Shootout at Pamela Geller's Muhamed Cartoon Contest in Texas

[Ravi]

Who said it was okay to kill?

Anyone who says they were provoked by the exercise of free speech in America.

Excuse me? How does that mean it is okay to kill? That someone is provoked simply means they were provoked. It's like teasing a rattlesnake, someone's ass is going to get bit.

But we're not talking about rattlesnakes, we're talking about people.



So I'll ask you a simple question. Should a person be able to draw a picture of Mohammed, burn a flag, satirize the Bible, protest with "God Hates Fags" signs, or exercise their first amendment rights in any way without fear of death, or be intimidated into abandoning those rights because someone or a group of people are so dangerous that they would attempt to kill the protestors?

Yes, they can do as they please and if they feel intimidated that is on them.

Realistically, some people kill over cartoons. And that is why this is like poking a rattlesnake.

I also don't see any other point to the contest aside inflaming some nutters so it looks like Geller got her wish.

I see that as setting a dangerous precedent, backing down from a bully will simply embolden other bullies, IMO.

Best to stand up to the first bully that threats Americans freedoms, the same way the abortionist stood up to the radicals that blew up abortion clinics.

So you don't see intimidating religious groups is also bullying?

 

[occupied]

Well, that ought to be good for getting a few Christians killed somewhere. Hope you're happy.

It's just crude, only infantile minds find poo jokes funny. Good satire should be somewhat clever and thought provoking.

With Islam it doesn't matter how sophisticated it is Muslims are going to chimp out anytime they think Mo gets insulted. I don't understand it. If allah is all powerful can't allah take care of those who insult mohammad? I guess allah isn't who they think he is.

Jesus was a homosexual cocksucker who took it up the ass from all twelve apostles and the donkey he rode in on.


Understand now? Purposely insulting someone's faith is double the insult. There are "good" Christians everywhere who would kick my ass for saying some dumb shit like that to their face or putting it in print.

You mean like piss chirst? Here let me help you and yes I'm a devout Christian.


Do I like what you said? No. Am I going to shoot or blow you up because you said it? No. That's the difference.

Piss Christ - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

There are certainly Christians out there who would resort to violence for blatant blasphemy, most would not. If Muslims were all like you said there would have been hundreds there ready to kill and die, but there were only two. Quit talking about Islam as if it is somehow different than your own faith. I do not normally give anyone shit about their personal faith but on this topic I think it is necessary. If you had no idea of the method used to render the image of "piss Christ" you would not be offended at all but certain people wanted it banned. People use your self-righteous anger for their own purposes just as much as the guy strapping the suicide vest on a gullible idiot. If you are really a devout christian you too would kill for Jesus under the right circumstances.

 

[Missourian]

So you don't see intimidating religious groups is also bullying?

Intimidating a religious group with threat of death would certainly be bullying, yes.

Piss Jesus, or Elephant Dung Madonna or Cartoon Mohammed aren't bullying. They are people exercising their freedom of expression.

Your rights end where mine begin.

If Muslims wished to protest, I'm all for that too. That is their right.

But the might makes right mentality of abortion clinic bombers or murder-minded Muslim extremists is never going to fly in America. Americans are just stubborn like that.

 

[occupied]

Who said it was okay to kill?

Anyone who says they were provoked by the exercise of free speech in America.

Excuse me? How does that mean it is okay to kill? That someone is provoked simply means they were provoked. It's like teasing a rattlesnake, someone's ass is going to get bit.

But we're not talking about rattlesnakes, we're talking about people.



So I'll ask you a simple question. Should a person be able to draw a picture of Mohammed, burn a flag, satirize the Bible, protest with "God Hates Fags" signs, or exercise their first amendment rights in any way without fear of death, or be intimidated into abandoning those rights because someone or a group of people are so dangerous that they would attempt to kill the protestors?

Yes, they can do as they please and if they feel intimidated that is on them.

Realistically, some people kill over cartoons. And that is why this is like poking a rattlesnake.

I also don't see any other point to the contest aside inflaming some nutters so it looks like Geller got her wish.

I see that as setting a dangerous precedent, backing down from a bully will simply embolden other bullies, IMO.

Best to stand up to the first bully that threats Americans freedoms, the same way the abortionist stood up to the radicals that blew up abortion clinics.

If simply the right to depict the Prophet was the point the organizers should have made a rule that there be no depictions that vilify or dehumanize Islam. Make pictures of him walking the dog or eating breakfast or just waving to the camera. It seems this was not the case, it seems that this was a deliberate attack on the entire faith and therefore hateful and provocative, who's the bully here? Usually the bully is the one that stirs things up for no good reason.

 

[Kondor3]

...But whst was the point of her "art" contest if not to engender hate? What's the point of her transit "jihad" ad campaign if not to raise discord?...

