• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Here we go: McClatchy suggests limits on free speech after Texas jihad shooting

May 4, 2015 10:12 pm By Robert Spencer

You knew this was coming. It was inevitable. We have seen it before.

When the Obama Administration blamed the Benghazi jihad attack on a video about Muhammad, there were calls in the mainstream media for restrictions on the freedom of speech. Eric Posner in Slate derided the First Amendment’s “sacred status” and declared that “Americans need to learn that the rest of the world—and not just Muslims—see no sense in the First Amendment. Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order.”

In the Los Angeles Times, Sarah Chayes noted that “the current standard for restricting speech — or punishing it after it has in fact caused violence — was laid out in the 1969 case Brandenburg vs. Ohio. Under the narrower guidelines, only speech that has the intent and the likelihood of inciting imminent violence or lawbreaking can be limited.” She then argued at length that the Muhammad video did indeed have the likelihood of inciting imminent violence, and should thus be banned. Her article was a sleazy and dishonest sleight of hand, as the law is that speech that calls for violence can be banned, whereas she was arguing that speech that doesn’t call for violence, but that might make people who oppose it behave violently, should be banned. That would be to enshrine the heckler’s veto into law and to enable Islamic jihadis to silence anyone they disliked simply by killing someone.

And in the Washington Post, the vile gutter thug Nathan Lean (who has repeatedly published on Twitter what he thinks is my home address and places I frequent, in a transparent attempt to endanger me and those around me, and/or to frighten me into silence) declared: “The voices of hate that hope to fracture our society along religious lines should have no place in our public discourse.” Who would decide which are the “voices of hate” that should be silenced? People like Nathan Lean, of course – that is, purveyors of the “Islamophobia” myth who are determined to silence anyone and everyone who dares raise the slightest objection to the advancing jihad.

And now, Lindsay Wise and Jonathan S. Landay of McClatchy wish that Pamela Geller and I could be prosecuted for standing for free speech against violent intimidation, and describe completely wrongly the concept of “fighting words,” which is actually about words spoken in an actual fight situation, not about an innocuous activity that others find so provocative as to commit murder.

The free world is going quietly.

“After Texas shooting: If free speech is provocative, should there be limits?,” by Lindsay Wise and Jonathan S. Landay, McClatchy, May 4, 2015 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):

WASHINGTON — Organizers of the Muhammad Art Exhibit in Garland, Texas, knew violence was a possibility.

They shelled out $10,000 for extra security to patrol the controversial event, which featured a speech by a Dutch politician who’s on al Qaida’s “hit list” and a contest for the best cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad. Local law enforcement was on the alert. A SWAT team and a bomb squad patrolled.

The two gunmen who opened fire with assault weapons outside the exhibit on Sunday were killed by a police officer. They have been identified by law enforcement as Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, both of Phoenix. They appear, from social media posts, to have been motivated by a desire to become mujahedeen, or holy warriors.

The attack highlights the tensions between protecting Americans’ treasured right to freedom of expression and preserving public safety, and it raises questions about when – if ever – government should intervene.

There are two exceptions from the constitutional right to free speech – defamation and the doctrine of “fighting words” or “incitement,” said John Szmer, an associate professor of political science and a constitutional law expert at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

“Fighting words is the idea that you are saying something that is so offensive that it will lead to an immediate breach of the peace,” Szmer explained. “In other words, you are saying something and you should expect a violent reaction by other people.”

The exhibit of cartoons in Texas might have crossed the line, Szmer said.

“I don’t think it is unreasonable to expect what they were doing would incite a violent reaction,” he said.

Organizers knew, he said, that caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, which many Muslims consider insulting, have sparked violence before. In a recent case that drew worldwide attention, gunmen claiming allegiance with the self-described Islamic State killed 12 people in an attack on the Paris offices of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, which was known for satirical depictions of the Prophet Muhammad.

On the other hand, “fighting words can contradict the basic values that underlie freedom of speech,” Szmer said. “The views being expressed at the conference could be seen as social commentary. Political and social speech should be protected. You are arguably talking about social commentary.”

It’s unlikely that the issue will be tested in the Garland case, however, because prosecutors in Texas almost certainly won’t press charges against the conference organizers, he said.

The anti-Islam group that organized the art exhibit and contest in Garland is the American Freedom Defense Initiative, whose mission is the preservation “of freedom of speech, freedom of religion and equal rights for all,” according to its Facebook page….

The gunmen’s violent actions will end up drawing undeserved attention to the hateful message spread by Geller’s group, said David Schanzer, a professor at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy and director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security.

“Any efforts to censor them or restrict their rights will just play into their agenda, which is to antagonize and spread a pretty vile message,” Schanzer said.

What exactly is vile about standing up for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law, Schanzer? You’re just libeling, not giving a reasoned argument.

The best way to fight against people you disagree with is to confront their ideas, he said.

“I think their ideas are both wrong and actually makes problems worse through their actions,” Schanzer said. Echoing Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis’ well-known sentiment from 1927, he added: “I say we go against them by fighting speech with more speech.”…

This is rich. I have offered to have a public discussion or debate with virtually every significant Muslim leader on the scene. They have all contemptuously refused. They don’t want to fight speech with more speech. They don’t want to confront our ideas. They want to smear us, defame us, marginalize us, and destroy us utterly. That is how the Left and the Islamic supremacists work these days.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: American Freedom Defense Initiative, Featured, free speech, Muhammad cartoons Tagged With: Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. jihad3tracker says

    May 4, 2015 at 10:37 pm

    “YOU KNEW THIS WAS COMING” —- As usual, Robert Spencer nails the cowards privilege-guilt reaction perfectly.

    For all readers & commenters : let us make an un-revocable promise to email AT LEAST THREE of our local TV stations OR newspaper editors OR clueless media bloviators.

    Give them the TRUTH about what happened in Garland — It was NOT an anti-Muslim event, but actually a pushback against Islamic supremacist fascism.

    • terry says

      May 4, 2015 at 11:23 pm

      As if you were reading my mind! Today, I already started trying contacting a broadcaster where I live, as they were using, as usual, totally misleading words about the event and its organizers, such as “anti Islam” and “provoking”.

      This is our fight, all of us, not just Pamela, Robert and Geert. In fact it should have been the fight of every freedom loving human being living on this planet, that which unfortunately is not actually the case!

      Now on a different line of thought, Lindsay Wise and Jonathan S. Landay, are but a very small sample of the current enormous crop of people, western university education system is producing these days. I know that because I heard and still hear all time, the same argument they are using above or variants of it.

      As soon as I start talking to them about any point related to this subject, it becomes clear how confused they are in their application, interpretation of western values especially when it comes to Islam, and how much lacking they are in their knowledge about Judaism, Christianity and Islam and their respective histories, many times reversing the true nature of the former two with the later, third one.

      I think the whole western education system should be revised, its current model, regarding many of its aspects and knowledge, changed and/or improved.

  2. Rev. Albert W. Kovacs - UCC says

    May 4, 2015 at 10:39 pm

    It was because America’s Founding Fathers knew first hand the oppression of freedom by limiting speech that they wrote into the Constitution the First Amendment. By limiting it, Hitler and Stalin ran roughshod over all the other rights – freedom of religion, etc. Islam would make Orwell’s “i984” kiddie stuff if they get the chance. We have been blessed to live in a land where we have not known this shackle – which in Islam also prohibits humor. music, dancing, etc. – but allows abuse of women, rape of little girls and captive men, and slavery. Who needs that? … and shouldn’t somebody say something? Of course!!!

  3. Gary says

    May 4, 2015 at 10:52 pm

    “Muslims built the very fabric of our nation.” President Obama

    No Mr. President. Muslims want to destroy the very fabric of our nation. Silencing free speech is just the beginning of their… “Jihad by the word.”

    Wake up American. There will be no peace with these barbarians.

    • terry says

      May 6, 2015 at 2:53 pm

      Right on, Gary! I was deceived big time by this man, when I supported him for president, in 2008.

  4. jihad3tracker says

    May 4, 2015 at 10:52 pm

    Here is a link to the McClatchy article : http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/05/04/265537/after-texas-shooting-if-free-speech.html

    In your email to clueless tag team reporters Lindsay Wise & Jonathan Landay, remind them that Shariah permits NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

    So — uh duh jeezus — they would be KILLED for writing anything critical of Allah’s worldwide slaughter of Infidels.

  5. awake says

    May 4, 2015 at 10:55 pm

    What? Bosch won the contest? The fix was definitely in. Everyone knows the best drawing was the two chalk lines drawn out front.

    • diumbledoresarmy says

      May 5, 2015 at 6:42 am

      Over at the Daily Mail comments stream, I came across a *lot* of people expressing much the same opinion re what they thought was the winning artwork, to wit, those two chalk outlines on the pavement.

  6. R Cole says

    May 4, 2015 at 10:55 pm

    See, the CNN stitch up a minute ago.

    Southern Poverty Law Center – connecting Geller and Spencer to Brevik – careful to leave out that in Brevik’s own statement – that he took inspiration for violence from Al Qaeda.

    All roads lead back to Islam – at the moment.

    And clearly that’s an uncomfortable reality for some!

  7. Mickey Bernard says

    May 4, 2015 at 10:55 pm

    I am angry that Islam’s insistence on denying free speech is forcing peaceful men and women to fight.
    That was the single-most important point made to me during Sunday night’s event. I am sorry it is going that way. I don’t want to fight, but I will. The intellectual war that Robert and Pamela and Geert are fighting is so crucial. If we can win with ideas and reason, then there will be no need to come to blows. But how do we reason with the unreasonable?

    • terry says

      May 5, 2015 at 5:38 pm

      Wow, Very clearly and elegantly articulated!! I feel the same.

  8. Donovan Nuera says

    May 4, 2015 at 10:56 pm

    I wonder if the authors of the pathetic linked article would also ban fans at NFL/MLB/NBA and college athletic contests from shouting epithets and snarks at the opposing team??? I doubt I will ever see these authors ever write a critique about some TV show skit or movie that made fun of Catholics any time soon. Do these idiots know that Mr. Wilders is under 24 hour police protection and cannot live in peace in his own country as an elected representative because of officially sanctioned death threats from an organization that he has critiqued. The fact that these American journalists have no idea why they have certain rights like in no other country on earth is astonishing….but not suprising.

  9. Sam says

    May 4, 2015 at 10:59 pm

    I am asking my reps from Ohio what they are doing to protevt the freedom of speech.

    • Islam_Is_Islam says

      May 5, 2015 at 12:05 am

      Sam, I called all of mine after I saw your suggestion. The interns at their offices that I spoke to hadn’t yet heard about the shooting. I asked them to find out how my reps intend to protect my freedom of speech and ended with what Ms. Geller has said many times, “If you want to know who is in control, find out who you can’t criticize.”

      Now I am looking for articles like the one at McClatchy’s to comment on. Any other ideas?

  10. Donovan Nuera says

    May 4, 2015 at 11:00 pm

    The next question is: when is the next contest??!! I imagine it should stay in Texas for now as we would not have that kind of protection in California.

    • EYESOPEN says

      May 4, 2015 at 11:06 pm

      But I have it on good info that there are many current/former Green Berets in Arizona who would be more than happy to provide security for such an event – for free!

  11. EYESOPEN says

    May 4, 2015 at 11:03 pm

    These sorry excuses for “journalists” can all go to hell in a hand basket! I certainly didn’t hear them decrying “Piss Christ”, or any one of the myriad TV shows that falsely stereotype Christians as either wacked-out nutcases and/or pedophiles.

    No. Pamela, Robert and Geert Wilders were very much needed to make the point that if there is no freedom of speech – including the freedom to fight izlamic “jihad” (stealth or otherwise) – then you are no longer a free society. (Frankly, I think that we haven’t been a free society for quite awhile; but that’s another story.)

    BIG “THANK YOUs” to Pamela, Robert, Geert, and everyone that showed up and/or sent in a drawing!!!

    “Submission” my butt! When hell freezes over you cretins! (And I’m including the pseudo-journalists in that comment.)

  12. Law guy says

    May 4, 2015 at 11:07 pm

    Anyone who cites the Supreme Court case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) as limiting the free speech in the Garland case is demonstrating an abject ignorance of law and well as a dangerous advocacy.

  13. Dave J says

    May 4, 2015 at 11:08 pm

    It’s Offend-a-Muslim Day, every day from now on.

    And it’s easy, cause they’re so “sensitive”.!

    F those barbarians, the world would be a better place without any of them. They make my skin crawl.

  14. jdkoops says

    May 4, 2015 at 11:16 pm

    Lol@ gutter thug

    ROBERT, are you serious!?
    “Nathan Lean (who has repeatedly published on Twitter what he thinks is my home address and places I frequent”

    This NL guy is a real dbag.

  15. Tjay says

    May 4, 2015 at 11:21 pm

    ‘“Fighting words is the idea that you are saying something that is so offensive that it will lead to an immediate breach of the peace,” Szmer explained. “In other words, you are saying something and you should expect a violent reaction by other people.”’

    There seems to be a difference between saying something that leads to a violence against yourself and saying something that leads to violence against others.

  16. Bezelel says

    May 4, 2015 at 11:36 pm

    They are operating on the,Might Makes Right, standard. The savages who are already predisposed to use force on their own terms of justification, are provoking civilization into an appeasement response. It’s working for them. That has to stop.

  17. somehistory says

    May 4, 2015 at 11:37 pm

    So many don’t really understand why we need freedom to speak. To speak is to spread ideas and information, to share thoughts, to instruct.
    With freedom of speech, If someone says something we don’t like, we are free not to listen. Without freedom of speech, then freedom not to listen goes away too. If only those ideas and expressions that are allowed by government are spoken, then it will become impossible not to listen and conform to those ideas, even if they are wrong or destructive.
    In lands where only islam is allowed to be taught as *faith* and no one can speak the truth of what islam is, there is no choice as to what to believe or even, to not listen to those in positions of power.

    If speech is limited, then so is thought and reasoning. If the population is not allowed to hear the truth about islam for *fear* of offending, then those who don’t yet know just what islam is and from where it came will never know. Those on the outside of the cult need to know so they can be informed and avoid falling victim to the propaganda spouted by the clerics and imams and the likes of cair.
    And those on the inside who wish to be free, never can be if the truth is muffled because muslims will be offended and strike out at those telling the truth.
    But, modern day *writers* and those in universities, for the most part, don’t really understand that if speech is limited, then so are thoughts and ideas and especially in this case, truth.

