Pamela Geller vs Imam Anjem Choudary on Fox News, Hannity: 'You Want Her To Die!'

a reply to: 3danimator2014

The host is an non-entity to me.

I don't even know who he is? I hadn't even heard of Pamela Gellar until the attack in Texas.

a reply to: DYepes

maybe you should read what i said again.
i get asked the same question as a christian, and fact of the matter is, it's hard to stop crazy, so people typically don't try until it's so bad that there's literally no other alternative.
i can no more stop a crazy christian than you can stop a crazy person from your personal world view. and if i thought i could do so at the drop of a hat, i'd have to be on some kind of power trip, which is what the problem is that we're discussing in the first place.

remember this line from the declaration of independence:

"accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable"

it's true, most people aren't power tripping, because most people aren't crazy. that's why crazyies end up in power positions

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: 3danimator2014

So you see drawing a picture as a direct attack against their religion.

Yet allowing gay marriage isn't. Even though it is against their religion.

Yet you support the freedom to draw the picture, even though you claim it is a direct attack on their religion.

Why would you allow a direct attack on their religion?

Why? Because we should live in a country where religion can be mocked. I wholeheartedly agree with being allowed to draw Mo as anything anyone wants . But i recognise that they will be offended as this is a direct attack. Do I care that they are offended? Not in the slightest.

So doing anything that might offend any religion is okay.

(personally, I agree)

Then I don't see why so many are having an issue over this drawing contest.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

My point is people are solely responsible for their own actions. Unlike snakes, people have free will and must choose to commit an act of violence.

To blame this bombastic woman's words for the attempted shooting in Texas is the epitome of victim blaming. If her exercise of free speech caused those Muslim radicals to load up for a rampage, then the rape victim should not have dressed that way; the theft victim should not have been waving his iPhone around on the subway; the comedian who was shot should not have cracked that joke that 'crossed the line.' Oh and everyone gets to draw their own 'line,' so expect lots of retalliation killings over petty conflicts.

Ironically (or not), two out of three of my examples are in line with sharia law.

Any blame I judge upon Muslim radicals I blame on them and their religion. I do not blame Geller for their actions. I blame them and their religion.

I blame her, Geller, for HER actions. While you might see her as an innocent victim, exercising her free speech, I see her differently. I agree about not blaming the victims. In the case of a rape victim, a woman who dresses provocatively is one thing, that is her choice. But a woman who dresses extremely provocatively, then sashays down a lonely alley in a seedy part of town is another. I think Geller was acting like that second woman. Likewise having a cell phone on a subway is one thing and waving it around going look look look what I got is another. But lets not get caught up in examples.

She was baiting. I do not think her actions with the cartoon promo were designed to enlighten them as to the ridiculousness of their belief system. She was not engaging in free speech and attempting to bring them out of the dark ages. She knew full well she was acting antagonistically and she knew full well what their automatic reaction would be. This was not free speech. This was an aggressive attack on a sore spot for them.

She then turns around and claims she should have protection. Obama should back her actions. Giver her protection. No, I do not consider this whole escapade of hers as an exercise in free speech. More, an action of escalationism.

More to the point of free will though. I am not as sure as you seem to be on the nature of free will. To just say that we have free will, that everyone has free will and is free to exercise it at all times, for all situations, for me is over exaggerating a philosophically questionable reality that remains, even in this modern day, arguable.

For me, if it does exist, free will is not something that arises spontaneously and in equal proportions within all human individuals. Nor, for me, is it something that is granted carte blanche to us by Allah, or Jehovah. For me, free will is the ability to, after considering all available information, weighing the rights and wrongs of my moral conditioning and evaluating advantageous as opposed to detrimental results of my considered action, making a choice that to my mind is the most practical and reasonable choice to make.

From this understanding of free will, I seriously question whether or not any of those radicals have free will at all. For that matter the entire edifice of not only that religion but all religions seriously curtail the development of free will as I see it. That is unless one thinks that having the ability to choose Coke over Pepsi is an exercise in free will.

No. Relying on , or demanding the free will of people entirely subjugated to a stultifying and anachronistic belief system is an act of futility.

a reply to: beezzer

The only issue I have is we are not doing it enough to cull the herd, so to speak.

originally posted by: DYepes
a reply to: beezzer

The only issue I have is we are not doing it enough to cull the herd, so to speak.

I have an issue when people attempt to inhibit freedoms for fear of "offending" others.

I think our culture has become sissified.

We have too many spineless cowards making excuses for any whack-weasel that kills another because "they were offended".

I'd never advocate for the culling of the herd.

I just want the candy-asses and the totalitarians and whack-weasels and authoritarians to leave me the hell alone!

originally posted by: andy06shake

SHOCK VIDEO: Radical Imam Tells Pamela Geller on Live TV She Should be SLAUGHTERED. ‘You Want Her to Die!’ Hannity, Pam Geller Come to Blows with Anjem Choudary. Fox News Sean Hannity and Pamela Geller got into a pretty fierce shouting match with Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary over whether Geller should be put to death for organizing a cartoon contest to, as Choudary put it, insult Muhammad and all Muslims. The contest, of course, was targeted by two shooters who ended up dead and have reported ties to ISIS.

