General Discussion

Tommy_Carcetti

(44,480 posts)

125. Pam Geller's entire M.O. has been to paint Muslims as blood thirsty savages.

Tue May 5, 2015, 04:27 PM

May 2015

SPLC's profile on her:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/pamela-geller

She knew that Muhammad cartoons were a flashpoint for potential violence. She organized this event right after Charlie Hedbo.

Is it silly to get worked up over a cartoon? Sure. Is it inexcusable to commit an act of violence because of that cartoon? Absolutely. But even with those facts in mind, how can you excuse the fact that someone who makes a living painting Muslims in the very worst light organizes an event directed solely at Muslims that she undeniably has to assume carries a high risk that at least one Muslim might react violently to?

She knew exactly what she was doing, and everything about her screams that this played out exactly how she wanted it to play out.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

130 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Pam Geller does not support the First Amendment. [View all] Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 OP

While that may be true... NaturalHigh May 2015 #1

Of course. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #4

Nor need it be Jackpine Radical May 2015 #60

Agreed. nt awoke_in_2003 May 2015 #59

And? Scootaloo May 2015 #76

And...a good morning to you Scootaloo. NaturalHigh May 2015 #96

I support the 1st Amendment, do you? Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #2

Naturally. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #3

Which has no bearing on the fact she was the target of a terrorist attack. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #5

I'm not going to defend her. Sorry. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #8

That's ok. Plenty of us do understand free speech and will defend Bonx May 2015 #10

You would leave her to be killed by terrorists? Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #13

No. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #17

Defending her doesn't mean agreeing with her. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #29

I wouldn't take a bullet for her JustAnotherGen May 2015 #30

"Take the hit" as in the bullet? alp227 May 2015 #66

Nope JustAnotherGen May 2015 #72

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with 'being killed by terrorists'. Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2015 #28

Explain that to the BUT-monkeys. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #35

If I understand how you're using that insult, I'm a 'but' monkey. Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2015 #37

I'm one of those silly, muddle-headed milennials but I remember the Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #44

If you don't think she was provoking you are just too nice. Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #49

The would-be killers were not automatons. They had a choice. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #58

Cause and effect Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #73

So, what you're saying is -- Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #78

No. Try again. Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #79

This is what I'm saying... Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #81

Okay. And. Jihadists are an anti-everybody-but-them hate group. However -- Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #82

You are either being purposefully obtuse, or just don't get it. Have a great day! Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #83

I don't want to "get" nonsense. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #85

Have a nice day! Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #86

Snide salutations and rofl smilies don't turn nonsense into non-nonsense. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #87

You're the nonsensical one, not me. You are very confused. So please let's agree to disagree. Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #88

I take it you don't believe one person can convince another person to do anything. Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2015 #51

The would-be killers were not automatons. They made a choice. They could have chosen to Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #61

Nothing to be done. But if you don't think she instigated this you are wrong. Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #80

What absolutely, unequivocally, without peer, instigated this is -- Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #84

You may need to look up "instigate" in the free online dictionary. Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #89

I know exactly what it means and I used it correctly. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #90

No, she arranged the function that SHE KNEW would instigate. Please argue with someone else. Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #91

How could she know that would be the reaction? Because the jihadists HAVE DONE IT BEFORE. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #92

Because the jihadists HAVE DONE IT BEFORE. - NOW YOU GET IT!!! Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #101

Why are you advocating for a heckler's veto where the heckler's use murder? Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #104

Insanity doesn't become you. Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #109

That's not a refutation. If you concede to the violent heckler you enable them in the future. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #112

Appease? Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #115

Yes, appease; as in -- Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #117

I have no fear. What are you afraid of? Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #118

You say you're not afraid now but your argument is based on Geller not holding her event Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #122

You don't seem to understand. Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #126

And short skirts incite rape 'cuz some people just can't help themselves. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #127

I'm not playing those games. Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #128

How many times have you said that now? Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #130

You have no credibility on this issue. phil89 May 2015 #113

How clever you are, little one. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #116

"Defend her" as in provide security against the predictable violence? Ok. Buzz Clik May 2015 #68

Which is EXACTLY what I'm saying. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #70

Ok. You and I agree. Buzz Clik May 2015 #71

The real 1st amendment test for her HappyMe May 2015 #6

She's ugly, so lampooning her is a cakewalk even for amateurs. closeupready May 2015 #12

People publicly ridicule Christianity all the time. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #18

I want her personally to sponsor HappyMe May 2015 #23

People aren't allowed to ridicule things they don't believe in until the ridicule their own beliefs? Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #39

