Texas cartoon contest organizer known for inflammatory rhetoric

[tartempion]

Er, Some people feel obliged to kill those who are non-believers, but don't oppose them PLEASE.

Edited May 6, 2015 by tartempion

[thaibeachlovers]

Dozens of countries have laws against hate speech. Maybe its about time USA did the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#By_country

If political cartoons were "hate speech" you might have a point, but just because Muslims think there should be no image of Muhammed does not mean that the rest of us have to restrict our right to mock the man.

You are far wide of the mark by claiming it was a hate speech event.

Muslims killing Christians just for being Christians even when the Koran says they are acceptable is a real example of hate.

I hope you do realise that many of us on here would be killed by the savages just for espousing our views of Islam if they knew who we were.

Edited May 6, 2015 by thaibeachlovers

[Chicog]

In case anyone else wants to cite Charlie Hebdo as a model of free speech....

80-year-old Maurice Sinet, political cartoonist with Charlie Hebdo for 20 years, was fired in 2009 for his anti-Semitic cartoons mocking the relationship of former French President Sarkozy’s son with a wealthy Jewish woman.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Chicog

[Publicus]

Indeed, and it might be rather embarrassing to anyone who might want to create a listing of the "great countries" that prohibit or substantially deny freedom of speech to their citizens and residents.

The book on that would be two covers and no pages. Empty, same as the thought that freedom of speech as proscribed in the US Constitution and developed by the SCOTUS is self-defeating.

Conversely, the book of countries that prohibit or significantly restrict freedom of speech to their populations would have familiar names to include their leaders and their particular political parties. The chapter on the 20th century alone would include all or almost all of the loser countries of World War One and World War Two. The Soviet Union didn't fare too well either.

Islam would be in every chapter.

Wrong. Australia and NZ are but 2 countries that follow the US everywhere and assist when the US begs. Those 2 countries do not have freedom of speech, it is not mentioned in the Oz constitution.

I do believe both countries where on the winning side in both world wars.

I quote my own post: "... it might be rather embarrassing to anyone who might want to create a listing of the "great countries" that prohibit or substantially deny freedom of speech to their citizens and residents. The book on that would be two covers and no pages. "

It is true Australia and New Zealand which do not constitutionally grant citizens a general free speech cannot be considered "great countries".

As previously referenced, however, the High Court of the Commonwealth of Australia held during the 1990s that freedom of speech exists in the spheres of politics and government only, and that Her Britannic Majesty's Commonwealth Government in Oz therefore lacks constitutional authority to deny free speech that relates to democratic government and democratic political processes and participants.

That is, only political speech in the UK's Commonwealth of Australia is speech that is privileged and thereby protected. That was a holding by the Oz High Court based on Sections 7 and 23 of the Oz constitution. The holding is binding, i.e., it is based in the Oz constitution.

The Ox High Court knows something few laymen know, which is that there are two kinds of law, explicit and implicit and the High Court thus applied implicit law in its interpretation of the Oz constitution. Better late than never for Ox but the land Down Under still comes up a day late and a dollar short in the marketplace of free speech and classical Western liberal thought, the European Enlightenment in particular.

As to the two world wars of the 20th century, my post said the list of losers would have on it all or almost all of the countries that lost the wars and which prohibited or substantially denied freedom of speech. That means because neither Australia nor New Zealand lost either war they would not be on the list. Specifically saying this in your post means it is either redundant or oblivious.

Thanks for lowlighting that there is no explicit recognition or guarantee of a generalized free speech of citizens or residents in the respective constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia or the Commonwealth of New Zealand.

From reading threads and posts over time however, it would seem not all from Ox or NZ are opponents of free speech as it is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States. That many or most are opposed is noteworthy, significant, revealing....illiberal or perhaps even anti-liberal

[Publicus]

Yeah, a 'Draw a cartoon Muhammad' is just a normal event in Texas.

A pathetic attempt by bigots to provoke and does absolutely nothing to address the problem of Muslim extremism.

Wrong. It brings out the moron jihadists and they will get shot. All good.

There should be a Muhammed cartoon competition in every city of the world, complete with armed security ready to exterminate the jihadists.

Now that's provocative free speech in action.

Unfortunate but true.

And here I'd thought the juhadists were bloodthirsty.

They are but apparently not alone in their deprivations.

[JDGRUEN]

I see it this way.