One Of The World s Most Controversial Artworks Is Making Catholics Angry Once Again

To demonstrate the virtue of Free Speech in connection with Islam in America (and, indeed, The West), in much the same way as Christianity and Buddhism and Judaism and all the rest have been parodied over the decades?

Consider it a forcible de-sensitizing of Muslims about such things. If they want to live in The West alongside the rest of us, they're just gonna have to acclimate.

On the macro level, this (such demonstrations of Free Speech in connection with Islam) is part of that necessary process, to drag them, kicking and screaming, into the same 21st Century that much of the rest of the world lives in.

And, any time that they become violent over it and try to kill us, we will kill them, instead, or also.

Want to be respected? Don't want to be thought of as religiously-motivated violent savages and Neanderthals?

Don't riot or hurt people over shit like this.

Hope that helps.

Yup.

"If you need a refresher history lesson, here's the jist: The work dates back to 1987, when the American artist Serrano submerged a plastic crucifix in a jar of his own urine, photographed it, and exhibited the image publicly in New York. As you might imagine, a certain subset of Christians were nonplussed at the idea of their deity being dunked in someone's bodily fluids, but outrage didn't hit an apex until another exhibition in 1989, when a few politicians expressed dissatisfaction at the fact that the offensive work was funded in part by the National Endowment for the Arts."

And, of course, Christians drove several hundred miles, just to shoot-up the expo hall and its artists and attendees... yeah.. I remember that... not.

 

[Missourian]

If simply the right to depict the Prophet was the point the organizers should have made a rule that there be no depictions that vilify or dehumanize Islam. Make pictures of him walking the dog or eating breakfast or just waving to the camera. It seems this was not the case, it seems that this was a deliberate attack on the entire faith and therefore hateful and provocative, who's the bully here? Usually the bully is the one that stirs things up for no good reason.

Is that necessary? Isn't that personal decision a part of freedom of expression. Piss Jesus was heralded by the left as the ultimate in freedom of expression...no one complained about the "rules" or who was provoked.

And further, I've seen exactly one cartoon from the contest...it was the winner, and it was pretty good, and poignant.

These guys didn't see what cartoons were being drawn, for all they knew they were all Mohammed walking a dog.

 

[Kondor3]

...It could have just as easily gotten a bunch of people killed had the gunmen been better or more numerous, I find it irresponsible to hold an event like this when it could have been exclusively held on the internet.

The point of the exercise is not to sensitive ourselves to our Muslims...

The point of the exercise is to sensitize our Muslims to us...

If they want live alongside us, they'd damned well better start getting accustomed to such things, and to control their reactions...

Otherwise... the morgue has an excellent supply of toe-tags for those who cannot control themselves and who turn violent.

As an abject lesson in such things, the exhibition was a resounding success...

 

[westwall]

Geller seems to be a disgusting, hate-filled individual.

Why? She has stated that her argument is with jihadists and Sharia law and not the Muslim community as a whole. These people chose to drive 1100 miles to try and murder people who were enjoying their right to free speech. If you don't like people doing that, then move where the law of the land don't memorialize that right.

 

[Kondor3]

...So you don't see intimidating religious groups is also bullying?

Only if the religious group is not first attempting to bully America.

However, in the case at-hand, and with respect to the so-called 'religion' at-hand... well...

 

[Zander]

Two dead allah moneys?



I hope Gellar holds a contest in every city in the country

 

[Kondor3]

...There are certainly Christians out there who would resort to violence for blatant blasphemy, most would not. If Muslims were all like you said there would have been hundreds there ready to kill and die, but there were only two. Quit talking about Islam as if it is somehow different than your own faith. I do not normally give anyone shit about their personal faith but on this topic I think it is necessary. If you had no idea of the method used to render the image of "piss Christ" you would not be offended at all but certain people wanted it banned. People use your self-righteous anger for their own purposes just as much as the guy strapping the suicide vest on a gullible idiot. If you are really a devout christian you too would kill for Jesus under the right circumstances.

The thing is... if Christians kill... they do so in DISOBEDIENCE to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

But... if Muslims kill like this... they do so in OBEDIENCE to the teachings of Muhammed.

Big difference.

 

[Kondor3]

Two dead allah moneys?



I hope Gellar holds a contest in every city in the country

She could re-name her home gallery as The Bait Shop.

 

[Zander]

Allah Monkey Kill!! Blululooloolooo!!! I blow you up!!! Blulolooooloooloooo!!!

 

[occupied]

If simply the right to depict the Prophet was the point the organizers should have made a rule that there be no depictions that vilify or dehumanize Islam. Make pictures of him walking the dog or eating breakfast or just waving to the camera. It seems this was not the case, it seems that this was a deliberate attack on the entire faith and therefore hateful and provocative, who's the bully here? Usually the bully is the one that stirs things up for no good reason.

