Pam Geller is technically right .

a reply to: Metallicus
a reply to: Wookiep
a reply to: Logarock
a reply to: Greathouse

SNIP

To correct some misconceptions... bigotry has nothing to do with race, it's hatred of 'other' and the Declaration of Independence does not state "endowed by THE creator", it's states "endowed by THEIR creator"... much more encompassing and inclusive, don't you think?

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

And his soul permitted to him the murder of his brother, so he killed him and became among the losers.

Then Allah sent a crow searching in the ground to show him how to hide the disgrace of his brother. He said, "O woe to me! Have I failed to be like this crow and hide the body of my brother?" And he became of the regretful.

Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.

Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,

Except for those who return [repenting] before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

The old you are cherry picking defense. Lets look at what is before and after so I am not cherry picking as you say I am.

Allah sending a crow to hide a murder. (Do not sound like a divine behavior where deceit is seen as impurity of the spirit). After that people who wage war against Allah and his messenger (Of course Muhammad and his followers) should be killed in barbaric ways. And of course slander against Muhammad is equal to slander towards god to the followers off Islam. The warlord Muhammad seeding the peace and prosperity for himself and his followers by killing others (calling it self defense). Where have I seen this kind of argumentation in the last years. Wait it was George W Bush war on terror for peace.

Funny how history repeats itself.

And no the verse in the picture is not logically the same as what is written in the Quran. But it is what Rumi the Sufi taught and what many Muslim think the Quran teaches. And I think the verse in the picture is perfect where I think the Quran is not.

a reply to: cavtrooper7


Thanks for that piece ..great read as I reflect back to Peter Dale Scott's writings on the subject . Patrick M. Wood's Technocracy Rising connect's some of the dots in the deeps state as well . www.technocracyrising.com... Earnest L Martin's " the people that history forgot " is a good read as it follows a group and the historical tracks to the present day imo . www.askelm.com... You really need a set of Esoteric eyes to see them but they seem unable to not give them selves away . If the deep state has a link to Turkey it crosses paths with the people that history forgot . Religion is a most important factor in all this and is used .


The good news I take away from this is that I guess greed will always cause them to overstep what can be maintained and when that happens ,it crumbles .I think they know that so trying to usher in a new world order is what they would desire but probably will fail .

"[1] The term "Deep State" was coined in Turkey and is said to be a system composed of high-level elements within the intelligence services, military, security, judiciary and organized crime. In British author John le Carré-s latest novel, A Delicate Truth, a character describes the Deep State as "… the ever-expanding circle of non-governmental insiders from banking, industry and commerce who were cleared for highly classified information denied to large swathes of Whitehall and Westminster." I use the term to mean a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process."

a reply to: Kali74

Just because YOU say something is hateful doesn't make it so. Sorry.

a reply to: Metallicus

Sure... because it's not completely obvious to everyone else.

a reply to: Greathouse

I normally don't waste my time on topics such as this, because there is too much hatred and ignorance involved that I believe it's just a waste of my time. But when I heard about this event she was sponsoring, I started to research Geller and the aftermath that occurred.

I've come to the conclusion that this is exactly what she wanted. She was not trying to start an intelligent conversation that bridged gaps between the western world and Islam. Her intent is to poke and provoke Muslims until they start to poke back, and then she will whine and cry about being a victim of the hateful radical Islamists.

Frees speech is a wonderful thing, but we seem to forget that there can be repercussions for what we say. We have no right to complain when those repercussions come back to bite us.

It's quite obvious to me that she wanted this, she wanted the attention that followed and she will use this issue for all it's worth.

Forgive me if I fail to see how any of this makes sense and fail to give the slightest damn for her or what she says.

a reply to: introvert

I don't disagree with what you said . But I can draw similarities with the same tactics from radical Islam . Chants of death to America and threats of terrorist attacks were around a long time before Pam Geller .


I never said she wasn't a idiot just like those she opposes . But why does everyone want to silence her and not the people she is spotlighting ?

a reply to: Greathouse

But why does everyone want to silence her and not the people she is spotlighting ?

I don't want to silence her in the slightest. She is well within her right to say and do as she pleases as long as she doesn't impede on someone else's rights. All I'm trying to say is that she gets to take responsibility for what she says and I don't feel one bit sorry for her when she whacks the snake with a stick, and gets bit.