Americans abroad are now more at risk because of this rabble rousing troublemaker publicity whore lady?

And for what?

Free speech?

That's a stretch.

Free speech to yell fire in a theater?

If Americans are going to stand for something good, that is what we want to stand for ... intentionally pushing a stick into a hornet's nest?

No I don't see this as the same as Charlie Hebdo .. that had literary value and presented sophisticated political satire.

Geller wishes her stunt was at that level ... but it never was.

There are much more worthy things Americans should stand for ... that might be worth being hated about.

To add, I do not agree with or support Muslims who are intolerant of people drawing images of their prophet and I don't think secular societies should have laws that protect such an irrational dogma either.

Some might see a conflict in these positions. I don't. Having laws is one thing. Deliberately making people angry just as a stunt is another.

The original action against the World Trade Center in NY in the early 90's - the bombing by Islamic Terrorists did not have any particular provocation except they hated America... There was no appreciable 'Free Speech against Muslims going on ... Americans can not and should not curtail their Free speech and behavior because Islamic Jahidists do not like it and may attempt to bring harm... That in fact is one of their goals - dominate by shutting people up.

Edited May 6, 2015 by JDGRUEN

[Jingthing]

I get that ... but that Geller lady is still not particularly admirable. Sorry. I don't mind being hated for being an American, I expect that, but I do mind for being associated with a hothead like Geller.

[BKKBobby]

I see it this way.

Americans abroad are now more at risk because of this rabble rousing troublemaker publicity whore lady?

And for what?

Free speech?

That's a stretch.

Free speech to yell fire in a theater?

If Americans are going to stand for something good, that is what we want to stand for ... intentionally pushing a stick into a hornet's nest?

No I don't see this as the same as Charlie Hebdo .. that had literary value and presented sophisticated political satire.

Geller wishes her stunt was at that level ... but it never was.

There are much more worthy things Americans should stand for ... that might be worth being hated about.

To add, I do not agree with or support Muslims who are intolerant of people drawing images of their prophet and I don't think secular societies should have laws that protect such an irrational dogma either.

Some might see a conflict in these positions. I don't. Having laws is one thing. Deliberately making people angry just as a stunt is another.

The original action against the World Trade Center in NY in the early 90's - the bombing by Islamic Terrorists did not have any particular provocation except they hated America... There was no appreciable 'Free Speech again Muslims going on ... Americans can not and should not curtail their Free speech and behavior because Islamic Jahidists do not like it and may attempt to bring harm... That in fact is one of their goals - dominate by shutting people up.

I understand your POV. But this is not only about Islam. Its about religion, ethnicity and sexuality. You have the right to dress up in a SS costume and heil Hitler while waving a swastika (in public) in the US. Of course, American jews might think that is a right people should have, but Im not so sure that all jews from all countries agree. If a Imam preaches rubbish to a community of muslims in USA as to incite hatred against christians, jews, gays, transsexuals etc. wouldnt it be good to have a legal way to shut his mouth? Right now gipsys are fair game in media in big parts of Europe, I dont feel like its constructive and if I was a gipsy I would get really offended.

[zydeco]

These apologists may not have been to America.

I could take pictures of the Pope and Obama into a bar, pin them up and get the guys to throw darts at them and no one but the bar owner could stop us. The bar owner could because it's his private business and his rights at his business or property aren't trumped by our rights. He could simply declare that we were trespassing and ask us (require us) to leave if we didn't stop. I can't imagine him asking us to stop, but he'd have the right to.

We'd have to take the darts and pictures out onto the public street or to one of our properties or to a property we'd rented to have a right to express ourselves.

No one would get violent and no one would be in trouble unless some neanderthal wanted to participate in further experiments with Darwin's Law as the stupid Islamists did in Texas.

Do you think nobody would get violent towards me if I walked into a bar in rural Texas, wearing an Islamic flag, and proceeded to desecrate a Bible?

Very likely someone would... however I do not envision the bar patrons going out and getting two AK-47s and finding a Muslim meeting and go in shooting... There have been instances in America where Muslim's rights were abridged by individual actions against them ... and it certainly was not right. Furthermore - I do not know of anyone who would support these type of actions... even rare as they are.

