Good Shot in Dallas

[noddy]

a once off event run by people worried about the borders of free speech isnt abuse in my book - it may be obnoxious but its a legitimate expression of those peoples fears for a moving set of borders.

the opposite end of the scale would be a group of people surrounding an individual and hurling personal abuse repeatedly and constantly.

the areas of grey between those is always going to be a hard place to pin down - as always id tend towards individuals learning how to block out the white noise as a preferable response to the legalistic approach.

[Simple Minded]

Lets keep this on topic, noddy, try to keep up please.

If one were farting in Morse code (maybe you're having a stroke and can't speak...), or if farting is a form of birth control, or part of one's religion, one would most definitely have that right. The first two would be subject to federal tax dollar subsidies, the last would not.

If farting as a form of assault, then no.

The real question is which increases AGW more farting or exhaling? Is not exhaling an assault on all of humanity?

[noddy]

my dog has more freedom than any of us and his speech causes standing ovations in smaller rooms.

[Simple Minded]

my dog has more freedom than any of us and his speech causes standing ovations in smaller rooms.

endo should use him as a role model.....

[noddy]

im not really comfortable with the change from a text internet to an audio/video internet.

the thought of adding smellovision to it is extremely terrifying

[Nonc Hilaire]

im not really comfortable with the change from a text internet to an audio/video internet.

the thought of adding smellovision to it is extremely terrifying

Luddite.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_scent_technology

[Simple Minded]

im not really comfortable with the change from a text internet to an audio/video internet.

the thought of adding smellovision to it is extremely terrifying

Good point. I think more often than not we give those with whom we disagree the benefit of the doubt that they have at least some positive/redeeming attributes.

More information may prove unattractive in many instances. It would be similar to bright lighting or not enough beer.........

[Parodite]

So it is only a matter of time that when a group of Muslims listening to an Imam who depicts unbelievers as scum can expect gunmen knocking on their Mosque's door to mow them down. The Noncs in this world will then come out of the woodwork and say there are no excuses for violence.. but that the preacher and his followers do not represent Islam and excusing their provocations is mere sophistry. Check.

Well, that will be a while. US muslims serve in the military, police and intelligence communities, and are known for turning Islamists in to the FBI.

There are 100k muslims in Dallas. No violence until this provocation, and only one or two bad actors. The US is the Great Satan, we welcome muslims and their imams and yet Islamist violence is unknown. Why is that?

I don't care so much about numbers or the truth value of what-is-spoken. If it should be understood as a verbal provocation, an insult, just an opinion, great poetry or an educational point that is made.

For all I care people stand on a soap box or lock themselves up in a club house and send what whatever sound bites into the local or wider ether. What I do care a lot about however, is when others deny them-and-us that right and show up with guns to make their point.

Hence whatever you have said here about the event beyond condemning the gunners-killers... is not only totally irrelevant but also a serious provocation!

Tip for you: take into account before you open your mouth that different people are provoked by different things. And not everybody is equally equipped to successfully resist their violent urges. And don't be too sure that playing Jesus cannot provoke anybody; ask Jesus himself what happens then.

I knew this guy who seemed unable to be provoked. Always calm, friendly...and smart too! Not seldom he irritated people because of this unaffected coolness. Provocations can come in many forms.

[kmich]

Freedom simply for the sake of freedom is without context or value; a degenerate, liberal Romantic position without any moral content. Such notions are no more than a debauching of cherished liberty into a license for mindless provocation and reaction. Being shot at, while an obvious criminal transgression of a civil society, does not ennoble fools.

I support the conservative sentiments, as written by John Locke in his Second Treatise on Government and actually the position of the American founders. The value and sacredness of freedom is in its elevation of the human spirit through choosing to fulfill accountability to a higher moral order and our duties to a civil community. It is not unrestrained autonomy. Liberty is sacred not through its exercise but through its accountability and embedded context. To elevate license for mindless bigots and buffoons as somehow reflective of true liberty is a vapid, dangerous, and fraudulent notion.

[Doc]

Freedom simply for the sake of freedom is without context or value; a degenerate, liberal Romantic position without any moral content. Such notions are no more than a debauching of cherished liberty into a license for mindless provocation and reaction. Being shot at, while an obvious criminal transgression of a civil society, does not ennoble fools.

