She had to know her actions were provocative against their deeply held beliefs.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

[notadmblnd]

1. It's a shame that people actually defend atrocities like this with statements like that.

[DURHAM D]

2. True.

[FLPanhandle]

3. Thank you!

People should never have to limit their behaviors to avoid "offending" the religious.

[samsingh]

4. poor lady - and anyone who defends this action shares in the guilt

nothing justifies this, and its cowardly (at best) to appease the barbaric criminals that would do this.

[rollin74]

5. k & r

[Yorktown]

6. Nuclear Unicorn, you are culturally insensitive.

If people believe it's OK to throw acid at the face of women who tried to study,

or believe it's OK to shoot and try to blow up cartoonists with explosives,

who are you to judge?

Very insensitive, I say.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. Guilty as charged without remorse or apology and certain to be a recidivist.

I'm a rebel like that.

[riderinthestorm]

8. Yup. This ^^^^^ nt

[NutmegYankee]

9. kick

[riderinthestorm]

10. Pm kick nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

11. I doubt she was trying to be provocative for the sake of being provacative.

Don't even attempt to compare this to Pam Gellar.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. "Don't even attempt to compare this to Pam Gellar."

First of all, you can take your bossy tones and stuff 'em.

You know what the woman in the picture and Gellar have in common? They were both attacked by people who CHOSE VIOLENCE against people who were of no threat to them.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

13. Pam Gellar herself was not attacked.

Right now, Pam Gellar is laughing herself to the bank while she gets booked on more and more television shows.

Do you even know anything about Pam Gellar?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. Pam Gellar was not attacked because the detail officer is an outstanding marksman.

Right now, Pam Gellar is laughing herself to the bank while she gets booked on more and more television shows.

Gellar and her event were the targets of an attack. You might as well complain about Eric Garner's family doing media appearances.

Do you even know anything about Pam Gellar?

Why does that matter? Are you running a nation of laws or men?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

21. Another person wasinjured. And there was the potential innocent bystanders could have died as well.

Last edited Mon May 4, 2015, 04:34 PM - Edit history (1)

Had the perpetrators not been immediately killed.

Do we even know if the injured security guard was a member of Gellar's group?

No one excuses the actions of the perpetrators, but in this situation, it is possible to claim that Gellar has at least some responsibility as well.

And if you knew anything about Pam Gellar, you'd know this had absolutely nothing to do with free speech.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. "No one excuses the actions of the perpetrators" except when you excuse the attackers 4 words later.

Perhaps next you can tell us about the provocation of short skirts.

And if you knew anything about Pam Gellar, you'd know this had absolutely nothing to do with free speech.

What I do know about is the evils that befall humanity when morality is perverted to personal subjectivity. The results are inevitable, invariable and monstrous.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. "it is impossible to claim that Gellar has at least some responsibility as well"

Do you mean that? it doesn't seem to fit with most of the other stuff you've posted today.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

45. Fixed. nt

[leftynyc]

30. And you know why she gets

to laugh herself to the bank? Because it turns out there appear to be some from the religion of Islam who simply cannot ignore that others don't give a shit about their prophet or the rules that say don't draw him. They didn't need to rise to the bait but they did and now she gets to crow that she was right. I suspect that's why you're pissed.

[ileus]

16. but in the case of gellar we don't mind.

because we hate her. She's one of "them"...

[PeaceNikki]

14. It doesn't MATTER if one was 'trying to be provocative'.

It just doesn't.

Not even a little. To act as though some non-violent offensive acts or speech "serve a purpose" and others do not, or that one is "intentionally provocative" and the other is not is incredibly arrogant and wrong-headed. All of those things are COMPLETELY a matter of opinion and 100% in the eye of the beholder. In addition, the "purpose" is 100% totally irrelevant.

No non-violent acts or speech, no matter what "purpose" or how "offensive" or how "provocative" to ANYONE justify violence and murder.