On the other hand only about two - three years ago ... members of a Christian group went into Dearborne Michigan and attempted to preach a Christian message with the intent of persuading people to listen... Toughs came out of the Muslim neighborhood and physically ejected them from public streets. Basically declaring that they were in control of pubic space and Christians were forbidden . This is the modus operandi of Muslims in America - one way street - we can forbid you -- but you cannot forbid us. Dearbornistan reigns

Yes, very likely someone would. And the cartoonist shooting event...that was rare in America too, wasn't it?

The point you and others are missing (in some cases, deliberately it seems) is that nobody denies your freedom of speech. But to do something in the name of freedom of speech but in actuality designed purely to provoke, is certainly and simply antagonistic.

In the name of freedom of speech, I can wear a nazi uniform and stand on a soap box outside a synagogue and preach holocaust denial. Everybody would know I am simply tying to invoke a reaction or nastily trying to offend...or both. Freedom of speech was not granted as a right so that I can set out to offend.

It's the motivation that counts. The cartoon contest was designed to invoke a reaction. It was a trap, sprung by simpleton hotheads who fell for it, and has resulted in what the contest convener wanted all along; greater demonisation of Islam.

In effect, what you describe above was cleared to happen when the Nazis applied to march through the largely Jewish town of Skokie Illinois almost 40 years ago. The US Supreme Court affirmed their right to do so.

[Publicus]

Dozens of countries have laws against hate speech. Maybe its about time USA did the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#By_country

The document from the private organization US Lawyers Committee for Human Rights is succinct so the uninformed might want to peruse it.

HATE CRIME LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES

Current federal hate crimes laws

Current state hate crimes laws

Proposed hate crimes laws

Reasons and arguments explaining the lack of support for hate speech laws by the general public of the USA

Some organizations dedicated to fighting hate crimes include:

Of a particular interest to me were the two paragraphs discussing a BRIEF COMPARISON OF HATE CRIMES AND HATE SPEECH LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE EUROPEAN UNION from which the following quote is taken::

It seems the USA is more tolerant of harmful and ridiculous viewpoints because lawmakers feel that the individuals expressing these views can best be combated by ridicule and scrutiny by the general public, as opposed to fines or imprisonment. Lawmakers in the USA feel that hate speech is less threatening than their EU counterparts, probably because the majority of the public in the USA has historically rejected these hateful viewpoints despite having full and free access to hate speech.

http://www.yucom.org.rs/upload/vestgalerija_66_13/1219405526_GS0_NB_HS_USA2008.pdf

I remember my firth grade teacher saying this during a social studies and history time and that was a very long time ago. I've since recognized the United States does not have 2500 years of being surrounded by mutually hostile and supremacist tribes the result of which was a continuum of havoc, war, slaughter, mayhem, genocide and everything else under the sun people can do against one another.

[Chicog]

The original action against the World Trade Center in NY in the early 90's - the bombing by Islamic Terrorists did not have any particular provocation except they hated America... There was no appreciable 'Free Speech against Muslims going on ... Americans can not and should not curtail their Free speech and behavior because Islamic Jahidists do not like it and may attempt to bring harm... That in fact is one of their goals - dominate by shutting people up.

Well when Ramzi Yousef took credit, he said: ""We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel, the state of terrorism, and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."

So no, not cartoons.

[simple1]

Not being American I looked up Skokie and I came across the following admirable quote.

As Justice Louis Brandeis once explained, the Framers of our First Amendment knew "that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/remembering-the-nazis-in_b_188739.html

[Seastallion]

Do you think nobody would get violent towards me if I walked into a bar in rural Texas, wearing an Islamic flag, and proceeded to desecrate a Bible?

Very likely someone would... however I do not envision the bar patrons going out and getting two AK-47s and finding a Muslim meeting and go in shooting... There have been instances in America where Muslim's rights were abridged by individual actions against them ... and it certainly was not right. Furthermore - I do not know of anyone who would support these type of actions... even rare as they are.

On the other hand only about two - three years ago ... members of a Christian group went into Dearborne Michigan and attempted to preach a Christian message with the intent of persuading people to listen... Toughs came out of the Muslim neighborhood and physically ejected them from public streets. Basically declaring that they were in control of pubic space and Christians were forbidden . This is the modus operandi of Muslims in America - one way street - we can forbid you -- but you cannot forbid us. Dearbornistan reigns

Yes, very likely someone would. And the cartoonist shooting event...that was rare in America too, wasn't it?