I support the conservative sentiments, as written by John Locke in his Second Treatise on Government and actually the position of the American founders. The value and sacredness of freedom is in its elevation of the human spirit through choosing to fulfill accountability to a higher moral order and our duties to a civil community. It is not unrestrained autonomy. Liberty is sacred not through its exercise but through its accountability and embedded context. To elevate license for mindless bigots and buffoons as somehow reflective of true liberty is a vapid, dangerous, and fraudulent notion.

When you get to the point that someone gets to pick and choose what is free speech there is no free speech. If you want to elevate the conversation as you claim then the opposition of hatful speech is a civic duty. Otherwise it is simply laziness to declare that there are limits to free speech.

http://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-journa ... 438B6.html

Pam Geller and the First Amendment
5/5/2015 1:35PM

NBC News Reporter Ayman Mohyeldin Wants Islam Protected From Satire

by John Nolte5 May 2015621

Ayman Mohyeldin is advertised by NBC News as an objective reporter. This objective reporter became infamous earlier this year for lying about and smearing a decorated veteran sniper, the late Chris Kyle, as a “racist” who went on anti-Muslim “killing sprees” in Iraq.

Mohyeldin, who is a Muslim, used his MSNBC perch Tuesday, not to condemn the murderous savages in his faith who attempted to murder Pam Geller and Geert Wilders at a free speech event, but to demand a culture change in America that would not “allow” people to engage in what he calls “hate speech” against Islam.

And as one would expect from NBC News, through omission, Mohyeldin lied through his teeth in order to pretend Islam is the only religion in America openly ridiculed.

As though “The Book of Mormon” wasn’t currently running on Broadway; as though San Francisco doesn’t hold a blasphemous “Hunky Jesus & Foxy Mary“” contest every year; as though “Piss Christ” wasn’t funded by the American government; as though Hollywood didn’t spend billions producing one film after another trashing Christianity — without being challenged by anyone on “Morning Joe,” Mohyeldin crybabied his lie about Muslims being singled out in America.

The full transcript of his fascist bed-wetting

is below. Mixed in with his “defense” of free speech is in reality a call to ban speech against Islam.

A Sharia by any other name…

[emphasis mine]


As a person who has lived in this country for most of my life, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with any of these groups holding events like this, or doing events like that. It doesn’t on a personal level offend me, it does not offend my faith, it does not offend my sensibilities. I don’t pay much attention to the group. I know America is a very diverse, pluralistic place. A lot of people have a lot of ideas. I also know a lot of people have, unfortunately, misunderstandings of the religion [photo of Pam Geller appears], and it’s reflected all the time in the debate. But you have to have tough skin when you live in this country to understand that.

I do wonder sometimes if we as a society have a double standard about what we accept as free speech, and whether or not we apply the term of free speech to all groups, all minorities, all different political views with the same equal rigor. Do we uphold it as a society; do we uphold it from a law perspective. I think that sometimes is misunderstood.

You know, we are able to relate to things in this country in the context of how we understand them — when it comes to issues of race I don’t think any American would be happy with a conference held depicting black people or African-Americans in a negative light. I don’t think it would be acceptable for many Americans. Would it be tolerated, would it legally be accepted — I think that’s also sometimes up for a question.

So I think because we can’t necessarily relate to the issue of Islam, we can’t relate to it on a public level, as well, there is this perspective where it’s simply viewed from freedom of speech — and again, I emphasize as somebody who works in journalism, as somebody who believes wholeheartedly in this right as a fundamental principle, I have no problem with it, and I would not in any way, shape or form prevent it from happening, but….

I would also raise questions about the larger context in the United States and whether or not we are applying a double standard to what is considered “hate speech” when it comes to Muslims. I feel that sometimes Muslims in America have become the last group in which public official, organizations and others are allowed to publicly demean, ridicule this group, in ways we don’t do it with other groups per se.

Newsflash…

The only religion that tells people they can’t say things is Islam.

The only religion that threatens to back up that law with blood is Islam.

And nothing is more American than relentlessly mocking those who say we dare not mock them.

You don’t need a SWAT team protecting “The Book of Mormon” or a screening of “The Last Temptation of Christ.”

You also don’t have NBC News reporters calling for special speech protections for any religion other than Islam — even though its extremist wing is the deadliest force in all of the world today.

Whoa, hey, don’t offend the Christ-tards, they might pray for you!