    The devil had Jesus Christ silenced because Christ told the truth about him. Adherents of islam and their supporters want to silence all who tell the truth about satan’s worship and many are willing to kill to see that the truth is silenced. Others attempt it through media and law.

    • David says

      May 5, 2015 at 12:44 am

      Very well put, somehistory.

  18. Westman says

    May 4, 2015 at 11:37 pm

    David Schanzer, a professor at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy and director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security – either another lazy leftist who hasn’t taken the time to read the Islamic Doctrine and the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence and discover that there are moderate Muslims but no moderate Islam, or, another appeaser.The Islam ideology is not moderate and is a Chameleon Theology that covers everything from dividing the spoils of war to the treatment of sex slaves.

    A challenge to Dr. Shanzer. What is the penalty for leaving the Islamic religion? Go ahead, cite some Islamic opinions but don’t forget Al-Azhar and Qom University scholars. And please, leave out the liars at CAIR, designated by UAE as a terrorist-connected organization. Also, cite some polls of European and American Muslim attitudes about Jews. Perhaps cite a few lines of the Hamas Charter. Or better yet, cite some Islamic eschatology about the final state of the Jews.

    The real problem is that Islamic Ideology does allow violence against unbelievers, death to opposers, and we all know it. Go read the Yahoo Jihad stories, which have nothing to do with Jihad Watch, and read the comments. They are mostly from young people and they do not support the notion that Islam is peaceful. There appears to be a serious split on the question of Israel, but there is no ambiguity about what Americans think of Islamic Doctrine.

    Even the leftist Dhimmis who say, “you shouldn’t do that, you’ll get a violent response” are talking with a forked tongue; claiming on one hand that Islam means Peace, and on the other, saying Islam will respond to images or criticism with Violence. They look at a hornet’s nest and say, “how peaceful” and softly slink away, as the cowards they are.

    • The Doctor says

      May 5, 2015 at 9:41 am

      That’s pretty rich that CAIR are considered a terrorist organisation by an ISLAMIC COUNTRY.

  19. mortimer says

    May 4, 2015 at 11:59 pm

    The David Schanzers are the problem in the West. They benefit from free speech, take it for granted while calling for the restriction of all speech that is not their own.

    The David Schanzers are very thinly disguised fascists.

  20. Ramon says

    May 5, 2015 at 12:04 am

    Poor Muslims, how could they all have been duped into this Islamic nonsense..?

    If there wasn’t a death penalty for apostates, half would leave within the year…first to go will be the women…then the gays, then the students, then those would like to have a future, and a life…!

  21. mortimer says

    May 5, 2015 at 12:10 am

    I doubt David Schanzer has read any of the material on which he pontificates.

    He is a fraud. Sharia law is the matter of importance here. Sharia law is based on the practice of Mohammed. Sharia law commands all Muslims to murder blasphemers and apostates. That is what we are discussing. David Schanzer has the foggiest about that.

    David Schanzer should read the Sira, the Koran, the hadiths and a manual of Sharia law before commenting on matters that are completely beyond his acquaintance.

    He use the authority of his pulpit to purport to know that of which has the foggiest idea. This irresponsible and unscholarly. For those reasons, David Schanzer is a complete fraud on the subject of Islam. He is a teacher who hasn’t done his homework and a cultural Marxist with an agenda defending the terrorists.

    • mortimer says

      May 5, 2015 at 12:12 am

      He uses the authority of his pulpit to purport to know that of which hasn’t the foggiest idea.

  22. Tim says

    May 5, 2015 at 12:13 am

    Fools like the group at McClatchy’s think there should be restrictions when those restrictions apply to someone else. What none of them seem to think of is that the bottomless Muslim anger is not only directed at free speech. Lindsay Wise, for example, should learn to dress a new way because her clothes will be offensive to Muslims. That demand will soon come from them too after they conquer speech. And those gays any of them may know or be at McClatchy’s have to stop being gay, because that’s offending them too. Men must stop mingling in the same room as women and vice versa, for that would be offensive to Muslims too and it’s definietly disrespectful to their so called religion. And god forbid should a woman or man shake hands or women try and be on equal terms with the men – that would be really offensive.
    So where exactly do they wish to begin?

  23. Wellington says

    May 5, 2015 at 12:15 am

    Compliant dhimmis here, compliant dhimmis there, seems there are compliant dhimmis most everywhere today. They are a shameful lot of useful idiots who are hypocrites to boot because none of them would raise any protest if it were Christians or Jesus being mocked. The play, The Book of Mormon, is a total mockery of Mormons. Have any of these hypocritical fools objected to this play running on Broadway and elsewhere? Of course not. In fact, they wouldn’t protest Mohammed or Islam being mocked IF Muslims didn’t threaten harm for doing so and acted as those of other faiths do when their religion of choice is ridiculed.

    So, they are afraid and they are hiding behind their fear with excuses masquerading as arguments which are an insult to liberty and the First Amendment to the Constitution. What wusses. What fools. What hypocrites.

  24. mortimer says

    May 5, 2015 at 12:24 am

    David Schanzer said: “I say we go against them by fighting speech with more speech.”…

    That sounds like he accepts the challenge to debate Robert Spencer to PROVE HIM WRONG!

    However, David Schanzer students all know he is too much a coward to debate Spencer. Schanzer hasn’t read the source texts of Islam or Sharia law, so SPENCER WOULD BEAT HIM LIKE A DRUM in debate.

    A cowardly fraud. He calls for silencing Spencer AND debating him at the same time.

    Which is it, you fraud?

  25. Matthieu Baudin says

    May 5, 2015 at 12:29 am

    Perhaps Wise and Landay could hold a competition of their own to demonstrate commitment to principles of one kind or another. Something lukewarm, requiring no real thought or courage and guaranteed not to draw a crowd. Just the sort of moral leadership we need while ISIS and their allies feed innocents through the grinder and shove socks into our mouths.

    • Karen says

      May 5, 2015 at 1:45 am

      Yes, something that expresses no opinions, draws no conclusions, expresses no preferences, lauds no principles, and equates all worldviews as equally just. (Except traditional Western ones, of course.)

  26. Artie Galvin says

    May 5, 2015 at 12:35 am

    “I think their ideas are both wrong and actually makes problems worse through their actions,”. He thinks? Who cares what he thinks. What he “thinks” is only his opinion and a disposable opinion at that. There was no libel spoken at this conference. I watched the entire video from beginning to end. There were only facts stated by all participants. Maybe people didn’t like that fact? Well, that’s just too bad. Facts are NOT hate speech. The sooner the “left” understands this the happier the world will be.

  27. Smart Guy says

    May 5, 2015 at 12:36 am

    The Frankfurt school of Marxism is “Multiculturalism” the “Culture” of “Multiculturalism”
    is violence and bullying. Surrendering to “Multiculturalism” means the end of Civilization.

    • Matthieu Baudin says

      May 5, 2015 at 1:16 am

      Yes Smart Guy, todays equivalent of the (1930’s) Brownshirts have taken over at the helm to bludgeon any opposition.

  28. Champ says

    May 5, 2015 at 12:39 am

    Pinch myself! Am I dreaming? ..no, this is a living nightmare where right is wrong, and wrong is right — and, OH, where a heinous criminal has become a prophet of GOD, no less, and people are willing to murder defending this evil perp. Ok things have gotten preeeeetty screwy!

    • No Fear says

      May 5, 2015 at 3:12 am

      Christianity. love it or not, has a “perfect man” as a role model. It sets a ridiulously high standard of behaviour which most people can not acheive.

      Islam has a gangster thief pedophile and killer of Jews as a role model. Fortunately most muslims are better than Mohammed.

      • roger woodhouse says

        May 5, 2015 at 6:21 am

        Islam has its roots in ‘violence’ and was spread by the sword. To this very day this vile cult is being spread by the uise of extreme violence and intimidation. Its very own ‘book’ promotes the use of extreme violence to any who oppose Islam.How then can the free Christian peoples of the West not oppose Islam in any form of action . Speaking out and exposing this political organisation posing as a religion is the very least we must do

        • Darren says

          May 5, 2015 at 9:50 am

          What the idiots on the left fail to realize is the more they kowtow to islam the more they encourage terrorist acts. Think of it from a military perspective. You are engaging in a tactic for a specific purpose. I always thought engaging in random acts of violence would hurt an agenda or cause, but apparently in this specific case they seem to be having a positive effect at least in regards to the islamist agenda.

          So they limit free speech next, then enact hate speech laws hoping to appease these mad dogs. Eventually even talking about the negative aspects of this cult will be outlawed since it might incite hatred. Europe is well on the road to this. So if you can’t even discuss the problem how are you supposed to solve it?

  29. JamesonRocks says

    May 5, 2015 at 12:56 am

    I keep a copy of the U.S. Constitution on my coffee table, one in my car, and one at the parish… God bless and protect our freedom of speech!

    • particolor says

      May 5, 2015 at 4:22 am

      Until the Muzzo’s arrive in their Wooden Horse !! 🙁

  30. Karen says

    May 5, 2015 at 1:09 am

    Westman is right in using the word “lazy”; it’s so much easier to go after unarmed, law-abiding people like cartoonists, event organizers, bloggers/writers, etc., than shady entities like CAIR (sorry, I meant to say ‘scum’), or those plotting terror, or to stand up for something like free speech (why, you might have to go on the record with an actual opinion.) Or if you reluctantly side with free speech, you make sure you hold your nose about how ‘offensive’ the people you are siding with are.

    After the Oklahoma City bombing, many people blamed the fertilizer companies instead of Timothy McVeigh. It’s just easier than understanding a complex issue, and seems to solve the whole thing….make fertilizer non-explosive, and sue the manufacturers, that’s the answer!. Well, ok, but let’s not forget who did the killing.

    Combine lazy that with the reflex to defend anything that is outside traditional institutions and spheres of influence, and you get people who casually excuse evil.

  31. Dazzle says

    May 5, 2015 at 1:09 am

    It is sobering to contemplate the events of Sunday evening and the general western media response.

    Elton Simpson and his fellow terrorist were in Garland only to commit murder – this simple fact should be hammered home again and again. I have yet to find a single Muslim commentator who condemns the attack.

    The west generally seems to has lost the ability to tell the difference between right and wrong – at least so many western journalists have. The UK Daily Mail editorial teams have shown a strong duplicitous and mendacious streak.

    Thankfully the comments section for the public to give feedback shows a great deal of support for Pamela, Robert and Geert. This is in spite of the fact that the comments of many people have been censored or rejected by the DM thought police.

    Wrong thinking has reached epidemic proportions – see the link below re the UK NUS (National Union of Students) and CAGE

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/574800/NUS-support-Islamist-apologists-Cage

    • dumbledoresarmy says

      May 5, 2015 at 6:29 am

      You observed, re the comments on the main Daily Mail article about this attempted – and swiftly defeated – jihad attack, that:

      “Thankfully the comments section for the public to give feedback shows a great deal of support for Pamela, Robert and Geert. This is in spite of the fact that the comments of many people have been censored or rejected by the DM thought police.”

      Yes.

      I have just spent the better part of a day reading *every single one* of the 2000+ comments there posted. Every single one.

      I have kept *copies* of most of them. Many were, of course, from assorted Americans, all over the States; but almost as many were from people identifying as residents of the UK (many different localities). There were also Australians, Canadians, and people from Continental Europe – even a couple of Finns, a few Germans, some French.

      I would say that the majority of commenters totally and unequivocally supported the principle of free speech (and were at pains to insist that Islam must NOT be exempt from being questioned, critiqued, AND laughed at) and that many – and that includes most of the British – were Islamosavvy. Many British commenters specifically expressed heartfelt support for Ms Geller, and others for Geert Wilders.

      The pro-free-speech comments – and those expressing sentiments resistant against jihad and Islamisation – were the ones upvoted in the high hundreds and even into a couple of thousand.

      The most disgustingly dhimmified / appeasing comments, and those made by sly or menacing Muslims who were clearly identifiable as such, were being massive downclicked, again, in the hundreds and thousands. And the appeasers and apologists were *all* being directly challenged, argued against and slapped down smartly by other commenters…not just by the American commenters, either.

      People were *furious* and disgusted with the DM for not showing the pictures. Lots of people – probably in the hundreds, among those who had taken the trouble to post a comment – wanted to know who had won that juicy ten grand prize! People wanted to *see* the winning picture. They were burning with curiosity and boiling over with frustration. Many, many British posters were accusing the DM of cowardice.

      Methinks that hundreds and probably thousands of burningly-curious people have jumped aboard google and other search engines and have navigated their way here, or to wherever else the AFDI “Muhammad Art Exhibit” is hanging out its shingle with digital images of the competition entries, finalists and winning artwork.

      Further observation: if I had a dollar for every time I read yet another post (and not only by Americans, either) crowing happily – “Don’t mess with Texas!” I’d have a very tidy sum in hand.

      Overall consensus: it was the two murder-minded jihadis who richly deserved what they got…to be swiftly obliterated by well-armed and well-prepared Good Guys. Various folks were observing that more art exhibitions – not only in the US but elsewhere – might do very nicely to lure – or, as some put it (pun alert) “draw” the Bad Guys out into the open where they can be summarily disposed of.

      And that brings me to my final observation, which grew steadily upon me as I read through twelve pages of comments at the Daily Mail: what has happened – the exhibition, and then the swift, fast and hard foiling of the attack, with *none* of our side killed or even seriously hurt, and two jihadis dead on the pavement outside the venue – has given a *lot* of people (and especially, a *lot* of people amongst the Islamosavvy in the UK, but not only there) a real morale boost. It is being felt – enjoyed – as a *victory*; a win for *our* side, the Camp of the Free, the Camp of the Non-Muslims.

      And that may have all kinds of unexpected effects – especially among the embattled and grimly persevering semi-underground resistance in the UK.

      The trick, now, is to find some way of upping the ante, piling on the pressure, getting some *more* victories on the scoreboard.

      • particolor says

        May 5, 2015 at 6:58 am

        $10,000 for the person who can bake The Worlds Best Pork Pie !!:-) There that should do it !!