The point you and others are missing (in some cases, deliberately it seems) is that nobody denies your freedom of speech. But to do something in the name of freedom of speech but in actuality designed purely to provoke, is certainly and simply antagonistic.

In the name of freedom of speech, I can wear a nazi uniform and stand on a soap box outside a synagogue and preach holocaust denial. Everybody would know I am simply tying to invoke a reaction or nastily trying to offend...or both. Freedom of speech was not granted as a right so that I can set out to offend.

It's the motivation that counts. The cartoon contest was designed to invoke a reaction. It was a trap, sprung by simpleton hotheads who fell for it, and has resulted in what the contest convener wanted all along; greater demonisation of Islam.

"Freedom of speech was not granted as a right so that I can set out to offend"... Not so...It certainly can and is used that way - often. And it is allowed. Freedom of Speech in American under our Constitution has no such restrictions implied or otherwise... Free Speech is not governed as to whether is might offend or whether intended to offend ... There is a long history on this... In fact the example you described has actually happened in America more than once. Such actions have upset people -- but it is tolerated ... some may lash out and try to silence the speaker -- but they are in the wrong.. whether emotions come into play or not. The U.S. Constitution has no provisions to prevent people from being offended or to protect anyone from an offensive statement. There are travails in life - one just has to deal with them ...

As a returning Vietnam Veteran - I was spat upon exiting Travis AFB on the way home ... In University - same thing - constantly taunted - told to take off my jungle fatigue jacket ... I certainly didn't like it .. .but had no other choice but to endure it ... because it was allowed - tolerated all over America.

So under your idea of what free speech should be -- should all anti-war protesters be stopped from protesting - just because their speech is offensive to soldiers and was intentionally offensive? Think about that for a minute or two.

Do you really think that the men that crafted the 1st Amendment actually considered the thought, "We must allow offensiveness"? Or was the freedom of speech clause really all about freedom of religion and opinion and expression?

Freedom to offend was not designed into it, but was a by-product. But perhaps I'm naive and have too high a regard for those men.

Regardless.....rights are man-made things bestowed by men in power. Fallible men.

Since the 1st Amendment was crafted, society has moved on....it is considered an offense of law to punch someone in the nose or bitch-slap a person. Why is it still considered civilised to psychologically offend? Why is it OK to hurt someone by offending their religion?

[VillageIdiot]

Do you really think that the men that crafted the 1st Amendment actually considered the thought, "We must allow offensiveness"? Or was the freedom of speech clause really all about freedom of religion and opinion and expression?

Freedom to offend was not designed into it, but was a by-product. But perhaps I'm naive and have too high a regard for those men.

Regardless.....rights are man-made things bestowed by men in power. Fallible men.

Since the 1st Amendment was crafted, society has moved on....it is considered an offense of law to punch someone in the nose or bitch-slap a person. Why is it still considered civilised to psychologically offend? Why is it OK to hurt someone by offending their religion?

This event was far more than offensive.

It was meant to provoke violence and it succeeded.

[Jingthing]

Do you really think that the men that crafted the 1st Amendment actually considered the thought, "We must allow offensiveness"? Or was the freedom of speech clause really all about freedom of religion and opinion and expression?

Freedom to offend was not designed into it, but was a by-product. But perhaps I'm naive and have too high a regard for those men.

Regardless.....rights are man-made things bestowed by men in power. Fallible men.

Since the 1st Amendment was crafted, society has moved on....it is considered an offense of law to punch someone in the nose or bitch-slap a person. Why is it still considered civilised to psychologically offend? Why is it OK to hurt someone by offending their religion?

This event was far more than offensive.

It was meant to provoke violence and it succeeded.

It did.

But it still shouldn't be illegal.

But the organizer shouldn't be made a hero either.

She seems to be a horrible woman actually.

[JDGRUEN]

"Why is it still considered civilised to psychologically offend? Why is it OK to hurt someone by offending their religion?"

You not being an American - not having lifetime of living there to understand how it works ... I do not expect you to understand.

However, while not always of good taste or manners, it is sometimes necessary to speak directly to and about others - both groups and individuals - in a way that may offend. Because under the U.S. Constitution - no matter how you think it was formed - under current Supreme Court interpretations Freedom of Speech is nearly inviolate - so sacred and important that the right to Free Speech must not be limited or violated - except in the most extreme circumstances and situations.