Meanwhile, at The World Trade Center, the Pentagon, Ft. Hood, the Boston Marathon, and Garland, Texas…

Mohyeldin needs to worry a little less about what people SAY and a whole lot more about Islamic barbarians who slaughter.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism ... m-mockery/

[kmich]

Freedom simply for the sake of freedom is without context or value; a degenerate, liberal Romantic position without any moral content. Such notions are no more than a debauching of cherished liberty into a license for mindless provocation and reaction. Being shot at, while an obvious criminal transgression of a civil society, does not ennoble fools.

I support the conservative sentiments, as written by John Locke in his Second Treatise on Government and actually the position of the American founders. The value and sacredness of freedom is in its elevation of the human spirit through choosing to fulfill accountability to a higher moral order and our duties to a civil community. It is not unrestrained autonomy. Liberty is sacred not through its exercise but through its accountability and embedded context. To elevate license for mindless bigots and buffoons as somehow reflective of true liberty is a vapid, dangerous, and fraudulent notion.

When you get to the point that someone gets to pick and choose what is free speech there is no free speech. If you want to elevate the conversation as you claim then the opposition of hatful speech is a civic duty. Otherwise it is simply laziness to declare that there are limits to free speech.

So John Locke, De Tocqueville and the rest were lazy in their writings on the subject of the limits and obligations of freedom in the world of insipid reactionary memes you keep mindlessly parroting.

I am a fool to respond to you again and I have been a fool to waste my time here. My apologies to all for my ill temper to all, but this venue is no longer healthy for me.

[Doc]

Freedom simply for the sake of freedom is without context or value; a degenerate, liberal Romantic position without any moral content. Such notions are no more than a debauching of cherished liberty into a license for mindless provocation and reaction. Being shot at, while an obvious criminal transgression of a civil society, does not ennoble fools.

I support the conservative sentiments, as written by John Locke in his Second Treatise on Government and actually the position of the American founders. The value and sacredness of freedom is in its elevation of the human spirit through choosing to fulfill accountability to a higher moral order and our duties to a civil community. It is not unrestrained autonomy. Liberty is sacred not through its exercise but through its accountability and embedded context. To elevate license for mindless bigots and buffoons as somehow reflective of true liberty is a vapid, dangerous, and fraudulent notion.

When you get to the point that someone gets to pick and choose what is free speech there is no free speech. If you want to elevate the conversation as you claim then the opposition of hatful speech is a civic duty. Otherwise it is simply laziness to declare that there are limits to free speech.

So John Locke, De Tocqueville and the rest were lazy in their writings on the subject of the limits and obligations of freedom in the world of insipid reactionary memes you keep mindlessly parroting.

I am a fool to respond to you again and I have been a fool to waste my time here. My apologies to all for my ill temper to all, but this venue is no longer healthy for me.

It is the reply to hatful speech that matters not the denial of its being spoken in the first place. People need to be made accountable for not with limits to free speech but more free speech rebutting it. Radical Islam only works in the absences of free speech. That is why for Example ISIS beheads journalists.

But since you brought it up your reactionary leanings a pretty apparent in this thread. So maybe it is not good for you on the one hand, but perhaps it is good for you to hear other points of view on the other. That is "insipidly" the way free speech works.

[Parodite]

Freedom of speech is a direct descendant and application of one of the OT ten commandments and core tenets of the NT:

Thou shallt not kill

Now in that holy space and playing field that sets the boundary... people have their own responsibility in speaking truth or lie, talking nice or nasty, accuse or forgive, create civil laws and courts to settle dispute in ways they feel is just.

Diverse, free and open societies where people live together of different faiths and cultural backgrounds and every Joe can express his opinion on a soap box.. obviously free speech has to be stretched and protected to the max, for the reason that I mentioned: different people are insulted by different things. One group can't be singled out and be protected by law against being insulted, while others remain freely exposed to the insulting whims of others having to thicken their skins, learn to shrug their shoulders. The right to not be insulted is for everybody... or for nobody. Diverse societies can't function if law should protect all people from all sort of insults. So what remains is that everybody is exposed to potential insult or "insult" from others, i.e. free speech for all has to rule.

[Simple Minded]

Freedom of speech is a direct descendant and application of one of the OT ten commandments and core tenets of the NT:

Thou shallt not kill

Now in that holy space and playing field that sets the boundary... people have their own responsibility in speaking truth or lie, talking nice or nasty, accuse or forgive, create civil laws and courts to settle dispute in ways they feel is just.