      • CGW says

        May 5, 2015 at 9:48 am

        dumbles, I’ve always loved you (these many long years!) and have treasured and been inspired by many of your posts, but this one has somehow managed to uplift my spirits as no other.

        Brava, dear Aussie friend! God’s Blessings to one of the truest-hearted counter-jihadists it has been my pleasure to know.

        CGW

      • Jack Diamond says

        May 5, 2015 at 10:16 am

        That’s interesting because I don’t think I’ve ever had a comment published there. They censor heavily. Good to hear!

      • gravenimage says

        May 5, 2015 at 10:24 am

        Thank you, DDA. I read the first fifty or sixty comments, and that was very much my impression—kudos to you for wading through all 2000+!. Just the shear outpouring of comments is impressive—I doubt most stories get so many. And that most of them are not just supportive of freedom of speech, as we found, but also at least somewhat Islamosavvy is *very heartening*.

        I join CGW in thanking you for your post!

  32. rev g says

    May 5, 2015 at 1:19 am

    Down the rabbit hole we go! Any deity, holy man, prophet, saint, demigod, etc…excepting Moe the ham head and his allah-kazam, are open to derision? Islam, by virtue of its violent tendencies and thin skin, merits special treatment?
    The sheer idiocy makes my head hurt.

  33. tilda says

    May 5, 2015 at 1:22 am

    ” If free speech is provocative, should there be limits?”

    If a woman dresses provocatively, should there be limits?

    We’ve been down the ‘uncovered meat’ route before. It was an intellectually bankrupt argument the first time it was tried, and it’s still intellectually bankrupt.

    They either don’t understand free speech or they don’t care or they’re trying to ensure their continued employment.

    • Baucent says

      May 5, 2015 at 3:49 am

      Exactly right. When the muslim population in your city reaches 10% and they start demanding non-muslim women on the streets cover up their hair, arms and legs as it “offends their religion” what will be the response? Let’s not be provocative, let’s not cross the line?

  34. sidney penny says

    May 5, 2015 at 1:28 am

    Well said Robert Spencer

    Who decides what is hate speech?

    “Who decide which are the “voices of hate” that should be silenced?

    People like Nathan Lean, of course – that is, purveyors of the “Islamophobia” myth who are determined to silence anyone and everyone who dares raise the slightest objection to the advancing jihad.”

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/video-robert-spencer-at-cal-poly-may-13-2014

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/cal-poly-free-speech-under-attack-in-academia

  35. sidney penny says

    May 5, 2015 at 1:33 am

    “No one has ever challenged their right to express their views, no matter how distorted many decent people may find them.

    What we do challenge is their conduct. Brutally shutting down an officially invited guest of the university, even though you are allowed to protest outside of the talk room and ask all the questions you wish in the Q&A part, is not intellectual freedom.”

    Professor Sadurski weighed in, likening the behaviour of protesters to neo-Nazis. “The authors of [the initial email] state, seemingly with admiration: ‘Students around the world, for their part, routinely interrupt political talks at universities.’ As a statement of fact, it is correct,” he said.

    “In my home country, over the past years young people from the extreme right (including students), some with clearly neo-Nazi predilections, successfully interrupted lectures and speeches by prominent left-wing and/or liberal speakers.

    “There is no room, at the University, for administrative censorship and speech control. There is no room for heckler’s veto either.”

    http://sheikyermami.com/2015/05/university-of-sydney-loves-hizbutniks-anti-semitism-is-free-speech/#more-169344

    “Just goes to show how far these degenerates have already dug themselves into a hole with the enemies of civilisation.”

  36. Fritz Mannerheim says

    May 5, 2015 at 1:51 am

    I have been living in the USA for 20 years now, coming from Germany, I thought it would be a temporary work assignment but then I got stuck here. For the longest time I held the believe that the German system was a great system, it’s market economy, the Constitution, basically everything. It took me a while to realize how restricted we were. The German constitution has a clause that basically said “There is no censorship in Germany, but….” and this “but” is now able to block anybody from saying anything that is not acceptable.
    Ok, it’s not life threatening if you go to prison for denying the holocaust despite evidence. But shouldn’t you be able to do so? Hate speech is the next thing that can land you in prison. Who gets to decide what is hateful and what not? Speech that bears the possibility of “disturbing the peace” can land you in prison as well. What is peace and who decides when a speech is likely to break it or not? Perhaps the current “peaceful state” needs to be broken up in the name of Freedom?

    It took me a while to appreciate the Freedom I have here. Not only the Freedom Of Speech but also the right to carry guns which, in my eyes, is what makes Freedom possible in the first place. All Europeans are now suffering from an unbearable rise of crime, caused by foreigners who cross the Mediterranean and commit crimes right and left and the police is giving up, releasing them right after they arrest them because they can not handle the sheer amount of cases anymore. People who speak up against this are at least ridiculed by the press and the government in unison and, if they cross the fine line, criminalized and prosecuted.

    I have come to appreciate the liberties we have here and in my eyes there is no such thing as a “limit on Free Speech”. You start to limit one thing and it will lead to another because the next person is also offended and so on.

    And who is to say that a certain group’s feelings must not be hurt or else it is “incitement”? What about the Mormons and their magic underwear? Why am I allowed to make fun of them but not of islam? Is it because the Mormons usually don’t kill people? what kind of argument is that to say that we must not offend those who could go ballistics, but we can offend those who accept it without violence? Isn’t that and inducement of violence? The more violent a group is under these rules, the more rights they will reserve for themselves.

    Lastly, why is it that scholars think that the American founding Fathers did not intend to protect “Fighting Words”? What can be more “fighting” that a call to rebel against your own king? Without “Fighting Words”, America would still be a British colony.

    • Tim says

      May 5, 2015 at 3:19 am

      If you would go to Germany and say that Europe suffers a rise in crime due to foreigners, watch how you would be treated…. You’re not at all allowed to say that. Someone could report you to the police and you would be taken to court. And if you say anything like that within your friendship circle in Germany, you will be shunned and despisd, referred to as a racist.
      I am well aware of the European socialist countries. I too imagined it was some kind of shangri-la until I traveled the world and realized I was actually suffocating under all that socialism. Today I despise socialism because I see what it does to people. Its basically just another form of communism.

    • CGW says

      May 5, 2015 at 10:00 am

      Excellent commentary.

      I do hope you’ve taken the steps to actually become an American citizen.

      It’s people like you, who cherish the freedoms our system entails, that are needed to fight the hordes of “economic refugees”, who only appreciate America’s giant welfare teat.

      Will you join us?

      On the other hand, you may be of valuable service to your homeland, given your new-found perspective. Whichever it is, I am proud to call you my comrade-in-arms in this fight.

      Best of Luck to you, Brother!

      CGW

    • gravenimage says

      May 5, 2015 at 12:30 pm

      Hear, hear!

  37. Ren says

    May 5, 2015 at 1:52 am

    Gosh, what happened to America? Don’t people stand for values that make America America anymore?

    • particolor says

      May 5, 2015 at 5:18 am

      Who Dhimmied the lights ?

  38. cs says

    May 5, 2015 at 2:04 am

    Everyone should go to the article and comment there.

    • particolor says

      May 5, 2015 at 5:21 am

      I just saw an Article walking down the street ! But I don’t think Id better comment to it ?

  39. Georg says

    May 5, 2015 at 2:38 am

    I’d like to thank Robert for his scholarship. This article shows the precariousness of what we’re up against. So, a heckler’s veto is the limiting factor for what we may think/communicate? I have expressed here numerous times that I’m an atheist, and although most here are Christian or otherwise faithful, I have been unfailingly respected. The law being discussed literally punishes the tolerant with views they do not react violently against and rewards the intolerant by eliminating those views against which they react violently. That will be our system? That the least tolerant and most belligerent have the most control?

    This really is the “moral inversion” Pamela named this morning on CNN. We are now led by morons and cowards who put us all in danger by pursuing racist selective enforcement. It’s time to get over the guilt of privilege and advocate for the system/s which resulted in the high standard of living we’ve earned. Communism and relativism must be finally obliterated for the sake of us ALL.

  40. More Ham Ed says

    May 5, 2015 at 2:41 am

    A law should be passed that if you disagree with the 1st Amendment you are then required to live in the center of five different Islamic-majority countries, five years each, before you return. But alas, such a law would be against the first amendment. A list of “paradise” (mud-hole) (daily ko ‘ran anger) Islamic countries to choose from: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kosovo, Libya, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkey, Yemen.

  41. Kurt says

    May 5, 2015 at 2:42 am

    Freedom of speech won’t go away. Too many people agree with us, the Supreme Court won’t limit freedom of speech based on “hate” speech. Then we’ll need special laws on what defines “hate” speech. It’s opening up a big can of worms. Reformation of Islam is what’s needed, not the changing of our Constitution.

  42. No Fear says

    May 5, 2015 at 3:09 am

    “The voices of hate that hope to fracture our society along religious lines should have no place in our public discourse.”

    I assume “voices of hate” refers to:

    a) The Quran, the most divisive piece of supremacist literature ever printed.
    b) Mohammed, purported writer of the Quran, whose hate for “kuffar” knew no bounds.
    c) thugs who attempt to force “kuffar” to have respect for a) and b).

    • Lia Wissing says

      May 5, 2015 at 4:37 am

      and who draw Holocaust cartoons …

  43. Mario Gandolfo says

    May 5, 2015 at 3:13 am

    BAITING ??? BAITING someone to commit murder because their religion has been offended a religion based on murder, rape, pillage and child molestation to name a few of many ?? are you stupid ?? if a person is insane enough to kill someone because his religion has been offended then he needs to be locked the fuck up and he certainly has NO RIGHT living in the USA…..A country based on freedom of religion and freedom of speech…

  44. G179 says

    May 5, 2015 at 3:28 am

    Somehow the “fine line” applies only to speech offensive to muslims. For mosque preachers, online jihad supporters, or quoting of racist and inflammatory quran verses, there is no fine line. There is no line at all. And why is that? According to John Szmer (Or maybe John smear?) it is because of the muslim violence. According to him, violence pays off and this should be supported by the state.

    • David says

      May 5, 2015 at 6:21 am

      Mullahs who incite hatred against other faiths and nations should be punished and deported. Anything which aims to destroy the fabric of a society such as racism or religious hatred should never be tolerated no matter by whom.

  45. Proud Pork Fan says

    May 5, 2015 at 3:48 am

    It is the 1st Amendment, not the 8th or the 10th. But let’s change it or bend it because some War book written 1400 years ago says to kill people who draw a picture of or insult a fictional character contained in therein, and there are idiots running around who are crazy/stupid/vile enough to actually act on that. That sounds like a good reason to forgo our unalienable rights! (sarc)

  46. Renee says

    May 5, 2015 at 3:49 am

    What criticism of islam and its “prophet” will not induce violence? Could some moderate muslims answer this?

  47. Paladin says

    May 5, 2015 at 4:03 am

    Robert-so thankful you and Pamela are ok after this incident in Texas. There are very few genuine scholars (yourself) and fierce pro-western advocates (Pamela) left in the world, that we could scarcely afford to lose either of you to this vicious totalitarian thuggery. Thank you for standing up for my rights, and even though useful idiots like Reza Aslan and Nathan Lean don’t see the irony, you’re standing up for theirs too. I hope you are training an apprentice somewhere in your hidden and fortified bunker, for when the good Lord does finally take you home, we’ll need a new defender of the west. G-d knows such bravery and education coupled with the ability to articulate and debate are rare qualities these days. I’m not sure where the west would be without your scholarship and willingness to stand up for what’s right.

  48. Lia Wissing says

    May 5, 2015 at 4:36 am

    The muslims do not confront ideas. They do not know how, because they don’t think. They are brainwashed into mobbing up. shouting & screaming … and, if possible, killing.

    • particolor says

      May 5, 2015 at 4:53 am

      Whooo ! Hang on there ! They are the most Ingenious Inventive Peaceful Creatures allahwishus placed on the planet !!

  49. Laura says

    May 5, 2015 at 5:04 am

    How about we have ‘limits’ on Islamic violence, in response to perceived ‘insults’ to their false prophet?

  50. Angemon says

    May 5, 2015 at 5:19 am

    Here’s a more sympathetic opinion:

    http://thedailybanter.com/2015/05/for-the-one-millionth-time-criticizing-islam-isnt-bigotry/

    “Whatever you think of Geller or cartoons of Muhammad, this is obviously a time to condemn the attack, defend the right to free speech, and affirm that nothing that Geller and the AFDI have done can in any way excuse such a violent act.

    Or, if you’re someone who simply doesn’t get it, this is a time to condemn Geller and other critics of Islam.

    By now the pattern has become all too familiar: Violence is perpetrated by Islamic extremists against those who dared to draw Muhammad. Then, people who can’t distinguish between criticizing or lampooning Islam and the wholesale bashing of Muslims on a personal level, wonder if the cartoonists should’ve drawn Muhammad in the first place.

    As we’re about to see (again), some people have really lost their moorings on this issue. Take for example, Dean Obeidallah, who actually claimed that awarding a prize to someone who draws “despicable cartoons of Muhammad… is akin to offering a prize for people to draw the most anti-Semitic or racist images imaginable.”

    No, it’s not. Drawing Muhammad is absolutely not akin to anything like that. Here again we see the crippling inability of a liberal to tell the difference between disrespecting a single historical figure and engaging in bigotry against an entire group of people. Skewering Muhammad is not tantamount to engaging in prejudice against all who hold him dear. They may not like it, but it’s not an attack on them as people.“

    • voegelinian says

      May 5, 2015 at 1:27 pm

      “Here again we see the crippling inability of a liberal to tell the difference between disrespecting a single historical figure and engaging in bigotry against an entire group of people.”

      The problem is that in Islam, every Muslim feels deeply, profoundly, viscerally, that Muhammad is their identity. Attacking Muhammad is, in the Muslim psyche, a direct attack on the Muslim today, as surely as a physical punch in the face — even worse, in fact. The question for the modern world has to focus on the facts: acknowledge this powerful belief held by all Muslims; then boldly, bravely, and intelligently repudiate it as the cornerstone of, in Sam Harris’s phrase, “the motherlode of bad ideas”. For Muhammad is that cornerstone for every Muslim.