Pamela Geller vs Imam Anjem Choudary on Fox News, Hannity: 'You Want Her To Die!'

So i came across this video on one of my Youtube news feeds. Personally i find it appalling that any Man should wish a woman to die over what amounts to a cartoon and people simply expressing there views. Just wondering as to my fellow ATS members opinions pertaining to the video and subject?

I'm counting down to when this choudary guy will be droned. That being said, geller is not helping the situation, and the FOX guys will obviously never learn. The guys at the top are busy sorting out the muslim/christain business on a global scale. All this cartoon business, is throwing fuel on the fire. Even IF we live in a so called 'free society,' there is still a certain level of consideration that needs to be applied, after applying common sense on the subject of how sensitive this issue is world wide. We can not go around shouting gung-ho, ya we are American, we can say whatever we want!..etc, on subjects that are global and especially sensitive. I do not agree with either side in this case, they are both nutz!

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Serious question:
Is not homosexuality extremely offensive to the Muslim community?

Why, then, is not MSNBC and other liberal progressive news outlets critical of these examples...of 'provocation' towards the Muslim community? (below)
On the contrary, they promote and celebrate homosexuality and events such as these....while they criticize and condemn Ms. Geller for her contest.

According to liberal progressive media outlets...aren't the organizers of these Gay Art contest events also guilty of 'self-promotion' ...and just as guilty of "Asking for 'it' (i.e. violence)"...meaning they are knowingly offending the religious beliefs of Muslims around the world, while intentionally provoking a violent response from a couple of ISIS hit goons looking to kill in the name of Allah?

The Big Gay Art Show

thebiggayartshow.blogspot.com...

Long Beach Gay Pride’s art contest underway

blogs.presstelegram.com...

Because it's not a direct attack on their religion. The answer is simple and i suspect you know it but you needed any excuse to a repeat this lame argument andanti typical ATS anti liberal rant. Right?

No one is suggesting what you said because that would be idiotic and the realm of tumblr accounts.

Sometimes I wish you guys would just outright say "we hate Arabs and muslims" and get any other pretence out the way.

Contrary to your inflammatory statement, above,...people here do not hate Arabs and Muslims. You can 'think' that all you 'wish'...and I'll even defend your right to believe it's true.

However, based upon your posts over the past few pages...it appears that you are the one who is ruled by your prejudices and hatred of those who believe something different than you do...to the point of suggesting in writing that the world would be better off if those who politically disagree with you were dead..."and rotting in the ground".

But that doesnt make me loath Rush any less. Hes like a bad taste in the mouth. You guys will be better off when hes rotting in the ground. hes a cancer on the good people of the USA.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: junglimogli

The guys at the top are busy sorting out the muslim/christain business

pamela is a jewish lady (dunno if she's practicing jew or secular jew), not that it matters specifically, i just find it a bit odd that it keeps gravitating back to being a radical islam vs. christian issue, when it's really a radical islam vs. freedom issue.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: junglimogli

The guys at the top are busy sorting out the muslim/christain business

pamela is a jewish lady (dunno if she's practicing jew or secular jew), not that it matters specifically, i just find it a bit odd that it keeps gravitating back to being a radical islam vs. christian issue, when it's really a radical islam vs. freedom issue.

Agreed, it does seem to be a freedom vs. islam issue. When we take our liberties and freedoms of our land too far, and extend them globally, we do have to be take the other side's tolerances, cultures, and traditions into consideration, and this goes both ways.
This will unfortunately not be resolved easily, because we are dealing with two lunatics, one thinks she has a right to insult islam globally because america has granted her freedom of speech, while the other thinks he has a right to global sharia, to kill anyone who does not comply.

originally posted by: junglimogli
We can not go around shouting gung-ho, ya we are American, we can say whatever we want!..etc, on subjects that are global and especially sensitive.

Actually, we can. I know people don't like it.

Too effing bad, I suppose.

Guess people will just have to get over it.

originally posted by: junglimogli

This will unfortunately not be resolved easily, because we are dealing with two lunatics, one thinks she has a right to insult islam globally because america has granted her freedom of speech, while the other thinks he has a right to global sharia, to kill anyone who does not comply.

She can say whatever the hell she wants.

I think you might be unfamiliar with the 1st Amendment.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: junglimogli
We can not go around shouting gung-ho, ya we are American, we can say whatever we want!..etc, on subjects that are global and especially sensitive.

Actually, we can. I know people don't like it.

Too effing bad, I suppose.

Guess people will just have to get over it.