Not a rule at all. HappyMe May 2015 #42

Okay, maybe not a rule but certainly one of the sillier ideas to be put forward. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #45

Well, exuuuuse me! HappyMe May 2015 #57

Because her being a hypocritical dolt has nothing to do with anything The Green Manalishi May 2015 #64

People that purposly kick laying dogs deserve to get bitten. Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #103

Bullshit The Green Manalishi May 2015 #108

I do not support or condone violence of any kind. Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #110

I did not say you did The Green Manalishi May 2015 #111

Yes, you are wrong. Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #114

IF you can be incited you are the problem. The Green Manalishi May 2015 #119

Are you inciting them because you are just speaking your mind.... Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #120

The 1st doesn't require equal opportunity hate... Oktober May 2015 #129

But people aren't killed over drawing cartoons of Jesus oberliner May 2015 #41

Really? HappyMe May 2015 #43

Do you have evidence to the contrary? oberliner May 2015 #46

This message was self-deleted by its author HappyMe May 2015 #48

Read your post wrong. HappyMe May 2015 #54

I hear ya oberliner May 2015 #62

I have no problem with any of that either. HappyMe May 2015 #63

Really.... EX500rider May 2015 #52

Sure. I enjoy those cartoons. HappyMe May 2015 #55

She's even worse than Breitbart was. If that's possible. Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #50

She is worse than Breitbart. HappyMe May 2015 #56

I'd enter that The Green Manalishi May 2015 #53

She doesn't have to be a supporter of the 1st Amendment to be protected by it. Goblinmonger May 2015 #93

Post removed Post removed May 2015 #7

If she can gin up a 'war' with some scribbles of Muhammad Bonx May 2015 #15

that is hadly all she's done. cali May 2015 #19

So she's regularly breaking the law in some manner ? Bonx May 2015 #20

just go to SPLC and see what shit she's pulled cali May 2015 #25

I defend free the right to free speech. Bonx May 2015 #31

No, she just wants money Capt. Obvious May 2015 #27

It still applies to her. Brickbat May 2015 #9

Of course. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #11

You know who else isn't about the 1st Amendment? Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #21

Of course. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #24

But I do. Codeine May 2015 #14

KNR joeybee12 May 2015 #16

Who gives a fuck what she supports? melman May 2015 #22

I do. So does the southern poverty law center. she's dangerous. cali May 2015 #33

And? Goblinmonger May 2015 #94

Pam Geller's not the victim of what happened Sunday. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #95

Her group is. Goblinmonger May 2015 #97

Pam Geller didn't "get" anything except lots of media attention and a bully pulpit. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #98

So if someone is doing something to get media attention and be a bully Goblinmonger May 2015 #99

Whether or not she's 1st Amendment protected is secondary. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #100

The First Amendment is key to whether we blame her or not. Goblinmonger May 2015 #102

The fine line between legal and ethical behavior demands further discussion. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #105

So this gets to the next point. Offending Muslims means you risk violence? Goblinmonger May 2015 #106

Intentionally going out of your way to provoke someone..... Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #107

"Please tell me at least that you find Geller's actions here highly unethical." EX500rider May 2015 #121

So organizing an event in the hope that there may be a violent reaction to that event.... Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #123

I have no idea if anybody "hoped for a violent reaction", nor do you. EX500rider May 2015 #124

Pam Geller's entire M.O. has been to paint Muslims as blood thirsty savages. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #125

I do. She is a hate mongering bigot who would love nothing better than a boots on cbayer May 2015 #40

I do. Buzz Clik May 2015 #69

I try to keep an eye on bigoted demagogues. Seems prudent. Scootaloo May 2015 #77

The 1st amendment doesn't care who supports it.nt sufrommich May 2015 #26

I don't care what she supports. I support it. PeaceNikki May 2015 #32

Could care less what she thinks. NCTraveler May 2015 #34

I do support it. But she doesn't. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #36

She was expressing her right to free speech, by calling for the denial of that right to others. Agnosticsherbet May 2015 #38

You shouldn't need protection to draw cartoons oberliner May 2015 #47

She is an ignorant, condescending, self-righteous Christian a$$hole vlyons May 2015 #65

I cannot tell if she is a seething hypocrite or so blinded by hate... Buzz Clik May 2015 #67

She's also a stupid Cha May 2015 #74

Pam Gellar is an ignorant, hateful bigot. theboss May 2015 #75