      • Angemon says

        May 5, 2015 at 2:34 pm

        voegelinian posted:

        “The problem is that in Islam, every Muslim feels”

        Hold it right there. How can you know what every muslim feels? Are you psychic? If you can read the minds of every muslim, how about you join Homeland Security and help figure out which muslims support the imposition of sharia, which muslims are muslims in name only and which muslims want to leave islam but fear for their lives. Besides, did you even read the comment? It’s an attack on liberals who insist in blaming the victims – whatever muslims think of muhammad is irrelevant in that matter.

        Also, didn’t you say you were no long bothering to read my posts?

        http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/01/saudi-king-abdullah-is-dead/comment-page-1#comment-1185295

        Heck, you shouldn’t even be addressing me since I’m both a JW regular and an FOP – Friend Of Philip (Jihadski):

        http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/04/uk-labour-leader-says-his-government-will-criminalize-islamophobia#comment-1229829

        So you read one of my posts, even though you announced you were no longer doing so, then you address me, even though you have at least 337 (your number) reasons not to speak to me, you make a comment irrelevant to what I posted and while doing so you managed to play right into the hands of organizations like CAIR, who thrive in victimhood and often accuse people in the Counter-Jihadi movement of painting all muslims with a broad brush, like you did, with your implied insight into the mind of every muslim.

        And yet you always whine and try to play the victim and claim you don’t understand why people “attack” you (because, like CAIR with islam, you consider any criticism of what you post as being an “attack”) and/or don’t jump to defend you when someone criticizes you…

      • voegelinian says

        May 7, 2015 at 3:39 pm

        Of course Angemon is unfairly and in bad faith picking on the precise semtantics of my comment (as is his wont and pattern over months and years here on Jihad Watch comments threads, out of some hostility to me, expressed in passive-aggressive sopistry, a hostility I have yet to fully fathom). When I write a statement like “every Muslim feels [X]” it’s shorthand for “we ought to reasonably conclude — given the mountain ranges of data about Islamic texts, history, culture, psychology, and current events upon whose alarmingly bloody slopes we sit here today on Jihad Watch, along with the oceans and oceans of dots which anyone who has a mental pencil (and the time and concern) can connect — that every Muslim feels [X].”

        • Angemon says

          May 7, 2015 at 6:06 pm

          voegelinian posted:

          “Of course Angemon is unfairly”

          Who gets to decide what’s fair or unfair? You?

          “and in bad faith”

          So now you imply you know more about the motivation of my actions than me. Nice!

          “picking on the precise semtantics of my comment”

          “Precise semtantics”? Eh. More on that later, there’s a more pressing issue at hand.

          “(as is his wont and pattern over months andyears here on Jihad Watch comments threads,”

          Oh, great, more canned, recycled speech. It’s always the same pattern with voeg. When someone puts him on the spot, he mourns and whines that the person doing so has been attacking him for months and years. That’s the second time on this topic alone. But here’s the thing. As far as I can remember, we first butted heads back in late June/early July 2014. That’s last year. It’s not even one year since you first insulted me and went out of your way to deride, ridicule and attack me, and tried to portray my replies to your unwarranted attacks as if somehow I was the one at fault. So here’s the deal: I’m going to call you on your BS, voeg. Prove that I’ve somehow been “attacking” you for years. I say you can’t find anything you can label as an attack from me before the afore mentioned time period (late June/July 2014), and therefore you’re lying when you claim I’ve been attacking you for years.

          So whip out those links, prove what you said, or forever be branded a liar.

          “out of some hostility to me, expressed in passive-aggressive sopistry, a hostility I have yet to fully fathom).”

          As I mentioned before, voeg went out of his way to insult, deride and attack me, and, in true Alinskyan fashion, he somehow labeled my defense, or any criticism of him, for that matter, as me attacking him. This is exactly the attitude we’re used to see from muslims – they have no arguments except to try to play the victim.

          “When I write a statement like “every Muslim feels [X]” it’s shorthand for “we ought to reasonably conclude”

          So your “precise semtantics” consist of you saying one thing while meaning something else and expecting people to know that. Ah! Now your posts start making sense (or, at least, they start describing reality accurately). When you say that I’m “unfairly and in bad faith”, you must mean that you’re the one being unfair and acting in bad faith. When you say that I’ve been doing that “over months andyears here on Jihad Watch comments threads” you must mean that you’re the one who’s been acting in bad faith and attacking others for years , and that the actions of mine you decided to label as an unfair attack to play the victim are less than one year old. When you say, for example, that a certain user never stood up for you you must mean that said user did stood up for you.

          “— given the mountain ranges of data about Islamic texts, history, culture, psychology, and current events upon whose alarmingly bloody slopes we sit here today on Jihad Watch, along with the oceans and oceans of dots which anyone who has a mental pencil (and the time and concern) can connect — that every Muslim feels [X].””

          Voeg, rewording something that’s wrong doesn’t make it right, it just makes it wrong under other words. You’re still trying to claim you somehow know what every muslim feels when the truth is that you can’t “reasonably conclude” anything about what any given individual (let alone all of them) thinks or feels when you know nothing about said individual other than the religion he claims to profess, especially when no knowledge of said religion is required to become a professing member – all you need to do is mutter a couple of sentences in arabic and presto, you’re a muslim.

          But I’ll take your words at face value, voeg. So you “reasonably conclude” that “muslim feels deeply, profoundly, viscerally, that Muhammad is their identity” and that “attacking Muhammad is, in the Muslim psyche, a direct attack on the Muslim today, as surely as a physical punch in the face — even worse, in fact”, and that “this powerful belief” is “held by all Muslims”. How do you explain, for example, Ali Sina*, a former muslim who literally trashes muhammad? How did he ended up doing what, according to your logic, amounts to punching himself in the face?

          *there’s more ex-muslims speaking against islam and muhammad. I could mention, for example, Ibn Warraq, Hirsi Ali, Nabeel Qureshi or Wafa Sultan. But I believe that was Ali Sina who said that showing that muhammad’s conduct was not that of a prophet of God would amount to destroying islam.

          PS: Don’t forget I called you on your BS, voeg. Bring forth the evidence that “proves” I’ve been “attacking” you for years.

  51. nacazo says

    May 5, 2015 at 5:23 am

    McClatchyDC is too provocative. I think it should be banned!!!

    /sarc off

    No. I don’t believe ANY speech should be criminalized. I guess I’m a radical defender of free speech.

  52. Cindy says

    May 5, 2015 at 5:37 am

    Who cares what the rest of the world thinks is right?????Since when did Americans care what the rest of the

    • particolor says

      May 5, 2015 at 5:44 am

      Since Islam invented OIL !!

  53. William Lucas Harvey Jr. says

    May 5, 2015 at 6:02 am

    “Here we go: McClatchy suggests limits on free speech after Texas jihad shooting”.

    “DUKE University Islamic Studies professor blames critics of Islam for Muslim violence”.

    This IS also the SAME “Blame the Messenger” Mentality with “Academics” as with the Mainstream Media.

    Most (except for a few) “Infiltrated” by Islam and Islam’s “Anti Free Speech” mentality, especially when it pertains to Islam, with it’s cries of “Racist”, “Islamophobia” and “Blasphemy”, and demanding FORCED “Blasphemy Laws” on the World, when it comes to Islam, and the TRUTH is told about the Islam, and the Muslim Islamist’s Bloody Murdering Rampages are exposed.

    While Islam ITSELF and Muslims THEMSELVES show no compunction as to “Blaspheming” and “Degrading” ANY Speech or Faith, that is NOT 100% Islamic, with expected Impunity.

    As in the very appropriate words of BNI “It isn’t Islamophobia, When they really ARE trying to kill you”.

    • The Doctor says

      May 5, 2015 at 9:31 am

      Not all academics are like that. Some of us (real scientists) can see very clearly that the problem is Islam.

  54. David says

    May 5, 2015 at 6:15 am

    The term nigger and such racial slang was banned in America for a reason.

    We should not make religion a cause of disunity and hatred. Religious provocations I believe will eventually be banned because they are not in the best interests of society as a whole.

    “Consort with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship.” – Baha’u’llah
    is what this age of mixed cultures needs and demands not antagonizing each other.

    Freedom has to have limits. We can’t allow racism or hatred between faiths to destroy our communities. All are responsible for peace and harmony,

    But who decides which freedoms should be limited and which should not???? People? The United Nations? The president?

    The only One Who I believe has the answer is Baha’u’llah. Read what He says about liberty

    “We find some men desiring liberty, and priding themselves therein. Such men are in the depths of ignorance…Regard men as a flock of sheep that need a shepherd for their protection. This, verily, is the truth, the certain truth. We approve of liberty in certain circumstances, and refuse to sanction it in others. We, verily, are the All-Knowing. Baha’u’llah

    Say: True liberty consisteth in man’s submission unto My commandments, little as ye know it. Were men to observe that which We have sent down unto them from the Heaven of Revelation, they would, of a certainty, attain unto perfect liberty. Baha’u’llah

    America and Americans need to rise above these things and not get drawn into the tit for tat we see in the Middle East for it will only bring sorrow.

    Promote. tolerance and peace. Sure you can go out and make fun of Muhammad just to spite Muslims but America is destined to lead the world spiritually so she needs to promote unity of race and religion.

    Even a prayer was revealed for America so she forever rises above these things. America needs to rise for her calling to be the most praiseworthy amongst nations.

    Prayer for America

    O God! Let this American democracy become glorious in spiritual degrees even as it has aspired to material degrees, and render this just government victorious. Confirm this revered nation to upraise the standard of the oneness of humanity, to promulgate the Most Great Peace, to become thereby most glorious and praiseworthy among all the nations of the world. O God! This American nation is worthy of Thy favors and is deserving of Thy mercy. Make it precious and near to Thee through Thy bounty and bestowal.

    ‘Abdu’l-Bahá

    • rev g says

      May 5, 2015 at 6:24 am

      Those words are not banned…for good reason.

    • Angemon says

      May 5, 2015 at 6:38 am

      David posted:

      “The term nigger and such racial slang was banned in America for a reason.”

      Really? By whom, when, where, and for what reason? African-Americans use it liberally and I don’t recall seeing any prosecuted for racism…

      “We should not make religion a cause of disunity and hatred.”

      The only religion that teaches hate as an integral part of its tenets is islam.

      “Religious provocations I believe will eventually be banned because they are not in the best interests of society as a whole.”

      And who gets to decide what is a “religious provocation” and what isn’t? Is drawing one person a “religious provocation”?

      “Freedom has to have limits.”

      And who gets to decide what those limits are, or where and how many can be placed before we stop calling it “freedom”? A golden cage is a cage nonetheless, even if the jailer claims we’re free and that it’s for our own protection.

      “We can’t allow racism or hatred between faiths to destroy our communities.”

      Huh, “faiths”? The only “faith” that has issues with other faiths is islam. We can see that throughout the world through the many islamic groups fighting to impose sharia law upon everyone.

      “But who decides which freedoms should be limited and which should not???? People? The United Nations? The president?

      The only One Who I believe has the answer is Baha’u’llah.”

      Huh, you’re saying that a man claiming to be a prophet should get to decide on which freedoms to limit? Do you realize how unhinged you sound?

      “Say: True liberty consisteth in man’s submission unto My commandments”

      War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

      “Sure you can go out and make fun of Muhammad just to spite Muslims”

      That’s not what this is all about. And you’re not helping when you claim it is. In fact, you’re making it worse.

      • Westman says

        May 5, 2015 at 9:33 am

        The irony here is that David is a Baha’i Muslim. The “offended” sects of Islam, and particularly ISIS would excuse him from the planet in any location where Sharia prevails for simply being Baha’i; which they consider Apostate.

        David is being a true Christian, loving the Muslims that despise him because of his religion. I like your more peaceful attitude David, so please, stay away from Iran.

    • gravenimage says

      May 5, 2015 at 1:07 pm

      Disgusting apologist for crushing freedom of speech David wrote:

      The term nigger and such racial slang was banned in America for a reason.
      ………………………………

      As other posters have already pointed out, David is completely wrong about this. The “N-word” *is* rightly considered an ugly, racist term, and is widely condemned in polite circles. But it is *not* banned. It is used not just by actual racists, but by pundits and artists to make a point, and frequently by African-Americans themselves—to be “bad ass”, to be self-deprecating, to be insulting, sometimes even as a term of jocular endearment.

      David’s idea that the word “nigger” is legally banned shows just how little he understands about freedom of speech in America.

      More:

      We should not make religion a cause of disunity and hatred. Religious provocations I believe will eventually be banned because they are not in the best interests of society as a whole.
      ………………………………

      Pious Muslims regularly oppress and murder David’s fellow Baha’i, and all on the basis of Islam itself—but he believes that anyone who dares criticize this savagery should be prosecuted. This is, I believe, the very definition of the ultimate dhimmitude—where Islam must be defended even when it is about to kill you. *Ugh*.

      Worst, of all, David wants to impose this perversion on all of us.

      More:

      “Consort with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship.” – Baha’u’llah
      is what this age of mixed cultures needs and demands not antagonizing each other.
      ………………………………

      Never mind that the only “consorting” pious Muslims wish to do with the followers of other faiths is to oppress and kill them.

      More:

      Freedom has to have limits. We can’t allow racism or hatred between faiths to destroy our communities. All are responsible for peace and harmony,
      ………………………………

      Criticism of Islam has *nothing* to do with racism. Islam is not a race. And the very texts of Islam enjoin hatred of those of other faiths. David has always tried to ignore this.

      That David wants to crush our freedoms so that such evil can flourish unchecked is repulsive.

      More:

      But who decides which freedoms should be limited and which should not???? People? The United Nations? The president?

      The only One Who I believe has the answer is Baha’u’llah. Read what He says about liberty

      “We find some men desiring liberty, and priding themselves therein. Such men are in the depths of ignorance…Regard men as a flock of sheep that need a shepherd for their protection. This, verily, is the truth, the certain truth. We approve of liberty in certain circumstances, and refuse to sanction it in others. We, verily, are the All-Knowing. Baha’u’llah
      ………………………………

      David wants us to be sheep to the slaughter. His hatred of liberty—one of America’s greatest values—is clear here. He wants to replace liberty with tyranny. How repellant.