Your use of the term psychologically offended - no matter how melodramatic - simply does not apply... In America the Freedom to Speak as one wishes trumps such concerns. Nearly every religion and religious sect and members of those groups are subject to insults daily in America. It is tolerated and allowed. And that is an understatement. Therefore, Islam and the followers of Islam are not a special case and hold no special privilege to be spared from that kind of treatment.

Muslims living in Western Countries - especially in the U.S. cannot expect special treatment or considerations of the tenets of their religion to be holy or sacrosanct to all non Muslims. It is foolish to think it. There will never be a special blasphemy law in America preventing other Americans from speaking their mind about any matter Muslims hold sacred. It is not going to happen. And if Muslims do not like it -- then they should emigrate to a Muslim country where they will feel comfortable -- no matter how many years they have lived in the U.S.

It is not the requirement of Americans to bend to the will of Muslims and Islam -- it is the requirement of Muslims to bend to the will of the entire population -- a.k.a. ASSIMILATE - become Americans -- respect the culture - customs, traditions and laws of America. And suffer the slings and arrows of insults or leave. Because we are not going to embrace Sharia Law ever.

.

[zydeco]

Very likely someone would... however I do not envision the bar patrons going out and getting two AK-47s and finding a Muslim meeting and go in shooting... There have been instances in America where Muslim's rights were abridged by individual actions against them ... and it certainly was not right. Furthermore - I do not know of anyone who would support these type of actions... even rare as they are.

On the other hand only about two - three years ago ... members of a Christian group went into Dearborne Michigan and attempted to preach a Christian message with the intent of persuading people to listen... Toughs came out of the Muslim neighborhood and physically ejected them from public streets. Basically declaring that they were in control of pubic space and Christians were forbidden . This is the modus operandi of Muslims in America - one way street - we can forbid you -- but you cannot forbid us. Dearbornistan reigns

Yes, very likely someone would. And the cartoonist shooting event...that was rare in America too, wasn't it?

The point you and others are missing (in some cases, deliberately it seems) is that nobody denies your freedom of speech. But to do something in the name of freedom of speech but in actuality designed purely to provoke, is certainly and simply antagonistic.

In the name of freedom of speech, I can wear a nazi uniform and stand on a soap box outside a synagogue and preach holocaust denial. Everybody would know I am simply tying to invoke a reaction or nastily trying to offend...or both. Freedom of speech was not granted as a right so that I can set out to offend.

It's the motivation that counts. The cartoon contest was designed to invoke a reaction. It was a trap, sprung by simpleton hotheads who fell for it, and has resulted in what the contest convener wanted all along; greater demonisation of Islam.

"Freedom of speech was not granted as a right so that I can set out to offend"... Not so...It certainly can and is used that way - often. And it is allowed. Freedom of Speech in American under our Constitution has no such restrictions implied or otherwise... Free Speech is not governed as to whether is might offend or whether intended to offend ... There is a long history on this... In fact the example you described has actually happened in America more than once. Such actions have upset people -- but it is tolerated ... some may lash out and try to silence the speaker -- but they are in the wrong.. whether emotions come into play or not. The U.S. Constitution has no provisions to prevent people from being offended or to protect anyone from an offensive statement. There are travails in life - one just has to deal with them ...

As a returning Vietnam Veteran - I was spat upon exiting Travis AFB on the way home ... In University - same thing - constantly taunted - told to take off my jungle fatigue jacket ... I certainly didn't like it .. .but had no other choice but to endure it ... because it was allowed - tolerated all over America.

So under your idea of what free speech should be -- should all anti-war protesters be stopped from protesting - just because their speech is offensive to soldiers and was intentionally offensive? Think about that for a minute or two.

Do you really think that the men that crafted the 1st Amendment actually considered the thought, "We must allow offensiveness"? Or was the freedom of speech clause really all about freedom of religion and opinion and expression?

Freedom to offend was not designed into it, but was a by-product. But perhaps I'm naive and have too high a regard for those men.

Regardless.....rights are man-made things bestowed by men in power. Fallible men.

Since the 1st Amendment was crafted, society has moved on....it is considered an offense of law to punch someone in the nose or bitch-slap a person. Why is it still considered civilised to psychologically offend? Why is it OK to hurt someone by offending their religion?