Diverse, free and open societies where people live together of different faiths and cultural backgrounds and every Joe can express his opinion on a soap box.. obviously free speech has to be stretched and protected to the max, for the reason that I mentioned: different people are insulted by different things. One group can't be singled out and be protected by law against being insulted, while others remain freely exposed to the insulting whims of others having to thicken their skins, learn to shrug their shoulders. The right to not be insulted is for everybody... or for nobody. Diverse societies can't function if law should protect all people from all sort of insults. So what remains is that everybody is exposed to potential insult or "insult" from others, i.e. free speech for all has to rule.

Amen Parodite.

Beauty, offense, insult.... all are always determined by the receiver, not the transmitter.

The right to free speech is easily attainable. The right not to be insulted is an impossible goal.

I miss the good ole days when those who were offended due to their "superior" sensibilities/sensitivities/tastes were told to "Quit your whining & Grow up!"

Amazes me to no end that some people become so narcissistic as to actually believe that everyone should agree with them. It seems a personal choice that has no benefit.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Freedom of speech is a direct descendant and application of one of the OT ten commandments and core tenets of the NT:

Thou shallt not kill

Now in that holy space and playing field that sets the boundary... people have their own responsibility in speaking truth or lie, talking nice or nasty, accuse or forgive, create civil laws and courts to settle dispute in ways they feel is just.

Diverse, free and open societies where people live together of different faiths and cultural backgrounds and every Joe can express his opinion on a soap box.. obviously free speech has to be stretched and protected to the max, for the reason that I mentioned: different people are insulted by different things. One group can't be singled out and be protected by law against being insulted, while others remain freely exposed to the insulting whims of others having to thicken their skins, learn to shrug their shoulders. The right to not be insulted is for everybody... or for nobody. Diverse societies can't function if law should protect all people from all sort of insults. So what remains is that everybody is exposed to potential insult or "insult" from others, i.e. free speech for all has to rule.

Yes, evil people have the right to free speech. Ms. Geller seems to have her heart set on becoming the Kim Kardashian of bigotry. She is a evil, repulsive, and self-aggrandizing person.

[Parodite]

Yes, evil people have the right to free speech. Ms. Geller seems to have her heart set on becoming the Kim Kardashian of bigotry. She is a evil, repulsive, and self-aggrandizing person.

People who don't kill, don't physically assault and just produce art or "art" like this:



Or this:



...are all good people. The rest is a matter of taste.

[Nonc Hilaire]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... isons.html

[Nonc Hilaire]

Yes, evil people have the right to free speech. Ms. Geller seems to have her heart set on becoming the Kim Kardashian of bigotry. She is a evil, repulsive, and self-aggrandizing person.

People who don't kill, don't physically assault and just produce art or "art" like this:



Or this:



...are all good people. The rest is a matter of taste.

Geller is not an artist. Note that she hasn't been banned in the US, only Britain. She is right up there with Westboro Baptist and David Duke as genuinely evil people who are obsessed with demonizing a particular subculture.

[Parodite]

Geller is not an artist.

Irrelevant.

Note that she hasn't been banned in the US, only Britain. She is right up there with Westboro Baptist and David Duke as genuinely evil people who are obsessed with demonizing a particular subculture.

We just seem to have a different value system. To me evil people murder people intentionally. Bad people don't want to kill.. but remove/restrict the rights of others to express their opinion, remove/restrict civil rights solely based on gender, religious affiliation, race, sexual preference etc...or deny immigrants right of entry based solely on same selection criteria.

Maybe Geller has political views that would made me label her as bad.. I don't know enough about what she wants. Wilders in my view is a bad bigot for that reason.. not because of his views re Islam.

As long as people just express their opinions and tastes without resorting to evil violence or a bad-bigoted political agenda.... I'm totally fine with them. I have in fact great respect for people who in spite of their demonizing views of entire groups of otherly others.. will not apply physical violence nor pursue a bad-bigoted political agenda because of it.

I have less respect for people whose response to evil killers is of type: "There is no excuse for killing others... but the killed person was an evil hatemongering bigot and had it coming.." It is the "but" there that is very bad.. even when only implicit.

[Doc]

Geller is not an artist.

Irrelevant.

Note that she hasn't been banned in the US, only Britain. She is right up there with Westboro Baptist and David Duke as genuinely evil people who are obsessed with demonizing a particular subculture.

We just seem to have a different value system. To me evil people murder people intentionally. Bad people don't want to kill.. but remove/restrict the rights of others to express their opinion, remove/restrict civil rights solely based on gender, religious affiliation, race, sexual preference etc...or deny immigrants right of entry based solely on same selection criteria.