      More:

      Say: True liberty consisteth in man’s submission unto My commandments, little as ye know it. Were men to observe that which We have sent down unto them from the Heaven of Revelation, they would, of a certainty, attain unto perfect liberty. Baha’u’llah
      ………………………………

      Another “prophet” demanding total, unthinking submission. Sound like any “religion” we know?

      More:

      America and Americans need to rise above these things and not get drawn into the tit for tat we see in the Middle East for it will only bring sorrow.
      ………………………………

      No “tit for tat” here. We are asserting our freedoms—something David is incapable of understanding.

      Note, further, his sickening moral equivalence—that drawing cartoons and trying to murder an auditorium full of innocent people are one and the same. *Ugh*.

      More:

      Promote. tolerance and peace. Sure you can go out and make fun of Muhammad just to spite Muslims but America is destined to lead the world spiritually so she needs to promote unity of race and religion.
      ………………………………

      What a *grotesque* mischaracterization. The pieces I created condemned the violence of the “Prophet” and his followers, condemned his rape of a child, and commended the bravery of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists in the face of death threats.

      The idea that protecting children and civilized critics is nothing but ‘spiting” Muslims is sickening. Look what he is admitting—that Muslims feel they are being “spited” should anyone question their Islam-driven propensity for savagery.

      More:

      Even a prayer was revealed for America so she forever rises above these things. America needs to rise for her calling to be the most praiseworthy amongst nations.

      Prayer for America

      O God! Let this American democracy become glorious in spiritual degrees even as it has aspired to material degrees, and render this just government victorious. Confirm this revered nation to upraise the standard of the oneness of humanity, to promulgate the Most Great Peace, to become thereby most glorious and praiseworthy among all the nations of the world. O God! This American nation is worthy of Thy favors and is deserving of Thy mercy. Make it precious and near to Thee through Thy bounty and bestowal.

      ‘Abdu’l-Bahá
      ………………………………

      And David suggests we become “great” by condoning child rape and the murder of cartoonists, and prosecuting anyone who dares speak out against these evils. *Ugh*.

      Thank God that this is not the vision of true Americans.

    • voegelinian says

      May 5, 2015 at 1:20 pm

      “The term nigger and such racial slang was banned in America for a reason. ”

      False. The term nigger has never been banned or made illegal. It has been a voluntary cultural process that has made the word in many contexts unacceptable in polite society. However, actually that word continues to be used copiously and with juicy, zestful verve in black rap and hip-hop music, often quite lucratively so, with audiences and fans (who make the artists wealthy) both black and white.

      As Diana West wrote in a column published almost two years ago, revolving around a particular celebrity who had been ostracized for using that term:

      As practically everyone knows by now, multimillionaire TV chef Paula Deen was yanked from the pinnacle of free-market success after admitting to a lawyer taking a deposition in a racial and sexual harassment lawsuit (already Orwellian) that she had used what is referred to as “the N-word” some 25 years ago.

      “The N-word”? Here we give the Victorians a run for their word-mincing money. The offending word, of course, is “nigger,” and no matter how ugly it is, it is hardly taboo when a quick search of iTunes pulls up 2,000 entries for sale featuring the term.

      http://dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2573/Is-Paula-Deen-the-Worst-American-Ever.aspx

  55. mgoldberg says

    May 5, 2015 at 7:12 am

    Yes…. the ‘rest’ of the world has ideas on limits of freedom of expression. Meaning…. they bow to tyranny when forced too.
    Such as we do, and the rest of the west when we heard and hear daily such things as, ‘exterminate the jews, they are a cancer’.
    No… we never hear how that should be curtailed, or might cause ‘offense’ or ‘be hurtful’, and expecially the absurd meme ‘might cause jews to murder and must be curtailed’.
    That’s because no jew could find any theologic justification for such homicidal actions. Nor would they find ‘cultural’ reasons for such homicidal actions.
    And now the call, the absurd, and truly ignorant call to limit expression so homicidals don’t get the ‘urge’.
    Rather like the call to cover women lest they cause men to rape.
    It is a true obscenity…. and derives from the hideous negation of the idea of freedom of expression.

  56. Raymond Hietapakka says

    May 5, 2015 at 7:12 am

    So…..it’s simply all a matter of getting violent, or merely threatening violence, to get whatever the f*** it is you want?

    America, it’s your brain calling, on the phone, looking for you….

    • gravenimage says

      May 5, 2015 at 1:13 pm

      This is very true, Raymond—this is letting the most vicious playground bully determine the limits of freedom of speech. *Ugh*.

      • voegelinian says

        May 5, 2015 at 1:41 pm

        Yes, far far worse, of course, but nevertheless analogous to when a person lashes out in hate-spittled vituperation against another person, and in the process calling them “Donkey” and “Jackass” numerous times, in dozens of comments in dozens of different comment threads, spanning weeks, months, even years, on a forum meant to be a place for relatively intelligent discussion about this important issue… And instead of his friends telling him to “knock it off, already, and stop being such a childish ass”, they blame the victim and insinuate, imply, or at times outright tell the victim to moderate or stop his comments which have triggered the irrationally hypersensitive anger management issues of the Bully.

        http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2015/05/imbroglio-at-jihad-watch-comments.html

        • Angemon says

          May 5, 2015 at 6:24 pm

          voegelinian posted, in response to gravenimage:

          “Yes, far far worse, of course, but nevertheless analogous to when a person lashes out in hate-spittled vituperation against another person, and in the process calling them “Donkey” and “Jackass” numerous times, in dozens of comments in dozens of different comment threads, spanning weeks, months, even years, on a forum meant to be a place for relatively intelligent discussion about this important issue… And instead of his friends telling him to “knock it off, already, and stop being such a childish ass”, they blame the victim and insinuate, imply, or at times outright tell the victim to moderate or stop his comments which have triggered the irrationally hypersensitive anger management issues of the Bully.”

          OK buddy, take a deep breath and tell one thing at a time. First of all, didn’t you recently said that you “don’t speak to gravenimage and the other Jihad Watch regulars (and FOPs — Friends of Phillip) any longer“? So why are you here replying to GI?

          Secondly, there’s more to the story than what you say. I know that, you know that, GI and the other JW regulars know that, you know that we know and we kn ow that you know that we know. You know that, and yet you still try to peddle the “oh, woe is me, I’m just a poor, innocent victim” crap, all along wondering – or pretending to wonder – why don0t people take your side.

          Thirdly, I find your overall attitude to with GI particularly chilling. The way you insist in singling her out, trying to guilt her into taking your side, acting like she’s always against you, even though she, probably more than all other JW regulars combined, spoke to PJ in your behalf. But that’s not good enough for you, is it? You’re not happy with “look PJ, I know you and voeg have issues, but please, try to tone it down as not to give our enemies the pleasure of seeing us arguing amongst ourselves”, No, you won’t be happy with anything less than “I fully support voeg no matter what the argument is, and whoever wishes to speaks against him will have to do so over my dead body”. You constantly harass and push her, and while I don’t believe she’s one to fall for your preschool attempt of peer pressure, I find your overall attitude and handling of the situation completely execrable. You know what? Keep singling her out, keep lying about her, keep pushing her. One of these days she’ll decide that enough is enough and give you the trashing of your life. As the saying goes, “beware the fury of a patient man” – or in this case, women.

          More from voeg:

          “http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2015/05/imbroglio-at-jihad-watch-comments.html”

          So that’s your latest diatribe against PJ, eh? Let’s see… Oh, and I’m mentioned also – apparently, I’m PJ’s “seemingly more sophisticated sidekick“. Lol.

          There’s a lot that could be said about that childish rant, but I’ll try to make it as brief as possible: you don’t have a case against PJ therefore you need to cherry-pick old posts out of context and, in true Alinskyan fashion, create a narrative that would make Dr. Frankenstein jealous.

          I’ll start by pointing out that, while you start by telling other to check a recent topic here in JW where you were, allegedly, the poor innocent victim of bullying, you then start picking posts several 2014 topics without linking to any of them. What’s the matter? Afraid that others might take you up on your offer and see for themselves what took place there? Afraid that others might see your narrative for the lie that it is? Afraid that your 3.5 supporters might see you for the fraud you are? Though so.

          For example, you say this:

          “ That said, I don’t know why Phillip Jihadski and Angemon have such trouble with the concept of Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Syria, Jordan Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Sudan, Somalia (to name a few from among the nations collected under the O.I.C., reflecting a physical concretization of the Dar-al-Islam, pace the factors of Western colonialism and post-colonial cartography) — being 1) actual geographical places, which 2) can provide space for deportees. Phillip Jihadski and Angemon can’t be this dense; can they…?
          (…)
          I guess Phillip Jihadski and Angemon never heard of … Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Syria, Jordan Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Sudan, Somalia (to name a few from among the nations collected under the O.I.C., reflecting a physical concretization of the Dar-al-Islam, pace the factors of Western colonialism and post-colonial cartography) — all told containing millions of square miles of physical space for deportees to be relocated to. Surely they can’t be this dense; some ulterior point or agenda must be operative here; if only they actually presented an argument that would advert to the relevant points…]
          ”

          Of course, that doesn’t answer the obvious objection I (and PJ, IIRC) raised back then, when you first raised that argument. Let’s say that you rounded up all muslims in the US (overlooking, for the sake of the argument, that, not only it amounts to judging and condemning people not for something they did but for something they might, or not, do, it also amounts to punish people for what they think and therefore is no different, in nature, from muslims trying to kill people for criticizing islam) and deported those with foreign citizenships back to their countries. How, in the current american and international legal framework, would you get Malaysia, Indonesia, etc, to take in AMERICAN citizens who just happen to be muslims?

          I submit to you that none of the countries he mentions above would volunteer to take in american citizens, muslims or not. How would he go about solving that problem? Parachute them over, hoping those countries wouldn’t parachute them back? Let’s look at the situation from another angle. Let’s say that Malaysia, or Indonesia, or Egypt, or the islamic state call the White House and say “Look, we have several millions of citizens here that we suspect to be more loyal to the US than to our nation. How soon can we drop them over there?”. Now, in such a situation, voeg couldn’t object to having a couple million of Malaysians, or Indonesians, or citizens of the islamic state, being dropped in America, otherwise we’d just come out as being a hypocrite.

          Also, I bet if we were to pick any given topic voeg doesn’t link to, we’d find his actions there wouldn’t fit his “woe is me” story. For example:

          “Philip Jihadski says July 10, 2014 at 6:45 pm”

          Here’s the link to the post:

          http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/07/french-police-foil-jihad-plot-targeting-eiffel-tower-louve-nuke-plant/comment-page-1#comment-1086205

          And here’s more from that topic:

          “voegelinian says

          July 12, 2014 at 5:11 am

          Then he[Angemon] has the gall (or the brain damage) to claim I didn’t answer him.”

          If you follow the discussion in that topic, you’ll see that what I say stands – he failed to answer my question. And because I pointed that out, he felt the need to insult me. But, according to him, the issue here is PJ’s behaviour. Here’s more form that topic (voeg’s words quoted by PJ are bolded):

          “Philip Jihadski says

          July 13, 2014 at 2:03 pm

          “…my indiscretions come after innumerable attacks on me by Philip…”

          Liar. Flat-out liar.

          Your multiple “indiscretions” preceded everything, by attempting to ascribe words to me that were not my own.”

          So here we have how things really happened. Voeg lied about what PJ said/did, PJ stopped mincing words and voeg, in true Alinskyan fashion, decided to play the victim.

          But back to voeg’s latest anti-PJ diatribe. My favorite bit is this:

          “It is noteworthy that the presentation above, as copious as it is, represents only a small portion of the outrageous shit this Phillip Jihadski has spewed over the years against me (and against a couple of others who did not deserve it) — virtually all of it ignored (and sometimes even defended) by the vast majority of intelligent Jihad Watch regulars who should know better.”

          So basically, we have several people considered by voeg as intelligent, and those intelligent people – who, like I pointed above, are privy to the whole argument between him and PJ – keep, according to voeg, taking PJ’s side.

          Can you imagine the whole horror of it? There’s these all intelligent people, including some voeg once counted as friends, privy to the whole argument from the start, having no personal stakes in it, and these intelligent, impartial people keep taking PJ’s side while voeg, tears forming on his poor,saucer-like, innocent eyes, stomps his foot like Thumper and insists they’re wrong and “should know better”.

          Can you picture how horrible this is to voeg? All those intelligent people, including former friends of him, taking PJ’s side. Surely there’s not even the remote possibility that those people are right and voeg is wrong, right?

        • gravenimage says

          May 6, 2015 at 2:02 pm

          Voegelinian wrote:

          Yes, far far worse, of course, but nevertheless analogous to when a person lashes out in hate-spittled vituperation against another person, and in the process calling them “Donkey” and “Jackass” numerous times, in dozens of comments in dozens of different comment threads, spanning weeks, months, even years, on a forum meant to be a place for relatively intelligent discussion about this important issue… And instead of his friends telling him to “knock it off, already, and stop being such a childish ass”, they blame the victim and insinuate, imply, or at times outright tell the victim to moderate or stop his comments which have triggered the irrationally hypersensitive anger management issues of the Bully.
          ……………………………………….

          Voegelinian, this simply is not true. The fact is that I have spoken with Philip Jihadski at least a dozen times, including just days ago, on this thread:

          http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/04/uk-school-officials-publicly-humiliate-students-because-parents-refused-permission-for-mosque-visit/comment-page-1#comments

          Wellington and Ronald B did, as well. And I did not speak to him specifically at your urging, but because I have always believed that Anti-Jihadists should treat each other courteously even when in disagreement. (Trolls are a different matter).

          And no, I did not refer to him as a “childish ass”, which would have just furthered the name calling.

          But the idea that if I didn’t stoop to name calling myself means that I am “blaming the victim” simply is not the case.

          It is also not true that I have ever attempted to censor you. My saying—as I have many times—that I don’t believe your frequent tone of disparaging your fellow Anti-Jihadists is helpful hardly constitutes my telling you to stop your comments.

          In fact, my actions here have been the *opposite* of trying to silence you. When you were banned, i wrote to both Marisol and Robert asking that you be reinstated.

          Nor do I have any control over PJ’s comments (nor should I). He has replied to myself (and others such as Wellington) that he doesn’t give a rat’s ass (his words) about our views on this point.

          And your slamming me here was apropos of nothing. Philip Jihadski had not insulted you on this thread—in fact, he had not even commented.