Well, many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were also delegates to the constitutional convention. And I imagine that the Declaration of Independence, which they certainly had in mind when they debated the constitution, greatly offended the King of England, maybe even "psychologically offend[ed]" him, as I understand he went mad soon thereafter.

[Jingthing]

For those who think Geller is so great do you also think the nut job minister who burns Korans is also great?

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Ulysses G.]

But the organizer shouldn't be made a hero either.

She seems to be a horrible woman actually.

I have always considered her to be slightly wacky, but she brings attention to some important issues that other people are afraid to confront. All the Jew-haters and apologists for radical Islam despise her and that counts for a lot. As far as I'm concerned, she is wearing a white hat.

[NeverSure]

Do you really think that the men that crafted the 1st Amendment actually considered the thought, "We must allow offensiveness"? Or was the freedom of speech clause really all about freedom of religion and opinion and expression?

Freedom to offend was not designed into it, but was a by-product. But perhaps I'm naive and have too high a regard for those men.

Regardless.....rights are man-made things bestowed by men in power. Fallible men.

Since the 1st Amendment was crafted, society has moved on....it is considered an offense of law to punch someone in the nose or bitch-slap a person. Why is it still considered civilised to psychologically offend? Why is it OK to hurt someone by offending their religion?

"Do you really think that the men that crafted the 1st Amendment actually considered the thought, "We must allow offensiveness"? Or was the freedom of speech clause really all about freedom of religion and opinion and expression?"

Of course they did. That's what freedom of speech does. It allows someone to be offensive. Otherwise there would be no need to enshrine a right to do it. I can't criticize someone's religion or politics without being offensive so I'm granted freedom to do it.

"Since the 1st Amendment was crafted, society has moved on....it is considered an offense of law to punch someone in the nose or bitch-slap a person."

You aren't tracking here. This isn't about punching or slapping. No the world hasn't moved on from basic human nature.

"Why is it still considered civilised to psychologically offend? Why is it OK to hurt someone by offending their religion?"

OK, you want a whole bunch of government which overwhelms and stifles your freedoms. I get that. Why is it OK? I learned the answer to that in kindergarten. "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me."

[Steely Dan]

Yeah, a 'Draw a cartoon Muhammad' is just a normal event in Texas.
A pathetic attempt by bigots to provoke and does absolutely nothing to address the problem of Muslim extremism.

Sure it does... the event exposed Islamic Terrorists for what they are... mindless killers who will attack with intent to kill over a insult of a cartoon.

Everyone already knows what extremist terrorists from any race or religion are.

So what exactly was the purpose of the event? It was simply to antagonise and anger extremists, nothing else.

If any of the attendees had also been killed they too would have got what they deserved.

If you want to get some attention in this world you can do this by chopping off heads or by more civilised means such as organizing a cartoon contest. If nothing is done, the world will be dominated by Islam somewhere in the future. I think it is quite naive to believe this will be achieved by peaceful integration alone. Their intentions are clear, extremists are clearing the space and followers are occuppying. One cannot exist without the other. You really think this problem will just disappear? Ostrich behavior is not a tactic nor a solution. I know the enemy, but honestly I am even more afraid of people who defend these extremists and call this cartoon contest a pathetic attempt!

So you think the solution is to antagonise all Muslims and make them more ripe for recruiting?

C l e v e r.

I don't suppose it ever occurred to you, or those of your ilk that giving in to violent bullies is the best recruiting tool they could ever wish for. To believe a worldwide ban on drawing Mohammad would lead to extremists becoming less extreme is the height of delusion. In some Muslim majority Countries merely wearing a crucifix can get you jailed, perhaps Western Christians should desist too in case that placates a few fascists.

[luk AJ]

I remember I once landed in Masshad (1997)Iran and there was a huge billboard in the middle of the arrival hall "the future Islam will destroy the sovereignity of the West" i suppose the people who decided on this were not even concidered extremists... People like Geller are maybe "wacky" but which other options they have? At least they try to get our attention. The threat is serious enough to use all possible means possible.

[ronz28]

You can't draw me. I imagined worse based on the controversy....

http://pamelageller.com/2015/05/afdi-muhammad-cartoon-winner-bosch-fawstin-goes-unto-hiding.html/

[Jingthing]

You can't draw me. I imagined worse based on the controversy....

http://pamelageller.com/2015/05/afdi-muhammad-cartoon-winner-bosch-fawstin-goes-unto-hiding.html/

Pretty good one I admit.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[chuckd]

Everybody can relax. ISIS has now taken Ms. Geller to heart and will do everything within their power to kill her and rid the earth of such a scourge.

