hrmm, doesn't sound very hateful <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xKGB3lgAZx0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I understand the fuel in the fire argument. Rights aren't absolute in this country; it's a balancing act. But in this act, as distasteful as it is, what these people are doing (renting a place in Garland to show Muhammad drawings) is not equivalent to yelling fire in a crowded theater. The didn't run into a Mosque insulting the prophet to start a melee. So as someone who believes in American values, I cannot agree with those who say this event should be illegal or those who side with the shooters (not that anyone is doing that).
Yeah, she sounds like the typical Republican nutball. Not hateful at all, very Bachmann'ish. In reality she's a well known Jewish extremist. — Pam Geller, AtlasShrugs.com, April 13, 2010 — Pam Geller, AtlasShrugs.com, April 11, 2010 " — Pam Geller, The New York Times, Oct. 8, 2010 – Pam Geller, The New York Times, Oct. 8, 2010 Geller recently came to many Americans’ attention in September 2012 when she bought her first round of anti-Muslim subway ads which stated, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad." The controversial advertisements were roundly condemned by most people around the country, including by prominent national Jewish organizations who were quick to call out her Islamophobia. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/11/pamela-geller-s-new-subway-ads.html
I though most of the conservative posters in the D&D are past the whole "Obama is a secret Muslim extremist" sentiment yet they still condone individuals like Gheller who still espouse the whole "Hussein Obama and his Islamic overlords" rhetoric. This lady is a nut job. She will never help solve any problems. She's an instigator not a problem solver. A grade A c*nt.
Right. I totally agree. Seriously it reminds me of those "tarts" that wear tight fitting and revealing clothes. Why do that when they know that men will want to have sex with them? Really, I mean it isn't the girls fault that they get raped.... but what was the purpose of dressing like that if they didn't want attention from men? So I ask the question, why wearing revealing clothes when it sexually attracts half the population? At best it seems it is just asking for trouble.
Yes this sounds great in theory but in reality there are plenty of crazy nutjobs with every kind of extremist believes in every country that dont conform to society's norm and never will. Judging by the heavy security presence, seems to me they were expecting/hoping for this kind of attack to draw more attention to their cause. In the future, I hope the event organizers for these type of events will have to pay for their own security instead of relying on the police & tax payers.
I agree with you. I do not think that she brings anything constructive to the debate and actually makes it less likely that there will be some sort of long term agreement reached. Good luck getting Muslims secularized when you act as she does. Having said that, she has the right to do what she is doing and when people respond to her with violence, it only lends credibility to her positions. Ultimately, all she did was support and arrange for the drawing of pictures and several people attempted to kill people as a result. They helped her narrative of the crazy Muslim.
I would assume they probably did pay police salaries for the weekend. We wanted to host a triathlon once, in Texas, and the police department said they'll need to charge us for services and overtime, because it's outside their regularly mandated duties. I hope the same applies here. What I would like to see is better judgement by the PD in the future. I hope they don't endorse this event (and others like it) by posing in photos in military gear and positing it on twitter. The department is better off enforcing laws and allowing politicians to politic. In conclusion: organizer is dumb, shooters are dumber - and anyone who thinks there are sides of this issue to choose from is dumbest.
I think everyone agrees here besides Commodore and tallnover that: 1. Pamela Geller his a hateful lady 2. She has a right to be a hateful lady as long as her rhetoric doesn't infringe upon others' natural rights. 3. The shooters infringed on her and those that attended rights.
it's not even a good bait and some Muslim just have to give her the attention and credibility seriously.. it's really sad she's a grade A ******* with low quality bait to confirm a stereotype and morons fall right into it
I don't side with the shooters, nor do I think her event should be illegal. But, I wouldn't exactly say this shooting is a victory for freedom either. It's a victory for hate speech.
I know you agree with me... I just wanted to make it very clear because I did not want the thread to turn into a discussion on the merits of Geller. Her positions and beliefs are not mainstream and I think that should be treated as a given. I certainly don't view her as anything more than an attention seeking nuisance.