          And while he does disagree with you in a subsequent post (on the next comments page on this thread) he does so without name calling, and while addressing the content of your post.

          And even at his rudest, the idea that Philip Jihadski’s comments are analogous to Jihad threats and violence is ridiculous. It is not just that Jihad death squads are “far far worse” than online discourtesy, it is different in kind. I am not condoning it on anyone’s part, but implying that this is just a matter of degree belittles the very threat of Islam that we *all* face.

          Voegelinian, I believe you have a lot to offer here, and I respect your erudite observations even when I may disagree with you on some points. I have said this many times.

          But this constant aggrieved returning to this issue and dragging others into it? I have to admit I am just sick to death of this whole thing at this point.

        • Angemon says

          May 7, 2015 at 6:16 pm

          gravenimage posted:

          “And no, I did not refer to him as a “childish ass”, which would have just furthered the name calling.”

          You’re right, you didn’t. But notice voeg’s double standard: if PJ calls him an ass he whines on and on but, not only he would see nothing wrong with, he expects you to insult PJ on his behalf. And this is not the first time we’ve witnessed this kind of behaviour from him. He seems to lack a moral compass and plot his course of action depending on what’s best for him and the image he’s trying to project. Why else would he lie over and over about facts that are easily verifiable? Why else would he try to manipulate people through guilt? As far as I’m concerned, on that regard he’s no different, in nature, from pious muslims, for example, from CAIR. And that part of his nature makes in a liability to the CJ movement – he seems so eager to be go-to guru of the counter-jihad that he has no problems throwing counter-jihadis under the bus, bathe them in gasoline, light them up and piss on their remains – he would burn the kingdom down to rule over the ashes.

        • gravenimage says

          May 6, 2015 at 2:10 pm

          Thank you, Angemon.

  57. vickie says

    May 5, 2015 at 7:13 am

    In one of the videos posted by I don’t remember and I don’t remember the comment thread either.

    The video shows police officers standing outside the venue, They hear the shots. Wave of a couple of cars. Yell at a man to get inside. Towards the end of the video a man appearing to be “Amish” without his hat is being patted down and cuffed.

    No other video I have seen shows this. No mention of this one man – WHO IS HE?

    • particolor says

      May 5, 2015 at 7:36 am

      Ill take a Guess ? One of the 900 Million + Muhammad’s !!

      • vickie says

        May 5, 2015 at 7:44 am

        My concern – Is he in custody? Released? Has he analyzed how, why the attack failed? is he reporting back to his mosque?

        • particolor says

          May 5, 2015 at 7:54 am

          You will probably never know with the Garbage the Press Prints now ??
          But I think what Incited the Boys was the thought of the 144 Virgins they could share ?

    • voegelinian says

      May 5, 2015 at 7:02 pm

      The Amish look is the Islamic look, at least for their front-line mujahideen:

      One of the two attackers looked “Amish” —

      http://www.jihadwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/simpson-soofi-300×198.jpg

      It could well be that the police Vicki is asking about were simply being rationally suspicious of anyone there with a beard and no moustache (one hopes for the day, nonetheless, when profiling will be more rational, and granularize the physiognomic factor — not eliminate it, just fine-tune it; since we already know (cf., the 911 hijackers) that Muslim attackers can also try to blend in appearance-wise).

      • Angemon says

        May 5, 2015 at 7:40 pm

        voegelinian posted:

        “one hopes for the day, nonetheless, when profiling will be more rational, and granularize the physiognomic factor — not eliminate it, just fine-tune it; since we already know (cf., the 911 hijackers) that Muslim attackers can also try to blend in appearance-wise)”

        Huh, what? Could you explain to us how would you fine-tune the physiognomic factor, considering that muslims can be of any ethnicity and don’t necessarily dress in islamic garments or grow beards?

  58. sidney penny says

    May 5, 2015 at 7:15 am

    “I have offered to have a public discussion or debate with virtually every significant Muslim leader on the scene. They have all contemptuously refused. They don’t want to fight speech with more speech. They don’t want to confront our ideas. They want to smear us, defame us, marginalize us, and destroy us utterly. That is how the Left and the Islamic supremacists work these days.”

    They cannot debate so they defame and destroy. All that is left to them is to try to silence us forcibly by vandalizing our messages and smearing and defaming the messenger. It is the tactic of thugs and fascists, and should be opposed by all free people.

    Words like fascist,racist,Nazi are words used by people who have no arguments.
    They cannot refute so they name-call and smear. It’s a tactic — distract and destroy.
    They cannot debate so they resort to personal attacks.

    It is interesting to note that reading what muslims produce and what the say in debates could be a good example of a class on logical fallacies: ciruclar reasoning, personal attacks or shoot the messenger, red herrings etc. Muslims are obvioulsy enemies of Aristolte and his logic, which is basic to human reasoning.

    They don’t accept the principle of non contradiction. They aslo redefine terms such as truth, peace and try to take the unwary for a ride by telling them that “islam is a religion of peace” …

  59. mgoldberg says

    May 5, 2015 at 7:18 am

    “…In the Los Angeles Times, Sarah Chayes noted that “the current standard for restricting speech — or punishing it after it has in fact caused violence — was laid out in the 1969 case Brandenburg vs. Ohio. Under the narrower guidelines, only speech that has the intent and the likelihood of inciting imminent violence or lawbreaking can be limited.” She then argued at length that the Muhammad video did indeed have the likelihood of inciting imminent violence, and should thus be banned.”

    I’ll bet money, that that writer, never ever called for restricting the speeches of ANY of the muslim imams, who called ‘Jews are cancers that must be exterminated’.

    I’ll bet this unbelievable rhetorical device she deigns to peddle has never been so applied by her in any such call to exterminate other peoples, who enslaving them. And if anyone can figure a way to check that might post to that writer and Mclachy and show what hypocrisy really looks like.

    • spot on says

      May 5, 2015 at 8:12 am

      How many times have we seen people stomping on the US flag while these very same hypocrites praise freedom of speech. Libs are in love with the Moolas and Islam but hate law abiding Americans.

      • rev g says

        May 5, 2015 at 8:36 am

        Most Christians are pro-life. Apparently violence towards those clinics that perform “choice” operations is now justified by deeply held religious convictions? Or will they outlaw Planned Parenthood to appease the Christians?

        • Rev Albert W. Kovacs says

          May 5, 2015 at 11:18 am

          The few occasions when nuts go violent against abortion mills are greatly exaggerated! The number is almost zero! . . . But the number of women hauled to hospitals from failed abortions, including their deaths, is seldom mentioned – yet it is significantly larger. The number of unreported abortions on teenage girls, and ignoring the laws demanding the reporting of the statutory rapist,
          is almost never observed by Planned Parenthood. There is the real violence – against women by the money grubbing owners of the butcher shops!

    • Shane says

      May 5, 2015 at 10:08 am

      Good point. Are we in the West to silence our citizens from expressing their opinions because a few Muslim fanatics will respond with violence. I think NOT! We must continue to speak the truth about Muhammad, as the people who drew Muhammad did. Muhammad was no holy man spreading a message of peace.

      Draw Muhammad Contest Winner: https://twitter.com/southsalem/status/595581467045957633/photo/1
      Mo Go Home: http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/05/Keep-Out-NZ-Free-Speech-Podrig-Oshaunasey-984×1024.jpg

    • particolor says

      May 6, 2015 at 1:03 am

      So Bloody TRUE !!..

  60. Chris Evans says

    May 5, 2015 at 7:24 am

    Dear Mr. Spencer,

    You said, “What exactly is vile about standing up for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law, Schanzer? You’re just libeling, not giving a reasoned argument.

    I believe that regarding the “Texas Jihad Shootings”, you and almost everyone else has gotten a bit side tracked. In focusing all of the discussions on free speech I believe you may be missing an opportunity to bring to the attention of our brain dead media and the generally misinformed/uninformed public what this conference in Texas, and your websites, and most of your activities concerning Islam are really for.

    You, Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders and many others are trying to make the public aware that Islam has tenets that tell it’s followers that…

    – God approves of adult men having sex with prepubescent children
    – God instructs men to beat their wives
    – God tells us that men are superior to women and should rule over them
    – God orders Muslims to fight and if necessary kill anyone for committing adultery, homosexuality, apostasy, blasphemy, drunkenness (after the 3rd or 4th offense depending on which contradictory verse one reads, and “making mischief in the land” (which according to Islamic texts evidently includes such goodies as a) writing poetry insulting to Mohammad and b) not submitting to Islamic law and c) being a Jew (Moh said, “kill any Jew who falls under your power”) and d) being a child who was going to grow up to become a non-Muslim and e) not showing up at the mosque for afternoon prayers (Moh ordered people burned alive in their homes for this one…, So much for “there can be no compulsion in religion”).

    The point is, Islam has tenets within it’s holy texts which include the above instructions and these things ABOUT ISLAM NEED TO BE PUBLICIZED AND CRITICIZED. How can anyone criticizing such disgustingly evil dogma possibly be accused of an agenda to “antagonize and spread a pretty vile message”. Please write to Mr. Schanzer and ask him this. Ask him to defend his evident attempts to stop anyone from saying having sex with children and beating women is WRONG.

    I would like to see our media stop talking JUST about “free speech”, accusations and rebuttals on “incitement” and bring the message back to pointing out these core elements of Islam that make it so evil.

    Thank you for all of your efforts.

    Chris Evans

    • gungadin says

      May 5, 2015 at 8:09 am

      GREAT letter Chris. I couldn’t have said it better myself. !!

      • jihad3tracker says

        May 5, 2015 at 9:45 am

        Agreed — an excellent post. BTW, when Robert Spencer puts up a new post this morning (Tuesday) I will be commenting with a suggestion about every Jihad Watch reader here seizing this opportunity to write to NATIONAL MAJOR newspapers and their mostly Leftist “pundits”.

        This is our chance for pushback against the thousands of emails or phone calls which CAIR, Nathan Lean, Reza “I-always-carry-a-mirror” Aslan, Linda Cockroach Sarsour, and the other taqiyya propagandists will be making in their effort to twist the Garland attempted massacre.

        Please look for my post and then FOLLOW THROUGH WITH ACTION . . .

        • TheCountess says

          May 5, 2015 at 12:10 pm

          To any and all,
          In an effort to add to all comments; Let us not forget this agenda of a bill passed:
          NDAA
          It is passed, but not yet implemented. This bill needs to be reversed. Free speech, as we are commenting on is all but wiped out in view of this bill’s implications in terms of freedom of ‘movement’. Police can come to your house, take you prisoner with no explanations whatsoever and you will disappear, without due justice of law.
          So much happens almost daily, we forget just how deep into detention we have come as a free people. The language of ‘certain AMERICANS” being taken into custody can mean ANYONE for what will be called ‘terrorists’ reasons, yet without explanation, will be how law will be enacted.
          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/ndaa-obama-indefinite-detention_n_2402601.html

          http://www.infowars.com/president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-i-have-the-power-to-detain-americans-but-i-wont/

    • Scott says

      May 5, 2015 at 10:07 am

      Chris,
      I would love to hear how you propose to fly in the face of the MSM and tell them why your “truths” (which I agree with) aren’t abject “racism”, “complete intolerance”, “total bigotry”.

      I’m actually quite sincere in what I’m asking. I wish there were a way we all could do this.
      I do think that Robert does quite a good job of it btw.
      But how can we do this and get ANY traction in ANY media that does not immediately put in the KKK?

      That’s the conundrum and the true evil that Fundamentalist Islam is. It’s Nazism in the guise of a Religion. Hitler and Goebbels would have thought it brilliant.

      • Chris says

        May 5, 2015 at 7:32 pm

        You said, “I would love to hear how you propose to fly in the face of the MSM and tell them why your “truths” (which I agree with) aren’t abject “racism”, “complete intolerance”, “total bigotry”.

        I think we have to keep doing what we’re doing. We must stress that we do not hate Muslims, but that we do hate the doctrine of hate created by Islam’s pervert prophet. I honestly feel compassion for Muslims, for they are the biggest victims to the lies of Mohammad.

        I believe we must avoid being taking off topic, and that topic is that there are hundreds of evil and hateful passages in the Quran and other Islamic holy texts, and that while many tolerant and relatively peaceful Muslims do not follow those evil tenets, millions of others do, just as millions have been doing for the past 1400 years.

        Yes, it is a conundrum, but I do not see any other choice for people who value their freedoms, and debate sure beats shooting.

        Personally, I am somewhat optimistic. I believe that this venue, the internet, has made it possible for the first time since Mohammad started his evil cult, for logical arguments and honest debate to reach into the very lands where such speech is so strictly controlled and forbidden. I believe that in time such criticisms will have had enough of an effect to the point that the evils associated with Islam will have become largely a nonissue. Unfortunately, getting to that point will probably take several hundred more years and a lot more bloodshed, but again, what other choice do we have?

    • gordon miller says

      May 5, 2015 at 11:35 am

      Yes, the press has been unhelpful in bringing out the truth about Islam.
      I am particularly disappointed with FOX news for its antipathy to Pamela Geller and its lukewarm response to the attack by Isis in Texas.

      • Scott says

        May 5, 2015 at 12:22 pm

        Most notably, “O’Reilly”…..
        He and Napolitano actually attacked Pamela about a week ago.
        It was disgusting and neither of them seemed to understand her campaign, (nor did they seem to care), in the least.

        • Scott says

          May 5, 2015 at 12:23 pm

          BTW, I may be wrong because I only scanned his show, but I don’t believe O’Reilly even mentioned the Texas shooting incident at all on his show…? Someone please confirm.

    • voegelinian says

      May 5, 2015 at 7:16 pm

      How can anyone criticizing such disgustingly evil dogma possibly be accused of an agenda to “antagonize and spread a pretty vile message”.

      Sure. The problem arises (and it keeps stubbornly arising all the time, throughout the Western Mainstream, doggedly and obtusely and earnestly reasserting itself every time Muslim attack us) because of three massive factors:

      1) the fact that this same Islam that Chris Evans correctly describes as evil is the most important aspect of some 1.5 billion people on the planet;

      2) the fact that the vast majority of these 1.5 billion look ethnic (non-Western, non-white);

      which, in turn

      3) pushes the hot buttons of the mainstream Western worldview of Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism — a worldview of interlocking memes, such as Reverse Racism, White Guilt, Excessive Self-Criticism of our own West; Excessive “Respect” for the Other.

