It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 19
39
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: _Del_

Beezzer mentioned homosexuals and gay marriage and others I can't remember. I mentioned abortion clinics.

With abortion clinics they open them fully aware of the risks. People have threatened and made good on those threats on them.

Are the people who opened those clinics responsible?

We all have (well most) have spread rumors about people and have complained about certain people fully aware that it can hurt some people.

Etc. Etc.

Drawing certain cartoons will always offend some people. Are we to be afraid to do what we want?

The point is we ALL have done something that will make others mad.
edit on 5/8/2015 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 8 2015 @ 11:27 PM
link   
This guy Choudary isn't just some guy who is on the 'radical' side. He is a Muslim rockstar with a huge sphere of influence, as was the Mufti who issued Geller's fatwa, and so many other Imams and clerics with similar ideologies that dictate how to feel and think for hordes of people. I like many others am not a fan of Geller, but it really boils down to whether blatant, antagonistic religious blasphemy is worse than murder, and it most certainly is not.

I must say that I believe in being respectful to all creeds. But after time and time again of trying my damnedest to understand Islam 'enough' to defend it, I cannot. I don't dislike Muslims, just Islam, and I would never be disrespectful to a Muslim just because of his/her faith alone. However I am burdened with the knowledge that there are 2 billion people, born innocent and with endless potential, walking around with their minds in shackles and it is very disheartening in terms of humanity's development and progression as a whole. Each time I read the Quran this is reinforced, after analyzation from the most objective perspective I am capable of.

People other than M******d (pbuh) who changed the world forever such as Jesus or Buddha didn't get to their level of influence by lopping heads off, taking slaves, and being basically what could be described as a warlord. There was a time when Christians(in many many cases) and Buddhists(in some cases) were abusively intolerant and even forced conversion, but, over time, it became clear that the illuminating truths that the world gained from them were in stark contrast to any idea of intolerance or domineering nature. Now many will say that is not true and to an extent they have very valid points as there is a lot of intolerance coming from all walks of life and corners of the world. But, in our present day, when it comes to the most grotesque aspects of humanity e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc., on a scale of number of occurrences alone, this is simply not correct, and you, I, and everybody knows it.

People took concepts like love your neighbor from Jesus, peace of mind from Buddha. I am afraid that nothing came from 'the prophet' with any staying power other than his god is the only way. Maybe that's not true, maybe it's just a cultural thing that took a wrong turn somewhere; Jewish scriptures are filled with similar proclamations of a 'one true god' that condoned violence, yet maybe because they are an older and in a chronological sense more mature religion they have had time to grow out of the anger, violence, and suppression phase.

Also, the truth is that this really cannot be understood without historical context. The Muslim world was once the forerunner in science and new ideas, and lived relatively peacefully until they were all but decimated by the Mongols, and subsequently invaded, conquered, and rearranged by many empires from then until present day. It might make sense that they became the ones that took their religion the most seriously; they've never had a lot of freedom and their religion seems to be the only thing they've got. Deep thoughts by Jack Handy.
edit on 8-5-2015 by humanityrising because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-5-2015 by humanityrising because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-5-2015 by humanityrising because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

You did see where i said that That was not my OPINION right? I was posting stuff that you asked for was all that i found with a google search to point out others use what i found for justification.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
Beezzer mentioned homosexuals and gay marriage and others I can't remember. I mentioned abortion clinics.

With abortion clinics they open them fully aware of the risks. People have threatened and made good on those threats on them.


If abortion clinics were currently being bombed regularly while literally tens of thousands of people cheered on the violence and announced their intention to bomb more clinics as a step toward theocracy, then I believe holding a "Most Offensive Reason for Abortion" essay-writing contest with a $10,000 reward as some sort of memorial to the clinics bombed would be fool-hardy, yes. It'd be deliberately provocative and unwise.

I don't think the "reasonable expectation" of violence due to being gay or supporting gay marriage or opening an abortion clinic is the same as this specific example.