Maybe Geller has political views that would made me label her as bad.. I don't know enough about what she wants. Wilders in my view is a bad bigot for that reason.. not because of his views re Islam.

As long as people just express their opinions and tastes without resorting to evil violence or a bad-bigoted political agenda.... I'm totally fine with them. I have in fact great respect for people who in spite of their demonizing views of entire groups of otherly others.. will not apply physical violence nor pursue a bad-bigoted political agenda because of it.

I have less respect for people whose response to evil killers is of type: "There is no excuse for killing others... but the killed person was an evil hatemongering bigot and had it coming.." It is the "but" there that is very bad.. even when only implicit.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/05/ ... -executed/

Muslim Leader: Geller Should be Tried and Executed


by Jeff Poor7 May 2015610

On Wednesday’s broadcast of Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” Sean Hannity hosted a debate between “Draw Mohammed” organizer Pamela Geller and London Imam Anjem Choudray over the events that unfolded in Garland, TX last weekend.

The debate deteriorated when Choudray insisted Geller’s involvement with the event that he argued “insulted Mohammed” warranted the death penalty as punishment.

Partial transcript as follows:

SEAN HANNITY: And welcome to “Hannity.” Radical jihadists tonight are calling for the head of Texas free speech event organizer Pamela Geller. A chilling on-line post reportedly written by an American jihadist warns that Geller cannot hide and that she will be killed for daring to hold a cartoon contest.

Now, the post also claims that ISIS has trained over 70 fighters in 15 states right here in America who are ready to react. And anyway, joining us now to respond to these new threats against her life, Pam Geller. Also with us, radical London imam — and that’s Anjem Choudary is back with us.

Pam, before I get to your side of the story, I want to remind people about Anjem. He’s been on the program before.

You want worldwide sharia, is that correct?

ANJEM CHOUDARY, LONDON IMAM: Of course. Yes. We believe that the whole world should be governed by divine law.

HANNITY: And you support the idea that women can’t drive, correct?

CHOUDARY: That’s a Saudi rule. Although women can drive, it’s up to the head of the Islamic State (ph) to decide…

HANNITY: And — and you believe that…

CHOUDARY: … how the rules of segregation should be applied.

HANNITY: … Muslims that leave their religion, apostates, should be killed.

CHOUDARY: Well, of course. The Prophet said whoever changes (ph), then kill him. So this is the (INAUDIBLE)

HANNITY: All right, and gays and lesbians should be killed. I’m just reminding my audience of your — and gays a lesbians, the penalty for that is death, correct?

CHOUDARY: You know, if they do that publicly and there are witnesses, it does carry capital punishment, yes, sir.

HANNITY: OK. Now, let me go to you, Pam. This is a serious threat. Basically, a fatwa, a death threat, has now been issued. Your reaction to that? Have you had any contact with the FBI?

PAMELA GELLER, PAMELAGELLER.COM: They have not contacted me, but of course, we’ve now increased my team. I have a team now, private security. And NYPD counterterror has been in touch with me.

HANNITY: In touch with you.

GELLER: And so — yes, we’ll all be…

HANNITY: Did you reach out to the FBI?

GELLER: I did.

HANNITY: And they — Homeland Security hasn’t gotten ahold of you? The FBI hasn’t gotten ahold of you?

GELLER: No. And this is interesting because this is a terrorist threat. And the FBI, President Obama should provide security. There’s just no question about it because he created an environment that raised the stakes on this.

If you recall, I had a free speech contest on September 11 of 2012. I had Lars Vilks, a cartoonist there. It was for freedom of speech. And the fact is, nobody tried to — nobody — nobody tried to attack it. Nobody reported on it. But that same day, the Cairo embassy was attacked. Benghazi was attacked. They flew the flag of jihad on top of the Cairo embassy and our U.S. embassy apologized!

HANNITY: Let me…

GELLER: They apologized for…

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: Let me go to Mr. Choudary. All right, all these incidents over a cartoon, Anjem — all these incidents over a cartoon — do you support this death threat against Pam Geller because she ran a free speech contest drawing cartoons of your prophet?

CHOUDARY: Let’s be absolutely clear. We’re not talking about Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck. You’re talking about people who deliberately had a competition to insult the messenger…

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: To make cartoons.