      In addition, #1 also elicits certain amorphous principles from the mainstream West — such as the principle of Fairness; and the principle of Innocent Until Proven Guilty — principles which needless to say are enormously intensified when we take the sheer numbers of Muslims into account, as well as #2 and #3.

      If we all (the Counter-Jihadists and the broader, mainstream West still laboring earnestly under its PC MC worldview) could easily and neatly separate a Tiny Minority of Extremists from a Vast Majority of Nice Muslims Who Just Wanna Have a Sandwich (in the immortally asinine words of Ben Affleck), the problem would subside. But more and more, people everywhere are getting the vaguely disturbing, nagging sense that the problem of Islamic fanaticism and the global revival of jihad are much broader, systemic, metastasizing processes.

      This slowly, dimly increasing realization however, has a peculiar “reverse effect” among those whose hearts & minds are beholden to the PC MC worldview: The more that Muslims attack, murder and promote Islamic extremism, the more — not the less — do the mainstream Westerners anxiously bend over backwards to try to shore up and man the bastions & sandbags at the banks of their River called De Nile.

  61. Plutachus7 says

    May 5, 2015 at 7:33 am

    ATTENTION: LEFTIST OPPONENTS OF AFDI

    Would you oppose homosexuals holding an inciteful, offensive-to-Islamic-fundamentalists Mohammed Art Exhibit and Contest offering a cash prize of $10,000 to an artist who depicts in the most effective way the Prophet torturing, brutalizing and slaying homosexuals? And if there were jihadist violence at such an event who would you attribute it to? The Gay organizers? Or the jihadist Moslems and their primitive, medieval hatred and fear of homosesxuals?

    • Plutarchus7 says

      May 5, 2015 at 7:35 am

      …fear of homosexuals.

    • next art exhibition says

      May 5, 2015 at 8:32 am

      The next art exhibition should be on something to do with the shrinking Middle East Christian community. Perhaps it can be of people or the churches before they were bombed and before the people were killed and mutilated.

      How about an art exhibition of survivors from Islamic genocide, the Armenian holocaust. People resilient enough to survive “Islamaphobia” in action. Or perhaps an art exhibition on the moods of Asia Bibi…whilst in jail for the last five years for her serious crime of drinking water from a shared drinking vessel of muslims. Art can be a powerful tool in the fight against Islamic oppression. We either take a stand now or wait for their evil to flourish.

      • Plutarchus7 says

        May 5, 2015 at 12:50 pm

        Excellent! And here’s an idea for the porno crowd, Bob. As pornography is outlawed by Islam how about an art exhibition/contest on Islamic Necrophilia? This would show drawings depicting Aisha making love to her dead husband (together with his sex slaves) six hours before his body grows cold. Now as dead men can’t get hard artists would have a field day inventing all sorts of sordid ways Aisha and Mo’s sex slaves could do it with the prophet one last time before they die and are transformed into virgins for his pleasure in heaven.

        • Plutarchus7 says

          May 5, 2015 at 1:00 pm

          Wait a minute. Is it lawful in Islam for Moslem wives to have death sex with their deceased husbands? The reverse is permissible. But are women allowed? If not this could be an exhibition for the feminists as well.

        • particolor says

          May 6, 2015 at 12:28 am

          Talk about Sick Puppies ! Get to the Vet !!

      • cs says

        May 5, 2015 at 2:55 pm

        Oh, that would be too damaging, too real, too truthful, people cannot deal with it. How about a group of people who chose to breed hyenas and end up been eaten up by them? It is a nice metaphor for what will come next isn’t it?

  62. sabboleh says

    May 5, 2015 at 7:40 am

    “The best way to fight against people you disagree with is to confront their ideas, he said.”

    Then why isn’t he going out of his way to condemn the shooters and their sponsers who refuse to do that and confront their ideas with violence?

    • Western Canadian says

      May 5, 2015 at 12:20 pm

      How about he is closer to them then we might think….

  63. harbidoll says

    May 5, 2015 at 7:44 am

    to threaten the first amendment & call for limitations to it are “fighting words”. We will fight against any such action but will NOT fight your right to say such a thing. Kapish?

  64. traci94 says

    May 5, 2015 at 8:07 am

    I think that you, Pam and Geert our all very brave, and I appreciate and applaud your continued efforts to stand up for free speach, especially facing such great opposition as you all do. Thank you so much.

  65. rev g says

    May 5, 2015 at 8:27 am

    If first amendment issues need discussing, they are on the wrong side of tbe issue.
    Should the right to potentally incendiary drawings, such as those that are found on op-ed pages nationwide, be curtailed?
    Or should religious practices sanctioned by islam, but detrimental to the lives or health of non-practitioners, be restricted instead? I seem to recall assault, battery, and murder or attempting it to be contrary to extant laws already, so the answer seems simple enough.

  66. Dr John says

    May 5, 2015 at 8:32 am

    I just want to say an enormous “THANK YOU” to Robert, Pam and Geert. I cannot think what would happen without them. We ALL need to challenge politicians and show them their irrationality in calling us “islamophobes”. I would like to see a public televised debate between some key politicians and Robert. This would expose them.

  67. terry bare says

    May 5, 2015 at 8:34 am

    If they’re going to go down the route of anything that incites violence will be illegal, then read the koran, it incites violence and killings around the planet on a daily basis.

    We can’t criticize their so called prophet, then it stands to reason that the koran should be banned as well.

    The law does not allow us to pick and choose, it’s must be applied equally across the board.

  68. Richie says

    May 5, 2015 at 8:35 am

    These leftists who denounce any criticism of Islam don’t seem to have any problem criticizing Christians or Jews

    • Scott says

      May 5, 2015 at 9:57 am

      No one has ever counted the number of anti-semitic “cartoons” that have been officially published in Arab media. 1000’s….I don’t recall any Jews killing anyone over it.

  69. vickie says

    May 5, 2015 at 8:43 am

    Video is towards the bottom of the article.
    http://wizbangblog.com/2015/05/04/muslim-terrorists-try-to-disrupt-texas-draw-mohammad-free-speech-event-get-killed-in-attack/

    At around 2:02 a third participant?

  70. Ice Star says

    May 5, 2015 at 8:52 am

    It never ceases to amaze me how quickly the media blames the victims of Muslim violence, and NOT condemn the violent behavior of the Muslims.

    Do these same people blame the rape victim for dressing provocatively? I doubt it.

    Europeans are NOT Americans and do not understand our First Amendment, this is a cultural thing.
    We need to explain clearly just what the first amendment is all about. It protects speech that is unpopular, controversial, among other free expressions.

    Many countries in Europe have state religions, unlike the USA which does not.

    It is the REACTION to the speech that is the problem here.

    No one has to right to kill someone who annoys or offends you.

    Islam is a myth and Mohamed is a deified ancestor.

    No religion/mythology deserves protection from criticism or mockery. Nor is any protected in the USA from it.

  71. David P. says

    May 5, 2015 at 9:20 am

    What’s really amazing (and sickening) about MSM is that they kowtow to Islamic ‘sensibilities’ yet have no qualms about trashing Christian and Jewish ones. Did MSM blow a gasket when ‘Piss Christ’ exhibition was done several years ago? Not a peep. You’d think a Christian country like the USA would be up in arms and the press would crucify the artist- but that never happened. If it’s ok to ‘insult’ Jesus in America than it’s more than ok to ‘insult’ Mohamed, who was a child-molesting cutthroat gangster.

    Bravo to Pam for putting on the show. If the Muslims feel insulted by it, they should look into the mirror and ask themselves why others feel the way they do. “But why oh why do they think Islam is a religion of terror?” Hmmm, ISIS, Boku Haram, mass beheadings, child sex slavery, bombings/killings in the USA, France, Canada, Belgium, England, 9/11, etc., etc., THAT’S WHY!

    The WP and McClatchey are tools for the left and have damaged this country, plain and simple. hard to believe so many editors are sh-t-for-brains.

  72. Isabellathecrusader says

    May 5, 2015 at 9:25 am

    Some idiot on another website said that it’s fine to have the 1st amendment but that we need to remember they have the 2nd amendment…WT fricken’ hell? Have we lost our minds? Have Islamists been so effective with their brow beating propaganda and have we become so cowed that some among us that aren’t Muslims now believe that Sharia rage is somehow justified? As Pamela said on CNN yesterday, “IT’S A CARTOON,” folks!! For crying out loud. And as Mark Levin said last night, the last time he checked we were not living in a country governed by Islam. Do any of us actually remember that?

  73. Alarmed Pig Farmer says

    May 5, 2015 at 9:36 am

    Last night Howard Kurtz, the putative media analyst for Fox RINO, state, “Pamela Geller makes many statements about Moslems, not all of which I can agree with…” and I said to myself here we go again, divide-by-two the truth is somewhere in the middle.

    Megyn Kelly, no doubt anxious to keep her ratings and her high paying job, did not ask this line of questioning, but I will: What exactly, Howard, did Geller say that you cannot agree with? Where is she factually wrong? If she has consistently told the truth about Moslems, how can you say that she is provocative, what in her argument is extreme?

    But she didn’t and they cut to a commercial, leaving the viewership with the impression that Geller is somewhat of a polemicist, and that the truth lies somewhere about halfway in between her and the Jihadist.

    This is an example of how public opinion is programmed; this is how fictive realities are built, sold and maintained.

    Kurtz the self-serving self-important lightweight got it exactly wrong: there is nothing Geller says that the can *disagree* with.

  74. JohnPent says

    May 5, 2015 at 9:42 am

    The political left has always wanted to shut down speech from the political right. Just like with “global warming” / “climate change”, they are not good at debate. The only debate they can win is a debate that only features the speech of one side. It is not hate to point out that the majority of the Muslims across the world are so intimidated by their own growing radical elements, they not only cannot control them they also refuse to try to control them. ISIS grows and grows because the US is no longer fighting Jihad. Instead we are fighting those that point out Jihad is happening.

    There is a Christian Genocide taking place in many partially Muslim countries world-wide. They kill Jews with no regret and no consequences. They are doing the same to Christians.

    It is not hate to point out the truth. It is enlightenment to understand what is really happening. Putting your head in the sand and letting the liberal left push back hard against free speech is suicide. We have to keep our speech free by practicing it.

    Nobody is yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre. Instead, police in Garland were yelling “shots fired” because Muslims were attempting to do a mass killing. Thankfully the Garland PD had an officer with a handgun that knew how to use it despite the body armor and assault weapons on the failed terrorists.

    • Alarmed Pig Farmer says

      May 5, 2015 at 10:17 am

      The political left has always wanted to shut down speech from the political right. Just like with “global warming” / “climate change”…

      This is an important analogy. Yet, there’s a critical difference between the two: you can never ultimately win an argument against the fraudulent science boosters because there is no guarantee what will happen with the climate in the future. But, with Islam, the results are readily proven both by the contents of its scriptures and its resultant history and present.

      Yet, it seems impossible to get the population to examine these readily available Islamic facts, which are abundant. But there are no facts to back the AGW boosters, only speculation. Yet it seems *impossible* to get the population to examine the fake facts of Global Warming cum Climate Change marketeers.

      Oh the irony.

  75. Scott says

    May 5, 2015 at 9:55 am

    Just for fun, link over to the McClatchy article.
    The comments were going about 100-0 AGAINST the tripe that was written in.
    Thank you Robert!

    • gravenimage says

      May 5, 2015 at 10:08 am

      Thanks for pointing that out, Scott. I do believe that more and more people are waking up to the threat of Islam—the aggressive dhimmitude of the MSM notwithstanding.

  76. Robin Rosenblatt says

    May 5, 2015 at 10:00 am

    Every one of us who has Courage must start a Mohammad joke picture event or day or say one to everyone you meet.

  77. MsPilgrim says

    May 5, 2015 at 10:04 am

    There is no debate with muslims. What needs to be limited is the muslims allowed in this country and the number of mosques allowed to be built. You can either do that now or wait until it becomes a matter of life or death.

  78. Ricky Black says

    May 5, 2015 at 10:06 am

    The Koran should be banned not free speech, because the Koran does order people to kill other people. If that isn’t hate speech then I don’t know what is.

  79. Mannie says

    May 5, 2015 at 10:13 am

    If drawing or insulting mo (Piss be upon him.) is to be banned, because it incites violence, then violence has been enshrined as the highest law. In that case, we MUST resort to violence to protect our rights. We must track down and hang the blasphemer who created “Piss Christ.” We must track down and execute Leftist thinkers and speakers, because they promote totalitarianism. We must burn members of the Southern Baptist Convention because I am a member of the Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship. Are we having fun, yet?

  80. Scott says

    May 5, 2015 at 10:15 am

    Many have wondered what the mind set of these supposed defenders of free speech are motivated by?
    Look at this video done by Dr. Charles Jacobs of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. It has a fabulous hypothesis on why the LEFTIST are the way they are. When he speaks of “White” leftists, he actually means all those who subscribe to the philosophy (for the context of this discussion), no matter what their racial or ethnic background.

    If you don’t have a lot of time…start at either the 10:20 or 12:20 marks. You’ll only then see the last 5 minutes that is pertinent to this thread…..

  81. C E says

    May 5, 2015 at 10:16 am

    Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and the participants of the “Draw Mohammad Cartoon” event are all islamaphobic hate mongers!

    NOT!!!!

    Articles like “http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/event-organizer-offers-no-apology-after-thwarted-attack-in-texas/ar-BBjbrff?ocid=mailsignout” are filling the news media.
    Why are we not surprised?

    According to the author of this article, Sandhya Somashekhar, people who draw cartoons depicting Mohammad are guilty of intentionally insulting Muslims just to get a reaction. People who draw pictures of Mohammad are “Islamaphobes” who are filled with hatred towards all Muslims.

    Sandhya and her contributing authors are either a liars or woefully ignorant about Islam and what those cartoonists and the organizers of the event in Texas are trying to achieve.

    Do the authors believe that it is Islamaphobic to say that having sex with children is bad?
    Do the authors believe that it is Islamaphobic to say that killing anyone who refuses to submit to Islam as supreme and obey it’s rules is bad?