None. Ever.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

17. You're completely missing the point of this entire story.

Pam Geller did this in order to elicit a specific reaction. Sadly, she got that very reaction.

Of course, Pam Geller was not only putting herself at risk but the risk of other people as well, even people who had nothing to do with her cause. Do we even know if the security guard who was injured was a member of Pam Geller's organization?

Meanwhile, Pam Geller gets to sit back, laugh, and get up on her soap box and listen to people like you foolishly excuse her extreme recklessness.

Pam Geller is not some poor woman in the Middle East who had acid thrown at her. It's not even remotely comparable.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. "Pam Gellar did this in order to elicit a specific reaction."

Incitement is someone saying, "Go murder Group X." It is not incitement to say, "Group X wants to murder you." because Group X is comprised of free moral beings who are at perfectly capable of proving the speaker wrong.

Your entire argument is based on viewing the attackers as being incapable of making any choice except to attack. That is simply wrong and it will never be right.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

24. Again, if you knew anything about Pam Geller, you'd know what her motives are. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. Who has Pam Gellar attacked with physical violence?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

28. Who did George Bush or Dick Cheney personally attack with physical violence?

The one who pushes the buttons is also responsible.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. You're claiming Gellar has the power of the Commander in Chief?

Look -- dude -- you have said some amazingly stupid and offensive things in the course of arguing your point. The excuses your making for terrorism while lying to our faces by claiming you aren't is beyond the pale because you're providing moral cover to future attacks. And yet, while I'm of the mind to cut loose with a tirade that might get hidden at no point do I imagine you should fall victim to violence. In fact, if someone wanted to use violence to shut you up I would become you defender.

I am making a moral choice, just as the would-be terrorists made a choice. If a disaffected millennial can do it surely it can't be beyond the power of grown men to exercise a little restraint with regards to someone who poses no physical threat to them.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

37. I'm saying that Geller has a bully pulpit.

And she has used it to her own selfish means. And you are too foolish to realize it because apparently you think she's just motivated by free speech here.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

38. "And she has used it to her own selfish means."

So? You don't think there are opportunists to be found in every cause? Do you think class-action and personal injury lawyers are motivated by a deep, abiding concern for the little guy? Do you think the politicians offering you the world on a silver platter care one wit about the hopes and dreams of Tommy Carcetti?

You complain about disingenuousness and cynicism yet I can't help but think you aren't motivated by sensitivity for the tenets of violent extremists so much as you are motivated by your disgust in Gellar. "She's the wrong political persuasion so she should not be defended," is the monstrosity I spoke about earlier. NO GOOD THING can come of that.

I don't care what motivates Gellar. What motivates ME is MY freedom and I will not concede to maniacs who think they can murder whoever offends their petty sensibilities. These same maniacs have murdered plenty of those who aren't Pam Gellar, i.e. Theo Van Gogh. Stop making excuses for maniacs.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

39. Her name could be Bernie Fuckin' Sanders and she'd be just as wrong.

This had nothing to do with political persuasion or free speech. This has everything to do with culpability. Those who shot up the building were primarily culpable. But that does not exclude the secondarily culpable person who intentionally set up this situation for her own personal gratification.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. Someone who poses ZERO physical threat has ZERO culpability when violently attacked.

You can claim otherwise but it's only a matter of time until speech you do approve of is deemed provocative by someone who is not in your camp. You'll then be twisting yourself into knots trying to explain how it's different but at the end of the day it will all boil down to: Well, that's what *I* like.

This is DEMOCRATIC Underground. We a DEMOCRATS. It arises from the system of government wherein people vote to resolve social issues and disputes. It is meant to mitigate the violence, to serve as an alternative to violence. That implies we have disagreements, disagreements of such a profound nature that we needed to find resolutions that did not result in violence. We don't work for a homogenous, single-minded society but a society that is inclusive because people are free -- right or wrong -- to live their lives without threat of violence so long as they return the favor.

That is what I espouse. That is what I defend. I will not be moved.