(CROSSTALK)

CHOUDARY: If you saw the cartoons — just bear with me, Sean. If you saw the cartoons that Charlie Hebdo drew, you would understand the anger. Now this woman wants to draw cartoons or have people draw cartoons to insult the Prophet, knowing full well that this carries the death penalty in Islam. So definitely…

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: You support the death penalty for Pam Geller…

CHOUDARY: … security on the day (ph).

HANNITY: … who doesn’t — who’s not — is not Muslim. You support the death penalty because she had a cartoon contest. Is that how — is that how frail you are in your faith that you feel so insecure that you cannot…

CHOUDARY: You know, it’s not about it.

HANNITY: … your prophet…

CHOUDARY: It’s not about it, it’s about the divine law.

HANNITY: Your prophet cannot withstand…

CHOUDARY: Whoever insults the messenger…

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: … a cartoon being drawn about him?

CHOUDARY: That will carry capital punishment, Sean.

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: You support the death threat. You want to kill her!

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: You want her to die!

CHOUDARY: You know what? She should be put before a Sharia court and tried and…

HANNITY: She’s not a Muslim!

(CROSSTALK)

CHOUDARY: … of course, she will face capital punishment.

HANNITY: She’s not a Muslim, Anjem. She’s not a Muslim! She doesn’t believe what you believe.

CHOUDARY: She should have thought of that before…

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: … liberty and freedom and freedom of speech!

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: You want to oppress her over a cartoon!

CHOUDARY: … and Salman Rushdie and Hirsi Ali. You cannot continue to go down this road and expect the Muslims to stand back. You know, I would retaliate if somebody insulted my own mother, let alone the Prophet, who I adhere, and you know, I love a hundred times more than my own family.

HANNITY: So if anybody says anything…

(CROSSTALK)

CHOUDARY: … if someone attacked his mother. What about the Prophet?

HANNITY: If somebody says something about your prophet that you don’t like, you want them dead!

CHOUDARY: Any prophet.

HANNITY: Your prophet.

CHOUDARY: (INAUDIBLE) that about Jesus or Moses or Abraham or…

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: I didn’t anybody…

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: Wait a minute!

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: … a crucifix submerged in urine, and I didn’t hear you or any other Muslim say that this person ought to get the death penalty, Andres Serrano. There was an elephant dung thrown on a picture of the Virgin Mary.

CHOUDARY: You know, Sean…

HANNITY: I didn’t hear you or any other Muslim…

CHOUDARY: Let me tell you something…

HANNITY: … condemn that or threaten death there!

CHOUDARY: In this country, they depicted (INAUDIBLE) Jesus as a homosexual. That was Corpus Christie…

HANNITY: And you support the death of them, too.

(CROSSTALK)

CHOUDARY: … and we had a demonstration. And Christians were coming to us and saying, you know, We should have been out there.

HANNITY: All right…

CHOUDARY: So we always raise our voice, no matter which prophet of Allah, you know, has been attacked. And what I would say to you…

GELLER: Here’s the key difference…

(CROSSTALK)

CHOUDARY: … instead of insulting the prophets, why don’t you follow them? Why don’t you abide by what they say?

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: Because they don’t agree with you!

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: We don’t live under your oppressive sharia law!

GELLER: Here’s the key…

CHOUDARY: You will do one day, Sean…

HANNITY: God forbid!

(CROSSTALK)

GELLER: Here’s the key and critical difference. Canon law pertains to Catholics. Jewish law pertains only to Jews. But the sharia, which is a — dictates every basic aspect of human life, asserts its authority…

(CROSSTALK)

GELLER: … over non-Muslims…

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: Let her finish. Anjem…

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: Anjem, let — one at a time.

GELLER: The sharia asserts…

HANNITY: Pam.

GELLER: The sharia asserts its authority over non-Muslims, unlike Jewish law and unlike canon law, which is why the — under the sharia, they’re slaughtering Christians, they’re slaughtering secular Muslims across Africa and across the Muslim world.

That fact is, in that fatwa that was issued against me — my name is preceded by “conzeir (ph).” Now, conzeir means pig. It’s the word Mohammed used before he slaughtered how many — I should — beheaded hundreds of Jews. So to first say to the liberal media that this is not religious is absurd and obscene on its face!

To blame me and say that my cartoons are controversial — excuse me, murdering cartoons — murdering cartoonists is controversial. And it is the jihadis that made this last point, not me. And does anyone really think that these jihadis would have just been peaceful, loving Americans?