I would anticipate her death will be celebrated by some on this thread.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

ISIS threatens controversial blogger Pamela Geller in message boasting of '71 trained soldiers in 15 different states'

BY SASHA GOLDSTEIN , JASON SILVERSTEIN

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Published: Tuesday, May 5, 2015, 11:54 PM Updated: Wednesday, May 6, 2015, 11:45 AM

ISIS appears to declare war on controversial blogger Pamela Geller on Tuesday in an ominous online message claiming it has fighters across America ready to attack "any target we desire."

The threat, posted on anonymous message board JustPasteIt, singles out Geller, who helped plan a Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest that was attacked by two gunmen in Garland, Texas, over the weekend. ISIS claimed responsibility for the shooting early Tuesday, marking the first time the terror group called an American attack one of its own, though lawmakers believe the two men were influenced by the group, not guided directly by it.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/isis-appears-threaten-pamela-geller-claims-militants-article-1.2211913

[NeverSure]

For those who think Geller is so great do you also think the nut job minister who burns Korans is also great?

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I think they both have a right to do what they do. In a free marketplace of ideas some will be offended.

I don't think either one is "great". I think freedom is great.

People who talk about "tolerance" often don't understand that it's usually a one way street. The ones who demand tolerance are often the most intolerant. It's patently obvious that you wouldn't get any of your Western freedoms from a Muslim.

[Jingthing]

For those who think Geller is so great do you also think the nut job minister who burns Korans is also great?

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I think they both have a right to do what they do. In a free marketplace of ideas some will be offended.

I don't think either one is "great". I think freedom is great.

People who talk about "tolerance" often don't understand that it's usually a one way street. The ones who demand tolerance are often the most intolerant. It's patently obvious that you wouldn't get any of your Western freedoms from a Muslim.

I don't think you got my point. I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to do it. I'm saying those two actions, the provocative cartoon contest and burning Korans should not be celebrated. They are both expressions of intolerance. Nothing to cheer about. What you talk about in the Muslim world is another matter.

[NeverSure]

I don't think you got my point. I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to do it. I'm saying those two actions, the provocative cartoon contest and burning Korans should not be celebrated. They are both expressions of intolerance. Nothing to cheer about. What you talk about in the Muslim world is another matter.

Oh, I don't think so, JT.

I don't think they were protesting Islam or the right to practice it per se. My belief is that they were protesting the intolerance of Muslims. They weren't being intolerant of a religion but rather the intolerant manifestations of it. They were protesting that they "weren't allowed" to draw a cartoon.

BTW, have you hugged an Islamic Terrorist today?

[Jingthing]

I'm not buying that.

Muslims except for atheistic ones are overwhelmingly not OK with depicting their prophet.

I'm not saying secular countries need to respect that under law, but to do a show ONLY based on offending almost all the Muslims in the world. JUST STUPID.

[NeverSure]

I'm not buying that.

Muslims except for atheistic ones are overwhelmingly not OK with depicting their prophet.

I'm not saying secular countries need to respect that under law, but to do a show ONLY based on offending almost all the Muslims in the world. JUST STUPID.

There are a lot of things that different people aren't OK with, even religious groups. The difference is that they don't commit mass murder over it. THAT's intolerance.

Freedom. You are free to practice your religion but not to force it on me. YOU can do what you want, and so can I.

Religion is normally thought of as a personal thing. If someone disobeys its tenets he is the bad guy but the rest of us would let God, Karma or whatever deal with that person. These Muslims are killers who force their beliefs on others.

And don't let's kid ourselves. It isn't just cartoons by a long shot. They want to kill all non believers anyway. JT, they have to be challenged and stopped in the US before they get a toehold like they have some places in Europe. We can't walk around being afraid of being terrorized for what we think or do as "infidels." That isn't going to work in civilization. It's not going to work.

These cartoonists made a statement as a wake up call to the rest of us and the result is going over some people's heads. These terrorists are what they are and have to be stopped early. WE are going to stop them.

I applaud the woman. Freedom of expression can facilitate waking the rest of us up if we'll pay attention.