But I can draw similarities with the same tactics from radical Islam

I'm confused. You say that you can draw similarities between Geller's tactics and radical Islam, but in the OP you said that her aggressive tactics seem to make sense to you.

Does that mean you also think radical Islam's tactics make sense?

a reply to: introvert

Actually I specifically mentioned the word technically in my title . The reason being is because I do not approve of her aggressive tactics . But I technically agree she is right to enforce her freedom of speech .


Is that any clearer for you?

a reply to: Greathouse

And how is it not any clearer to you yet that by and large people are not calling for her to be silenced? Criticizing her is not equivalent to such.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Greathouse

And how is it not any clearer to you yet that by and large people are not calling for her to be silenced? Criticizing her is not equivalent to such.

Potato

a reply to: Greathouse

(e)

a reply to: Greathouse

Is that any clearer for you?

Not really.

The question was not about whether or not she was in the right to "enforce her freedom of speech". "Technically", she is right. Radical Islam is violent and crazy.

I was confused by these statements:

The more I look into her the more her aggressive tactics make sense to me .

But I can draw similarities with the same tactics from radical Islam .

So can we then assume that you believe radical Islam's tactics also make sense?

I personally thought it was a great idea to smoke out bad guys,not to mention the LATEST BIKER run effort showcased Moderates who invited them into their mosque.
EVERYONE has to take CRAP in freedom of speech and those who refuse will simply have to get over it.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Metallicus

Sure... because it's not completely obvious to everyone else.

There is a lot of stuff that should be obvious that gets by people. It should be obvious that exercising and supporting free speech is a good thing if not always easy.

Muslims and Islam are a problem...especially when they are trying to populate and change other countries to follow their laws. And while it is entirely true that not all Muslims are radical, it is also true that if no Muslims were allowed in America, there wouldn't be Islamic terrorists in America.

The Muslim population owns that problem while we are forced to deal with that problem. If you choose to call yourself Muslim, you own the problems that come with that label and you are required to help fix the problem with your group of people. It is really that simple. I, as a white American wear the stigma created by our government's actions. Anywhere I go I may hear "American ass" or something on those lines. And they are right. If I choose to call myself American, I have to take the good with the bad. I'm personally sick of this "not all Muslims are bad". Yes...they are as long as a percentage of them is bad, the group as a whole has at least some bad about them.

If you want to be part of a group and call yourself part of that group, you are responsible for everything that group does. And if there are terrorists in your midst, you better clean up your group if you are not, and don't want to be associated with terrorism.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Are you actually suggesting that Islam be outlawed?

a reply to: introvert



I have no idea how you have formed this opinion about my statements ? But I loved how you took a opine of mine and twisted into my opinion .



Are you comparing a cartoon drawing contest, to showing up at a event with the sole purpose of murdering as many people as you can as the same thing?


Remember Pam Geller had a cartoon drawing contest. Those two idiots showed up with murder on their mind to protest .

a reply to: Greathouse

I have no idea how you have formed this opinion about my statements ? But I loved how you took a opine of mine and twisted into my opinion .

I have done no such thing. I am a literalist. I take what people say for what it literally means. So it is not an opinion. You said it and all I have done is ask you to clarify.

Did you not post exactly what I quoted? Did you not state that there are similarities in tactics in one post, and yet in the OP claim that it made sense?

If I am misinterpreting what you said, or you posted the comment before revising for accuracy, that's understandable and please correct me.

Otherwise, it may appear that you uphold the tactics for one group/person and deplore them for another. That, of course, would be a bias and we are all welcome to have our bias', but I would just like clarification so that I know what you actually stand for.

Are you comparing a cartoon drawing contest, to showing up at a event with the sole purpose of murdering as many people as you can as the same thing?

No. I've never said that or anything that could be interpreted as such. All I have said is that she did this knowing full well what the reaction may be. She did it purposefully to invoke a reaction and she got what she wanted. While I condemn those that came to cause violence over a cartoon contest, I feel no pity for Geller when she simply got exactly that which she wanted.

Remember Pam Geller had a cartoon drawing contest. Those two idiots showed up with murder on their mind to protest .

Agreed. Now can you answer my question and/or clarify your previous statements?

a reply to: introvert

How about this then I'M all for these contests to target HOSTILES.