CHOUDARY: OK, can I come back…

GELLER: Of course they wouldn’t! I submit to you that…

CHOUDARY: First of all — first of all…

(CROSSTALK)

GELLER: No, I’m talking, sir. I know you’re used to stepping over women, but you’re not going to have it here, OK? My conference saved lives because I understand the threat and we had enormous protection, and the Garland police were superb.

But those jihadists drove a thousand miles for this conference. Would they have hit a mall? Would they have hit a coffee shop like in Australia?

HANNITY: Or kids.

GELLER: Or — that conference saved lives, and shame on the cowardly media!

HANNITY: All right, let’s go back to the imam. Go ahead.

CHOUDARY: Pamela, first of all, the word “conzier” I think is too good for you in the first place, you know? A least a conzier worships Allah. The fact is that you insulted the Prophet Mohammed (INAUDIBLE) and obviously, you knew the consequences. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have…

(CROSSTALK)

GELLER: What do you mean I knew the consequences? I live in America!

(CROSSTALK)

GELLER: I live in America!

CHOUDARY: You talk about murdering innocent people…

GELLER: There are no consequences!

CHOUDARY: The United States of America are the champions of murdering innocent people!

GELLER: The champions of freedom, sir!

(CROSSTALK)

GELLER: You can’t take it. Look how you want to kill people.

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: All right…

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: Excuse me!

CHOUDARY: … Americans are occupying Muslim lands!

HANNITY: Mr. Choudary — Choudary —

CHOUDARY: They are the ones who killed up to a million people…

HANNITY: Anjem!

CHOUDARY: … in Iraq and Afghanistan…

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: One at a time. Anjem…

CHOUDARY: … Americans and others insult…

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: Let me ask you a question. We have watched — in the name of your religion, your so-called prophet, we have seen people’s heads cut off. We have seen girls kidnapped. We have seen girls raped. We have seen girls thrown into slavery and impregnated by radicals in the name of your religion!

Is this the prophet that you praise so much? Is that — is that Islam to you?

CHOUDARY: You know, Sean…

HANNITY: Excuse me!

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: Answer that question! Is that Islam to you? Is that Islam to you?

CHOUDARY: (INAUDIBLE)

HANNITY: Excuse me! I have…

CHOUDARY: Nobody is being raped!

HANNITY: I have the images…

CHOUDARY: No women are being killed…

HANNITY: … of Coptic Christians on a beach…

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: … beheaded in the name of Allah!

CHOUDARY: (INAUDIBLE) You’re the one who believe in pornography! You’re the one who put the naked women…

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: So if you disagree with pornography, you’re going to cut somebody’s head off?

CHOUDARY: I’m sorry, Sean, you’ve living in a cloud cuckoo-land. (INAUDIBLE) FOX News…

HANNITY: I’m living in cuckoo-land?

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: And you rape young girls and kidnap young girls in the name of Boko Haram and…

(CROSSTALK)

CHOUDARY: No women are being raped! The only women being raped…

HANNITY: Excuse me! Those girls got…

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: Nigeria — excuse me! They’re pregnant! And they were raped after they were kidnapped and taken away from…

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: … terror all over the world in the name of Islam, in the name of your prophet!

CHOUDARY: … -the Nigerian regime by Badluck (sic), you know, Jonathan, and his own successor, not by the Muslims.

HANNITY: You’re pathetic!

CHOUDARY: We are the ones who are defending ourselves…

HANNITY: You’re just pathetic.

CHOUDARY: … Sean. Wake up.

HANNITY: You’re just pathetic.

CHOUDARY: We defend ourselves in Syria and Iraq and Chechnya…

HANNITY: You’re evil and pathetic.

CHOUDARY: … in India, in Kashmir.

HANNITY: All right, we got to go.

CHOUDARY: We are defending ourselves. Sean, wake up!

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: Thank you. Pam, we’ll give you the last word.

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: Hang on.

CHOUDARY: … woman on your show…

HANNITY: We’ll give you…

CHOUDARY: … to talks…

HANNITY: Excuse me. You have to be quiet. There’s another person here.

GELLER: Roman Catholics don’t like when their religion is mocked, but no one talks about provoking them. Christians don’t like it. Jews don’t like it. But this is what it takes to live in a pluralistic society. You have the right to offend and be offended.

HANNITY: You know, every time I put Anjem on — let me tell you something. People will complain that we put him on. This is the problem. He believes this.

GELLER: A lot of people do.