If I go to a Klan march and I jump in the middle and act deliberately offensive while espousing civil rights and equality and henceforth get my ### kicked, it doesn't make the Klan members right, or me wrong. It doesn't excuse the Klansmen from responsibility for my beating. It doesn't mean that talking about civil rights is justification for a beating. It just means I'm an idiot. As is Geller, imo.
It certainly doesn't devolve into the strawman that I think we should all just avoid talking about or acting to enhance civil rights and equality to avoid offending people.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: humanityrising

Indeed, more exploration in the Quran's real messages need to be exposed.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: _Del_

I do understand your point.

But it's just a contest! Why be afraid?

Many people have spoke out on TV that made a lot of people mad. Why should she be any different?

She might be dumb but she is not responsible for any violence that may result from it. Like I said, we ALL have done something that made others mad.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien Are we to be afraid to do what we want?

The point is we ALL have done something that will make others mad.


Sure. I just don't think that deliberately making others with a history of unrepentant violence mad is particularly wise. Why would I want to do that?

If a family in my neighbor has a history of using chains to beat the tar out of people who fingerpaint because of some bizarre religious belief, why would I hold a "Fingerpaint the Most Offensive Fingerpainting" contest at our corner park? Sure, I can. And I should be able to fingerpaint in a park without threat of violence. And no, it wouldn't justify beatings by chains or otherwise. But why? Especially since the vast majority of people would have no interest in fingerpainting otherwise.

Who says, "I want to draw an offensive cartoon to provoke violent people just to show I can"?



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: _Del_

i think it's been explained to christians in the usa, who weirded out when the hemlines on dresses went above the ankle, then above the kneecap, and then, well you know the rest ---> that it has something to do with the american spirit of freedom. and while i recognize the slippery slope argument christians gave at the time was actually accurate, i do not believe, as a christian,that when jesus said "spread the gospel," that he meant its okay to try to force others to dress according to christian sensibilities, for example. the gospel has nothing to do with skin or sex or music or food, in fact, it only has to do with one thing: forgiveness. that's it.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: _Del_

Like I said I do understand your point.

Doing that fingerpaint contest in that area might not be too bright but this one is different. This is our country and it's big and we have the freedom of speech.



Who says, "I want to draw an offensive cartoon to provoke violent people just to show I can"?


I don't think anyone said anything like that?

I do understand your point but we have the right to draw anything we want to.

Certain speech are not protected such as yelling FIRE! in crowded theater.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 12:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien Like I said, we ALL have done something that made others mad.


Sure, but how many of us would deliberately do something to make others who have a history of unjustified violence mad. This why I think it's example specific. Could a reasonable person infer that violence is going to directly result from my action? If so, then I'm not acting wisely. In fact, it's pretty much the legal definition of negligence.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien




Certain speech are not protected such as yelling FIRE! in crowded theater.


when i read this i thought: "maybe they could get people to stop antagonizing radicals under a similar pretense," but then i realized that would be equivalent to suggesting radical muslims are reacting out of sheer panic, like frightened deer in headlights (fire in theater), and i don't think that's the message they want to send. it would be very condescending to suggest that.


edit on 9-5-2015 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: _Del_



Sure, but how many of us would deliberately do something to make others who have a history of unjustified violence mad.


Got your point.

I do not think anyone is "deliberately" trying to make them mad and incite them to violence. It's just a contest.
edit on 5/9/2015 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
Certain speech are not protected such as yelling FIRE! in crowded theater.


I think this specific example comes perilously close to unprotected speech for the same reason. A reasonable expectation that harm to others may result due to action/speech/drawing.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: undo

Oh wow that was a good post.

Nothing to add just wow.
edit on 5/9/2015 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

... We already saw how a magazine cover was responded to and the south park issue a while back.

Gellar knew what she was doing, trying to me people mad in the name of free speech.
edit on thSat, 09 May 2015 00:43:35 -0500America/Chicago520153580 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake
wow! All those people in that clip need to be put in a room somewhere far far away from people so that whatever they got does not spread. Maybe we can drop them all on an island and let the form there own society or they can finnaly fight eachother to the death and that will be that.