[EX500rider]

43. Sorry, that's the old "her dress was too short" argument.

[PeaceNikki]

23. No, I think *you* are missing the whole point.

Nobody here is heralding Gellar as a hero. We're simply saying that a fucking cartoon contest started by ANYONE for ANY fucking reason is in no fucking way an act of aggression, violence or justification for either.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

27. No shit, it shouldn't be a justification.

No one is saying the two idiots who shot at the building and injured that guard were justified in doing what they did. What they did was a crime.

But you're completely incapable of realizing regardless of a lack of justification, people who intentionally create an atmosphere where they know real life violence could occur and in fact real life violence is their ultimate goal of their actions share in the culpability.

[PeaceNikki]

32. Eye. Of. The. Beholder. Dude.

... people who intentionally create an atmosphere where they know real life violence could occur

That's loaded. Again, I will use the examples of gays holding hands - or a woman walking into an abortion clinic. To some fucking nutbags, these are fiercely aggressive actions against their God, beliefs and society. The gays and woman in these examples are not fucking culpable if they are beaten or bombed.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

34. Two gay people holding hands do so because it is a personal expression of love.

And they may realize that their expression of love might provoke a bigoted or even violent response from someone who doesn't like what they see. But they aren't holding hands because they want to point out how bigoted someone else is. They're holding hands because they love each other. Ya see the difference here?

Pam Geller organized this event because she wanted a violent reaction to it, so that she could then turn around and use that as justification for her pre-existing positions.

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. " it is possible to claim that Gellar has at least some responsibility as well"

"share in the culpability" - So you yourself are using it as a justification.

[KittyWampus]

51. Correction- an anti-Muslim cartoon contest is an act of aggression. Unless you think aggression

can only be actualized by physical violence.

[HERVEPA]

36. You are clearly being purposely understood. There clearly is no comparison.

And I detected no bossy tone. Her point is ridiculous.
That being said, of course Geller had the right to do it, despite being the creep that she is.

[Ilsa]

42. ITA with this post.

She put others in danger while inciting violence. Sure, she had the right to have the event. But she can't pretend that no harm was intended.

I don't mean that we should pander to stupid religious beliefs. But I don't think we need to aggravate religious groups and insult them for fun either.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. To be fair, it's usually religious groups that insult others, for example Westboro Baptist Church

and their habit of traipsing around the entire country with malicious intent and vile hate speech on huge signs which they dragged directly to the funerals of their minority targets.

It's not like many, many other groups have not been subjected to huge helpings of insult and denigration and it's not as if much of that denigration is not committed by religious groups and persons toward others.

[Ilsa]

52. I understand and agree.

Any time any one publicly takes on humiliating a religious sect or group, they are poking a hornet's nest, IMO. Closely-held beliefs bring out the worst rebuttals. In this case, and frequently with Islam, attempted murder. Most rebuttals aren't so lethal or unlawful.

That petty woman had the right to do it, but she would have been stupid not to expect retaliation.

I'd rather we all just get along.

[FLPanhandle]

18. +1

Well said.

[pnwmom]

41. She has the right to be provocative, for whatever reason she chooses. n/t

[cwydro]

19. k and r. nt

[LanternWaste]

20. Certainly seems as though a lot more people than merely two terrorists took Gellar's bait.

Certainly seems as though a lot more people than merely two terrorists took Gellar's bait. Fishing is easy in the shallow end of the pond.

[NCTraveler]

29. Nailed it. nt.

[closeupready]

31. I see who started this, and I know, there is no discussion

going on there. Goodbye.

[Rex]

46. IKR!?

This just gives the shit stirrers something to do with their down time.

[get the red out]

35. YES

This is why I'm not a good liberal, I'm a feminist and that steps all over politically "sacred cows" (certainly not pits, never pigs).

[Rex]

47. So how is merely existing vs. campaiging against Islam the same thing?

Fail on all accounts.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. To those who are acting out violently it is the same thing and the results are the same --

Innocent people being killed and maimed.