Is that necessary? Isn't that personal decision a part of freedom of expression. Piss Jesus was heralded by the left as the ultimate in freedom of expression...no one complained about the "rules" or who was provoked.

And further, I've seen exactly one cartoon from the contest...it was the winner, and it was pretty good, and poignant.

These guys didn't see what cartoons were being drawn, for all they knew they were all Mohammed walking a dog.

Two men died for our right to be assholes yesterday and none of it was necessary. Nothing was won, our 1st amendment rights would have been safer if they hadn't put this thing on, now these events will be banned for the sake of public safety, states will make laws, lobbyists will sue and lawyers will cash in.

 

[Zander]

Aw look how cute!! It's a newborn Allah Monkey!!

I bet he wants to cut your head off!!

 

[Missourian]

Two men died for our right to be assholes yesterday and none of it was necessary. Nothing was won, our 1st amendment rights would have been safer if they hadn't put this thing on, now these events will be banned for the sake of public safety, states will make laws, lobbyists will sue and lawyers will cash in.

Two men died because they made a personal decision to murder their fellow Americans.

Any other rationalization is complete and utter hogwash.

 

[ogibillm]

Geller seems to be a disgusting, hate-filled individual.

But not the men shooting into the crowd?


How many threads is this now?

I didn't comment on the shooters.

But whst was the point of her "art" contest if not to engender hate? What's the point of her transit "jihad" ad campaign if not to raise discord?

She's a disgusting person.
that doesn't excuse the shooters.

I bet you supported the piss christ exhibit.

yep. when i was 5 i was all about that exhibit.
have you ever actually thought about that picture, btw? I think it makes an interesting statement about modern culture's treatment of christ.

and if you didn't know it was urine, it's a very pretty picture.

 

[Kondor3]

...Two men died for our right to be assholes yesterday...

Two Radical Muslims died trying to weaken or suppress that right.

A toe-tag on a cold slab fixed them right up.

They're right where we need and want them to be.

...and none of it was necessary...

True.

But fun.

It's always a good idea fo flush-out Radical Muslim terrorists in our midst.

Best to activate a Militant Muslim Sleeper Cell on lightweight stuff like this than on another World Trade Tower.

Great fun, watching scum like that, getting toted-away in body bags.

Great fun.

...Nothing was won, our 1st amendment rights would have been safer if they hadn't put this thing on, now these events will be banned for the sake of public safety, states will make laws, lobbyists will sue and lawyers will cash in.

Doubtful, but, time will tell.

 

[Katzndogz]

If simply the right to depict the Prophet was the point the organizers should have made a rule that there be no depictions that vilify or dehumanize Islam. Make pictures of him walking the dog or eating breakfast or just waving to the camera. It seems this was not the case, it seems that this was a deliberate attack on the entire faith and therefore hateful and provocative, who's the bully here? Usually the bully is the one that stirs things up for no good reason.

Is that necessary? Isn't that personal decision a part of freedom of expression. Piss Jesus was heralded by the left as the ultimate in freedom of expression...no one complained about the "rules" or who was provoked.

And further, I've seen exactly one cartoon from the contest...it was the winner, and it was pretty good, and poignant.

These guys didn't see what cartoons were being drawn, for all they knew they were all Mohammed walking a dog.

Two men died for our right to be assholes yesterday and none of it was necessary. Nothing was won, our 1st amendment rights would have been safer if they hadn't put this thing on, now these events will be banned for the sake of public safety, states will make laws, lobbyists will sue and lawyers will cash in.

Two bags of trash were taken out. One was already being watched although not very well.

There should be such contests all over the whole country. Every city should have one.

 

[Zander]

If simply the right to depict the Prophet was the point the organizers should have made a rule that there be no depictions that vilify or dehumanize Islam. Make pictures of him walking the dog or eating breakfast or just waving to the camera. It seems this was not the case, it seems that this was a deliberate attack on the entire faith and therefore hateful and provocative, who's the bully here? Usually the bully is the one that stirs things up for no good reason.

Is that necessary? Isn't that personal decision a part of freedom of expression. Piss Jesus was heralded by the left as the ultimate in freedom of expression...no one complained about the "rules" or who was provoked.

And further, I've seen exactly one cartoon from the contest...it was the winner, and it was pretty good, and poignant.

These guys didn't see what cartoons were being drawn, for all they knew they were all Mohammed walking a dog.

Two men died for our right to be assholes yesterday and none of it was necessary. Nothing was won, our 1st amendment rights would have been safer if they hadn't put this thing on, now these events will be banned for the sake of public safety, states will make laws, lobbyists will sue and lawyers will cash in.

Wrong. Two men died for being terrorist piles of excrement intent on harming Americans exercising their constitutional right to free speech.