But really whats with this whole Muslim bashing, I mean sure there nutty, but it takes all kinds, I have knows some Christians nutters that would give that Muslim nutter a run for his money and lets face it its religion and politics, none of it has to make sense it just has to sell a semi believable story. Or is this more posturing for the whole War effort. So cool! Are we going to bomb Iran or Kazakhstan or Poland or something now? Or is this more about the whole ISIS terrorist cells supposedly in cities I have been hearing so much about lately in the headlines?

Which and whatever its about, they would all get on with it already, procrastinating seems to be there rule for these people, its like they need somebody to hold there hand while they do anything.

So yes, what we have learned form that video is that idiots come in all different types and from all walks of life. If they are so prudent in wanting to fight it out. I for one say that we should give them what they want. Though you know in a controlled environment far away from those of us who got better things to do.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 05:35 AM
link   
a reply to: galadofwarthethird

"Muslim bashing"

The only person i seen in the video suggesting violence was Anjem Choudary. Not only towards the Geller woman but also toward gay and lesbian people. So regarding Muslim bashing he was giving as good as he got.

I dont hold with what the lady did but at the end of the day she is not the one doing anything wrong in the eyes of the law. Drawing pictures is perfectly legal in both our nations, even caricatures of Mohammed. Our laws regarding freedom and expression are there to protect the idiots of our nations just as much as the rest of us and to be quite frank could not work to any other fashion without bias.

If the Guy has a problem with such possibly London's not the best place to reside considering there are plenty of Muslim nations where the law protects his outdated backward xenophobic way of existence.

As to Fox news well we can all see their motivations for what they are, sad really. The interview is in poor taste but is that not what we have come to expect from Fox? Essentially what they done is give the guy enough rope to hang himself, he excelled, and in the process showed himself for what he really is.
edit on 9-5-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake
Sorry they both seem like hyped up actors to me. If the guy has a problem with people drawing picture he can go suck a lemon, that's nice why should I give a # what he or others like him think? On the hole gay or lesbian community I cant speak for them so you should ask somebody else on that. Though I do not see them volunteering to go live in secular extremist Islamic communities for the fun of it.

Nor do I give a squat what the female thinks. Hey its free speech if she does not want to hear about the guys nutty believes, why is she there? Maybe we should give her a gun and ship her to the middle east with her entourage and let her change things for the better? You know put her money were her mouth is, I am quite sure Obama will be willing to pay for the guns and bullets. Really if they want to go to war over this stuff. I think that's great, the best idea anybody has had in a while, hopefully they will all kill eachother off and take all the other hyped up crazies with them.

Though generally speaking when such things go down, others will be doing the actual fighting and crossfire. I am pretty sure that if anything actually happens Imam Chouder and the Chouder head female will be as far away from it all as possible. I mean they may be all hyped up about this now, and life for that stuff as its there bread and butter, but there not stupid. You know they just want other to do it for them.

What proof do you have that I should take any of this # serious and nothing more then the ravings of publicity people and the host of a crappy show? I see nothing that says otherwise. Free speech and all, the woman had it in whatever her point is, and now Imam chouder had it in whatever his point is. But that is all, the ravings of madmen, madwomen, and madTVhosts.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 06:09 AM
link   
a reply to: galadofwarthethird

"Am pretty sure that if anything actually happens Imam Chouder and the Chouder head female will be as far away from it all as possible"

I completely agree, mouth pieces seldom charge into the heart of any battle such is the way of life.


"What proof do you have that I should take any of this # serious and nothing more then the ravings of publicity people and the host of a crappy show?"

I don't have any proof regarding the validity of the interview other than the Man in question saying what he did.

Personally i think they are all at fault to some degree or another, but only one of the people is threatening and promoting Murder hence its my opinion he should be prosecuted for his actions considering our laws are there to prevent such. There not there to prevent cartoons.
edit on 9-5-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

You did see where i said that That was not my OPINION right? I was posting stuff that you asked for was all that i found with a google search to point out others use what i found for justification.



Yeah I did, that's why I said thanks for trying where others have ignored it, despite it being their opinion.




new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join