HANNITY: And a lot of people believe this! And there’s a lot of terror in the name of Islam, in the name of the prophet that is happening. And you know what? People ought not get killed over a cartoon! And that’s what’s happening.

GELLER: But why don’t we expect that from the Muslim world? We all understand that there’s a right to offend. You know, they don’t like — the Christ on the cross and a jar of urine or the elephant dung. We didn’t like it. We didn’t kill anybody. There are Holocaust denial cartoon conferences. The Jews didn’t kill anybody. What is this — the low expectation of soft bigotry! Why don’t we expect that from the Muslim world?

HANNITY: In that sense, it’s almost condescending that we would expect less.

GELLER: That’s exactly right.

[Demon of Undoing]

I approach this from a different angle.

Anybody that would kill someone over what they are thinking or saying is a cancer on humanity. That kind of forced tyranny is one of the things that makes Ultron want to destroy the planet.

Whatever it is that draws out people of that mind, do it. And then they get what they give. I like it like that.

[Typhoon]

Good to hear from you again, DoU.

[Doc]

How is it going DoU?

I approach this from a different angle.

Anybody that would kill someone over what they are thinking or saying is a cancer on humanity. That kind of forced tyranny is one of the things that makes Ultron want to destroy the planet.

Whatever it is that draws out people of that mind, do it. And then they get what they give. I like it like that.

Yeah sometimes you have to give the tree a good shake.

Counterterrorism Officials on Garland Shooters: ‘Hundreds if Not Thousands’ like Them

by Jordan Schachtel7 May 2015Washington, D.C.652

FBI and intelligence community officials are openly admitting how difficult it has become to track the thousands of potential American jihadists on social media.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), who serves as chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a recent hearing that there are “thousands” of people living in the U.S. who have promoted extremist groups, such as the Islamic State, on social media pages, the Associated Press reports.

The new concerns about tracking social media stem from a Sunday jihadist attack at a “Draw Muhammad” free speech event in Garland, Texas, where two gunmen armed with AK47s attempted to commit mass murder against the event’s attendees. Luckily, a skilled security officer neutralized the two men, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, before they could do any real harm.

There are “hundreds, if not thousands,” of people like Simpson and Soofi whom the intelligence community are attempting to track, explained Don Borelli, a 25-year veteran in FBI terrorism investigations, to an Arizona NBC affiliate.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the intelligence community has opened up an investigation into the Islamic State’s claim that it ordered the attack.

“This is consistent with what has been previously described as a lone-wolf attack,” Earnest told reporters. “Essentially you have two individuals that don’t appear to be part of a broader conspiracy, and identifying those individuals and keeping tabs on them is difficult work,” he added.

The Islamic State appears to have endorsed plots against the U.S. on a much smaller scale than Americans are used to. When we think of jihadi attacks in America, explains the AP, most think of the mass casualty attacks carried out by al-Qaeda.

“If you can get your hands on a weapon, how is the state security apparatus supposed to find you?” Will McCants of the Brookings Institute told the AP. “It’s attractive because it gets just as much attention as a small-to mid-size bomb.”

William Branniff of the terrorism research center at the University of Maryland added:


Where is the threshold of saying this is more than just an avid consumer of propaganda? It’s exceptionally difficult to estimate of the number of people who’ve considered becoming foreign fighters. Often you’re not dealing with specific behaviors, but with expressions of belief, which are constitutionally protected.

U.S. officials believe around 180 Americans have left the country to fight for what they perceive as Islamic holy wars in Iraq and Syria. The Islamic State has successfully recruited a plethora of American recruits, unlike some of their Sunni rivals.

“What is new is the level of excitement among extremists,” David Benjamin, former coordinator of counterterrorism at the State Department, told the AP. “The feeling is that ISIS has done what [al-Qaeda] couldn’t – it has held territory, it has damaged armies much larger than it is.”

http://www.breitbart.com/national-secur ... like-them/

[noddy]

I approach this from a different angle.

Anybody that would kill someone over what they are thinking or saying is a cancer on humanity. That kind of forced tyranny is one of the things that makes Ultron want to destroy the planet.

Whatever it is that draws out people of that mind, do it. And then they get what they give. I like it like that.

good to know your still alive and kicking.

[Demon of Undoing]

Oh, you know. The vicissitudes of life and whatnot.

Typhoon-sama, I am glad to "see" you. All of you, in fact.

Except that noddy bastard. He owes me money.