Well, this may be fine with you, but it's a very myopic and selfish view of how to handle such a situation.
Your way of thinking is what gets us into a mess in the first place, and the effects of that mess will not have to be dealt by you or me, but by our children going forward. Maybe it's ok for you to leave a place like that for the future generation, but it's not ok for the level headed ones. It's a very selfish way of thinking that you can do whatever you want to anyone, and dangerous also for everyone else.

a reply to: junglimogli

Well one, she's not actually insulting all Muslims. She insulting RADICAL muslims. Big difference.

Two, she's in America. She can say whatever the hell she wants, and draw whatever the hell she wants. If you don't like, ignore it or get tougher skin.

Three, It's not like people in America haven't insulted other religions. There are entire atheist conventions with the specific aim of ridiculing Christianity, and that's ALL of christianity, not just the radicals. Weird, nobody has shot up one of those event yet.

originally posted by: junglimogli

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: junglimogli
We can not go around shouting gung-ho, ya we are American, we can say whatever we want!..etc, on subjects that are global and especially sensitive.

Actually, we can. I know people don't like it.

Too effing bad, I suppose.

Guess people will just have to get over it.

Well, this may be fine with you, but it's a very myopic and selfish view of how to handle such a situation.
Your way of thinking is what gets us into a mess in the first place, and the effects of that mess will not have to be dealt by you or me, but by our children going forward. Maybe it's ok for you to leave a place like that for the future generation, but it's not ok for the level headed ones. It's a very selfish way of thinking that you can do whatever you want to anyone, and dangerous also for everyone else.

Yeah, freedom is a bitch, isn't it.

I appreciate the fact that you do not embrace freedom the same way many do. You look for a society that does not carry the burden of freedom.

I wish you well, where ever you end up.

a reply to: yuppa

Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..."
The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Oaths can be broken in the right circumstance.

Qur'an (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts"

If an oath is made and it's not good for you, you will not be blamed.

Qur'an (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths"

Same as the first.

Qur'an (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." (see also 8:30 and 10:21)

The enemy's of Jesus planned, & Allah planned... & Allah is the best of planners.




Appreciate the effort Yuppa, buddy.


We ain't allowed to lie though.

Quran 40:28
Indeed, Allah does not give guidance to the transgressors, or the liars!

This was a terror attack on US soil against US citizens. I don't care what they were doing, why they were there, what they were saying or what they do next. FACT is radical Muslims, who are being culled from the US and recruited are attacking us as a country...a whole.

There were worse political cartoons during the 08 election than this. I heard worse about Sarah Palin's family for months than what they did. They drew pictures. They did not hold a Koran burning party. Although it is ones right I put that next to desecration of the US Flag. It should not be protected by the First Amendment. It is hate, pure and simple.

There is no hate in drawing cartoons. It is parody. But what you see and no one has commented on is that the attackers used the pretense of Sharia law to conduct the attack. Again, on US soil.

There has been more than 30 prevented terror attacks on US soil that have been reported since 9/11. These do not involve Lone gunman attacks such as Ft Hood and the Washington Navy Yard. 12 people died in DC and 13 were killed at Ft Hood.

This woman is free to express what she wants and does not deserve to die over it. Rushdie is still around folks...remember that debacle? Again, Sharia not just faith...

3000 people died in NYC because of the hate of our country. Our own government will not declare Ft Hood nor this current attack as a terror attack. Conditioning...Hamas not a terror group...trading terror suspects back to the Taliban...folks, this is what you should be worried about and not Sean Hannity....

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: DYepes
a reply to: beezzer

The only issue I have is we are not doing it enough to cull the herd, so to speak.

I have an issue when people attempt to inhibit freedoms for fear of "offending" others.

I think our culture has become sissified.

We have too many spineless cowards making excuses for any whack-weasel that kills another because "they were offended".

I'd never advocate for the culling of the herd.

I just want the candy-asses and the totalitarians and whack-weasels and authoritarians to leave me the hell alone!

So much truth there.

Nowhere in the USA are we guaranteed to never be offended. As a matter of fact, Freedom of Speech is the exact opposite of that.

It's really not about what was done or said, it's about WHY they feel they can react that way. Eh?

The Supreme Court agrees too.

a reply to: poncho1982

Does it say that people can't be offended by what people say?

All I am seeing is if you disagree with mrs gellar you are a no good american hating ISIS sympathizer..

Is that how it is suppose to work?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: poncho1982

Does it say that people can't be offended by what people say?

All I am seeing is if you disagree with mrs gellar you are a no good american hating ISIS sympathizer..

Is that how it is suppose to work?

You can hate, despise, revile, be disgusted with anything about her.

Her hair, her voice, her ideology, her thoughts.

You can write, speak, orate, write a song, blog, all your hatred towards her.

What you can't do is work to silence her. What you can't do, is enforce efforts to silence her. What you can't do, is write laws, endorse laws that would silence her.

Your opinion is your own.

Right, wrong, it doesn't matter.