad and then cry foul when a terrorist attack eventually occurs? Maybe he could spit on Putin's shoe as a symbolic gesture and then later get "upset" that Canada starts to have trade issues and Arctic military issues?

I see what you are saying, but insulting a religion (or anyone or their culture) is not a way to build bridges.

Citizens in Iraq were burning US flags and that didn't garner an active shooter incident. It didn't cause a violent scenario. People burn bibles internationally and there's little to no violent repercussions. Calling a biker a name is different, because you're insulting a person directly, but the worst that likely would happen there is a fight.

Muslims find the drawing of Mohammad offensive. Their book forbids it. Many Christians find same-sex marriage offensive too, because their book doesn't approve of it. I, and anybody else who isn't part of either of those belief systems, are full within our rights to draw a picture of Mohammad, or marry someone of the same sex. It may be offensive, but I do not share the beliefs of either of those two parties, and as such, am not restricted to it.

You state that it is the "reality," but it shouldn't be. Some people, like what you are doing now, are preventing change by defending the reaction.

[maryjane48]

For one, there's absolutely no evidence that these gunmen were responding to "hate speech."
never said they were , but the guy in norway responded to mz gellar as in he dug what she said , kill muslims

Drawing a picture of Mohammad is not hate speech. no one said it was Sure, it very well may be offensive, but taking offense to something does not mean that it's hate speech.

Geller may well be a terrible person she advocates killing all muslims and anyone else that doesnt fit her idea of a good christian and she may well have participated in actual hate speech in the past. To any of our knowledge, this event was not hate speech again no one said it was but it was hosted by a person who promotes hate - it was essentially a combination between a protest and an art contest. It's a shame if me drawing Mohammad offends you, but that is your belief that I can't, not mine. lol i don't believe in any made up god stories , you can draw mohammad kissing george bush for all i care

[maryjane48]

like what you are doing now, are preventing change by defending the reaction.

since when is analyzing a event defending anyones actions? that is just a immature way of saying i do not like your answer so by default you must be with them.i could counter your defending known hate group

[sobrohusfat]

i hope you wont defend miss gellar as she is the head of a hate group

she said , kill muslims

...she advocates killing all muslims and anyone else that doesnt fit her idea of a good christian

it was hosted by a person who promotes hate

Show me a quote - better yet a clip of her saying anything even remotely close to your sad little transparent BS

"Hate speech" may be somewhat subjective but what you wrote is just a bold faced lie.

http://pamelageller.com/category/atlas-articles/

There's her site ...fill your boots

[maryjane48]

hardly , the germans in 1930s started off with hate speech and we all know how that turned out.

[FreeRights]

So then we can agree that this was an event that was not about hate speech. While offensive, there is literally no excuse in the world that it should have been responded by way of bullets.

[maryjane48]

So then we can agree that this was an event that was not about hate speech. While offensive, there is literally no excuse in the world that it should have been responded by way of bullets.

no one on this thread has said the shooters had any right to shoot anyone

[maryjane48]

Pamela Geller is up to her old antics, employing more over the top hyperbole peppered with frequent cases of verbal diarrhea. Now she is saying that the Holocaust was the fault of the Mooslims, and that the Nazis were just adopting “Jihad.”

Nazis adopted the Muslim idea of Jihad — total destruction and complete annihilation in the spirit of a Holy War.

Of course this was the next step for Pam, demonize the Muslims and Islam to its logical end, next she will be saying that Hitler was a Muslim. Where does she get this wild stuff, and then she claims that she isn’t a conspiracy theorist?

Pamela Geller seems to have stumbled on something that World War II scholars and Holocaust historians didn’t know, a fact that has been “suppressed” by the world in a conspiracy to further Islamic Jihad,

As the leading role the Islamic world played in the Holocaust comes out of the shadows and into the fore, and decent peoples recoil in repulsion, it is necessary for Islamic media, “scholars” and asshats-in-residence to rewrite history — as Islam has done so exceedingly and singularly well all throughout history.

Pam wants us to believe that the colonized Muslims in Africa and Asia somehow made the regular trip to Concentration Camps to gas Jews, and then went back home to be ruled by Europeans? Insane.

Other Insane stuff on her blog:

The not so new crusade against Muslim Chaplains in prison is also making the rounds on the anti-Muslim sites, and Pamela Geller is no exception. She lays it out succinctly as only a proud bigot can,

All Muslim Chaplains are Jihadists

Her insanity on Barack continues, calls him an “Usurper,” “Megalomaniac”, and something called “L-Dopa.”

This is the face of the Tea Party right wing, and Conservative blogs love her because she gives them what they want to hear; hate. At least it’s a good laugh.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/02/pamela ... ted-jihad/


now someone who views muslims as nazi ,sure wont be wishing good health to any of them .