Shooting Reported At Anti-Islam Group's Cartoon Contest In Texas
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6Gu9e3nZDY
Muslim Preacher Anjem Choudary is long overdue for a bullet in the head.
Hebdo is an equal opportunity offender as they go after all religions..........
The Washington Post offered the celebrated headline "Event Organizer Offers No Apology After Thwarted Attack In Texas", while the Associated Press went with "Pamela Geller says she has no regrets about Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest that ended in 2 deaths". The media "narrative" of the last week is that some Zionist temptress was walking down the street in Garland in a too short skirt and hoisted it to reveal her Mohammed thong - oops, my apologies, her Prophet Mohammed thong (PBUH) - and thereby inflamed two otherwise law-abiding ISIS supporters peacefully minding their own business. It'll be a long time before you see "Washington Post Offers No Apology for Attacking Target of Thwarted Attack" or "AP Says It Has No Regrets After Blaming The Victim". The respectable class in the American media share the same goal as the Islamic fanatics: They want to silence Pam Geller. To be sure, they have a mild disagreement about the means to that end - although even then you get the feeling, as with Garry Trudeau and those dozens of PEN novelists' reaction to Charlie Hebdo, that the "narrative" wouldn't change very much if the jihad boys had got luckier and Pam, Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer and a dozen others were all piled up in the Garland morgue.
..................................
Free speech is necessary to free society for all the stuff after the "but", after the "however". There's no fine line between "free speech" and "hate speech": Free speech is hate speech; it's for the speech you hate - and for all your speech that the other guy hates. If you don't have free speech, then you can't have an honest discussion. All you can do is what those stunted moronic boobs in Paris and Copenhagen and Garland did: grab a gun and open fire. What Miliband and Cotler propose will, if enacted, reduce us all to the level of the inarticulate halfwits who think the only dispositive argument is "Allahu Akbar".
Alas, we have raised a generation of But boys. Ever since those ridiculous Washington Post and AP headlines, I've been thinking about the fellows who write and sub-edit and headline and approve such things - and never see the problem with it. Why would they? If you're under a certain age, you accept instinctively that free speech is subordinate to other considerations: If you've been raised in the "safe space" of American universities, you take it as read that on gays and climate change and transgendered bathrooms and all kinds of other issues it's perfectly normal to eliminate free speech and demand only the party line. So what's the big deal about letting Muslims cut themselves in on a little of that action?
Why would you expect people who see nothing wrong with destroying a mom'n'pop bakery over its antipathy to gay wedding cakes to have any philosophical commitment to diversity of opinion? And once you no longer have any philosophical commitment to it it's easy to see it the way Miliband and Cotler do - as a rusty cog in the societal machinery that can be shaved and sliced millimeter by millimeter.
..........................................
"Stay quiet and you'll be okay:" Those were Mohammed Atta's words to his passengers on 9/11. And they're what all the nice respectable types are telling us now.
"Stay Quiet and You'll Be Okay" :: SteynOnline
..................................
Free speech is necessary to free society for all the stuff after the "but", after the "however". There's no fine line between "free speech" and "hate speech": Free speech is hate speech; it's for the speech you hate - and for all your speech that the other guy hates. If you don't have free speech, then you can't have an honest discussion. All you can do is what those stunted moronic boobs in Paris and Copenhagen and Garland did: grab a gun and open fire. What Miliband and Cotler propose will, if enacted, reduce us all to the level of the inarticulate halfwits who think the only dispositive argument is "Allahu Akbar".
Alas, we have raised a generation of But boys. Ever since those ridiculous Washington Post and AP headlines, I've been thinking about the fellows who write and sub-edit and headline and approve such things - and never see the problem with it. Why would they? If you're under a certain age, you accept instinctively that free speech is subordinate to other considerations: If you've been raised in the "safe space" of American universities, you take it as read that on gays and climate change and transgendered bathrooms and all kinds of other issues it's perfectly normal to eliminate free speech and demand only the party line. So what's the big deal about letting Muslims cut themselves in on a little of that action?
Why would you expect people who see nothing wrong with destroying a mom'n'pop bakery over its antipathy to gay wedding cakes to have any philosophical commitment to diversity of opinion? And once you no longer have any philosophical commitment to it it's easy to see it the way Miliband and Cotler do - as a rusty cog in the societal machinery that can be shaved and sliced millimeter by millimeter.
..........................................
"Stay quiet and you'll be okay:" Those were Mohammed Atta's words to his passengers on 9/11. And they're what all the nice respectable types are telling us now.
"Stay Quiet and You'll Be Okay" :: SteynOnline
Last edited:
Funny how the same people who bemoan how folk are being taught their rights without being taught their responsibilities just LOVE it when people they agree with are deliberately as offensive and provocative as possible. They call it "free speech."
Then of course they squeal and whine when somebody else uses their free speech to express the opinion that one has a responsibility (not a government limitation) to use one's free speech wisely.
I think the term for that is "hypocrisy."
Hey, Colpy, if a man goes up to a six-year-old girl in a store and tells her in great, explicit, and obscene detail how he'd like to rape and torture her to death with the maximum possible pain, you gonna stand up for his free speech rights?
Then of course they squeal and whine when somebody else uses their free speech to express the opinion that one has a responsibility (not a government limitation) to use one's free speech wisely.
I think the term for that is "hypocrisy."
Hey, Colpy, if a man goes up to a six-year-old girl in a store and tells her in great, explicit, and obscene detail how he'd like to rape and torture her to death with the maximum possible pain, you gonna stand up for his free speech rights?
Good f*ing grief.
Seriously... are you a lawyer or do you just play one on the internet?
And you're stupid. The very most you can say is you don't know.
But we've seen that lack of knowledge never slows you down. Your confidence is proportional to your ignorance.
Yadda, Yadda, Yadda.. you're just all talk. Calling names, calling members stupid, because that's all you have.
You personify the words stupid, childish, ignorance and not being very lawyer like.
First of all, how is he holding the girl to threaten her like that? Ant 6 year old I ever met would be gone like she was teleported at the creep's approach.
Secondly, such a thing would be uttering a threat.............that is not free speech.
Geller uttered no threats.
Poor attempt, TB.
Don't go beyond the facts presented. He is not holding her, and he is not threatening her.
No it wouldn't. Saying that you want to do something is not a threat. Saying that you will do something, absolutely or conditionally, is a threat.
Poor response, Colpy, for the reason specified.
Meh, whatever. Question for you, just to clarify. Do you recognize the right of people to say that deliberate provocation is wrong?
There is a difference between addressing an individual in a derogatory manner and addressing a group or an idea as Geller did!
I might feel provoked if someone passes me real fast in traffic but if I react by attacking him or her and try to kill them, then I am to blame!
I might feel provoked if someone passes me real fast in traffic but if I react by attacking him or her and try to kill them, then I am to blame!