    Islam has within it’s holy texts such dogma. Sura 65:1-4 of the Quran gives adult Muslim men God’s sanction to have sex with prepubescent females. Sura 9:29 orders them to fight and kill as necessary anyone who refuses to accept Islam as supreme and attest that there is no God but Allah and that Mohammad is the messenger of Allah.

    Other verses within Islamic holy texts; the Quran, the ahadith and the Sera of Mohammad say things like
    – men are to beat their wives if they suspect them of disloyalty
    – kill any Jew who falls under you power
    – kill any child who you know is going to grow up to be a non-Muslim
    – men have dominance over women
    – kill homosexuals
    – kill adulterers
    – kill apostates
    – kill drunks (after the 3rd or 4th time, depending on which contradicting verse one reads)
    – burn to death in their homes anyone who doesn’t show up at the mosque for afternoon prayers
    – kill anyone who writes poetry that is insulting to Mohammad
    (I will gladly provide the exact Islamic sources for every single one of these tenets on request.)

    Fortunately for the world, not every Muslim follows the above tenets. Many are relatively tolerant of people of other beliefs and cultures.

    Unfortunately for the world, million of other Muslims DO FOLLOW these instructions. They take the words of their prophet literally when he said things like, “Kill any Jew who comes under your power” and “He (Allah) has made you heirs to THEIR (all non-Muslims) lands and THEIR homes and THEIR possessions, and made you to walk upon a land whereon you have never walked before…” And for the record, these passages are not “taken out of context” as so many Muslim apologists often contend. They say what they say and they mean exactly what they clearly mean. There are contradictory verses which often say almost the exact opposite of the above verses (Mohammad contradicted himself frequently in his ramblings), but there are no verses around them that changes their simply stated meaning one iota.

    Despite the existence of some moderate and tolerant Muslims, Islam itself never has been nor ever will be moderate and tolerant. It has always had these passages and it always will have these passages, and for this reason, there will always be Muslims willing to fight and kill anyone who refuses to accept as supreme their unprovable opinion as to what is God’s will.

    Drawing cartoons depicting Mohammad is a way of criticizing the above dogma, and this dogma NEEDS to be criticized, regardless of the fact that Muslims find such criticism insulting and blasphemous. Having sex with children is EVIL and WRONG. Killing Jews just because they are Jews is EVIL and WRONG. Fighting and killing anyone who refuses to accept Islam as supreme is EVIL and WRONG. Beating one’s wife for ANY reason and to ANY degree is EVIL and WRONG. Murdering adulterers, homosexuals, apostates, drunks, and so called blasphemers is EVIL and WRONG.

    Idiot appeasers like Sandhya Somashedkhar need to study Islam from it’s source – it’s holy texts. Those texts clearly and REPEATEDLY state that it is the duty of all Muslims to bring about worldwide Islamic rule either by conversion OR COERSION. The organizers and participants of the “Draw Mohammad Cartoon” event that Sandhya and other morons like her vilify as provocative antagonists are actually informed heroes. They do not hate Muslims. They hate the doctrine of hate that Muslims stupidly believe came from God. They have taken the time and effort to learn why groups like ISIS, Boko Harem, Al Quaeda and the Taliban commit the atrocities they commit. Now they are taking the time to try and educate the public as to just how evil and sick Islam, as taught and exemplified by it’s own perverted holy prophet, really is.

    • TheCountess says

      May 5, 2015 at 1:05 pm

      During the second world war, all media, from cartoons, to movies, cartoon movies, and so forth pictured Hitler as comic. It was propaganda, but it’s affects were overwhelmingly productive. When something fearful can be turned into something comedic, then it’s power gets knocked down. At first, I misunderstood the art fair and was against it. I now realize that we need to stand up to this movement with our own brand of Americanism of free speech by ridicule in humor. Laugh it away as meaning nothing to us, all the while ‘undermining’ it with a ‘portrait’ of just how stupid and insidious this evil actually is.

      • Scott says

        May 5, 2015 at 1:11 pm

        “At first, I misunderstood the art fair and was against it. I now realize that we need to stand up to this movement with our own brand of Americanism of free speech by ridicule in humor.”
        Ah Countess….it’s good to see you’ve come over to the light…..

    • Scott says

      May 5, 2015 at 1:09 pm

      CE, please do give us the exact information. That way, all the rest of us can show the Leftist/Dhimmi Public what Islam really says….
      Thanks in advance…

      • CE says

        May 5, 2015 at 9:34 pm

        You said, “Please do give us the exact information”

        I was afraid someone was going to ask, but I did say I would provide it, so I will…

        1) “men are to beat their wives if they suspect them of disloyalty
        Quran: Sura 4:34. Also Bukhari 7:715; Dawud 709:2141; SUNAN OF IBN-I-MAJAH 1985; Muslim 2127 (Mohammad hits Aisha)

        2) “kill any Jew who falls under you power”
        Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 554 – “The apostle said, “Kill any Jew that falls into your power.” Thereupon Muhayyisa leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him…”

        3) “kill any child who you know is going to grow up to be a non-Muslim”
        Muslim 4457 – “The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them unless you could know what Khadir had known about the child he killed, or you could distinguish between a child who would grow up to he a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer), so that you killed the (prospective) non-believer and left the (prospective) believer aside.”
        4) men have dominance over women
        Quran 4:34 and 2:228.

        5) “kill homosexuals”
        Abu Dawud (4462) – The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.”.
        Also Dawud 4448, Bukhari 72:774, Abu Dawud (4462), al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152,

        6) “kill adulterers”
        Bukhari 6:60:79; Bukhari 83:37; Muslim 17:4192,4196,4206; Ishaq 970

        7) “kill apostates”
        Bukhari 9:83:17; Bukhari 4:52:260; Bukhari 9:89:271; Muslim 16:4152, 4154

        8) “kill drunks (after the 3rd or 4th time, depending on which contradicting verse one reads)”
        Dawud 38:4457 (execute after the 3rd offense)
        Ibn Majah 3:20:2572,2573 (execute after the 4th offense)

        9) “burn to death in their homes anyone who doesn’t show up at the mosque for afternoon prayers”
        Bukhari vol 1, Book 11, Number 626: “Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said,“No prayer is harder for the hypocrites than the Fajr and the ‘Isha’ prayers and if they knew the reward for these prayers at their respective times, they would certainly present themselves (in the mosques) even if they had to c awl.” The Prophet added,“Certainly I decided to order the Mu’adh-dhin (call-maker) to pronounce Iqama and order a man to lead the prayer and then take a fire flame to burn all those who had not left their houses so far for the prayer along with their houses.”

        10) “kill anyone who writes poetry that is insulting to Mohammad”

        Sahih Bukhari 4:52:264, Sahih Bukhari 5:59:370, Sahih Bukhari 5:59:371, Sahih Bukhari 5:59:372; Musnad Ahmad 3:496[29]
        Abu Dawud, book 2 no.1244; Abu Dawud 14:2678 (Note: I may have inadvertently mixed in some who were not poets here)

        These are just partial lists. There are many more passages which prove that everything I said about Islam is accurate and truthful. If you need any more information, please ask and I will try to accommodate, time permitting.

  82. duh_swami says

    May 5, 2015 at 10:31 am

    The fruitcakes who suggest such things need to be confronted in their offices, at the grocery store and anywhere they are found…Public Chastisement…You try and interfere with my free speech rights or any rights, and you will be publicly chastised and shamed…In the meantime contact the advertisers. Tell them if they support the killers of free speech, you will not support them by buying their products…Then redirect all useless junk mail to the fruitcakes offices…It takes more than some leftist, Islam loving fruitcakes to limit speech. And it isn’t going to happen any time soon…If the gov (Hillary?) tries to limit speech, mass civil disobedience is called for…Let me be one of the first…FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Allah,, Which might make a good bumpersticker…

  83. Robert says

    May 5, 2015 at 10:37 am

    I wonder if the people who say that we should not offend Muslims have given serious thought to the kinds of words that offend Muslims? “Do you believe that Muhammad was an infallible prophet of Allah the creator of all things?” If you answer no to that question and dare to say so publicly, you have “blasphemed” Muhammad and you deserve to die. Atheists bloggers have been killed for posting stuff on Facebook which essentially denies that Islam is true. In this way, EVERY PERSON WHO IS NOT A MUSLIM IS UNDER SENTENCE OF DEATH.

    I used to think that political correctness was stupid but not dangerous. I have never been more wrong in my life.

  84. Lioness says

    May 5, 2015 at 10:39 am

    It is very clear that practically everything offends muslims. What if we are to have an art exhibition depicting pigs or dogs? Surely that would offend muslims and will cause them to riot and commit murder, so there will be calls from the media to prohibit drawings of pigs and dogs. What about the drawing of praying Jews? Haram! That is extremely offensive to muslims and surely must be banned. Christians going to church? Well, that is very offensive to muslims. Why don’t we just stay home and lock the doors and cover the windows, or that too will outrage the muslims. Let’s face it: muslims are easily outraged at everything and anything, so we must tip-toe around them to please them. The media does, islam is their new master.

    • Jaladhi says

      May 5, 2015 at 10:49 am

      The only things that do not offend Muslims are the vile acts practiced by them per Quran, sharia and Mo/allah’s recommendation that all Muslims must follow. Everything else offends Muslims ad infinitum!!

      • particolor says

        May 6, 2015 at 1:52 am

        What ?!! The Batch of Prunes we Copped in Australia are Offended when We are not Offending them ? 🙂

    • Richie says

      May 5, 2015 at 11:54 am

      Pat Condell’s message to offended Muslims:

      https://youtu.be/nhjvoJatKOY

      • particolor says

        May 6, 2015 at 12:55 am

        I’m glad Your OFFENDED !!
        🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

        And You know what ? Us Normal People don’t really care !!

      • gravenimage says

        May 6, 2015 at 4:36 pm

        Marvelous stuff from Pat Condell, Richie—thanks for the link!

    • particolor says

      May 6, 2015 at 1:57 am

      That’s Magnificent ! 🙂 Frame it !! for the next Exhibition ! 🙂

  85. Isabellathecrusader says

    May 5, 2015 at 10:57 am

    Watched Martha interviewing Pamela on Fox News this a.m. and she was being a total bitch. I thought, Martha, why so on the defensive, babe? And then it dawned on me, because she is scared to death. People don’t get that angry about an opposing point of view unless it threatens the in some way.
    Perhaps Martha thinks that Christians and Muslims think the same way. She talked a lot about respecting other people’s religions. No it can’t be that…perhaps she is only too aware that Pamela could have/would have been killed last night if that off duty cop hadn’t stepped in and blown the bastards away. Perhaps she realizes that if she says anything against Islam, she could be next.

    So much for the bravery of our stalwart newscasters on Fox News. Martha, you reverted to the official stereotype of a blond today.

  86. Papa Whiskey says

    May 5, 2015 at 10:59 am

    This is in line with the Organization for Islamic Cooperation’s “Ten-Year Programme” to criminalize to so-called “defamation of religions” — an effort to which the State Department under HIllary Clinton lent credence in the execrable “Istanbul Process.”

    John F. Kennedy was once heard to say that “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” The same applies to resistance, a fact these professorial pukes and their kindred spirits had best mark well.

    • particolor says

      May 6, 2015 at 1:46 am

      Hear ! Hear !! …

  87. pdxnag says

    May 5, 2015 at 11:02 am

    Muslims are contenders for governmental power, albeit run exclusively by Muslims with unquestioned totalitarian control over everyone else covering all aspects of your life. The core First Amendment free speech right is targeted precisely at criticism of government and people seeking public office. Furthermore, Islamic law — Sharia law — is designed to fully displace all so called “man made” law. This makes their attempted conquest a perfect fit for application of free speech rights for those opposing such conquest and tyranny.

    Muslim citizens of the Islamic Ummah (exclusively), in contrast, are generally engaged in acts of sedition for which the First Amendment is not a defense.

    Think of these shooters as politicians, then judge their conduct as you would any politician who would act as they do.

    (All of man’s gods are man made so all law is man made, even if some folks refuse to acknowledge this self-evident truth.)

    Resisting oppression is not hate. Aiding and abetting tyranny is far more than just hate.

    • particolor says

      May 6, 2015 at 1:42 am

      If those Barbarians had a god ( Yes no Capitol) He would appear weekly to them on Friday ! Lets call it “Pay Day” And Kick ALL their Bloody Arses to Kingdom Come while they were bent over on their Mats Praying, for taking so Bloody long, 1400 FN Years to fulfil the Slay Them Task he set for them !! 🙁 …..

  88. Peter Castle says

    May 5, 2015 at 12:16 pm

    The Left is, again, on the wrong side. They attack the cartoonist and not the terrorists!

    Islamists literally seek world domination. Freedom of speech in anathema to them. That is why they so quickly pounce upon those speaking the truth about Islam. Coercion to control expression, thought, and actions.

    The terrorist threat is global and encompasses the United States. But the Left is more concerned with politics than what is best for America.

    See “We Are All Parisians!” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-71.

    • spot on says

      May 5, 2015 at 1:29 pm

      The left is always on the wrong side. If the right says “up”, the left will say “down” if for no other reason than pure spite.

      I do not preach but this is why religion and free enterprise has always worked for most, with charity handling the rest. This combination provided a bottom rung to the ladder for the poor while religion always provided the bottom rung to the ladder of moral motivation to support the family and provide moral sustenance for those in need of it. This is one reason socialism has failed every time it has been tried, and obviously the left loves socialism. The left is the “anti” component in life made up of kids that did not grow up due to lack of proper discipline or other factors. Today they are mostly manipulated by internationalists who worship money and will use them for personal financial gain and power.

    • Kepha says

      May 5, 2015 at 5:16 pm

      Peter Castle:

      I don’t know how old you are, but I’m well into middle age (a grandfather, even).

      Back when I was a whippersnapper in High School and College, the civil rights movement was going strong, Malcolm X became a classic, and hence Islam was “cool” to the airheads of the New Left. Now that they’re middle-aged and running things (and informing kids like Nathan Lean), they’ve passed the Islamic brand of anti-colonialist-thir-worldism off as their client. Hence, criticism of Islam is ipso facto racist and reactionary.

  89. TheCountess says

    May 5, 2015 at 12:53 pm

    It is occurring to me that laws are being passed, left on the shelf for when needed. in reverse.
    As we discuss freedom of speech:
    The First Amendment seems to be surrounding our personal ideas and ideals in all aspects.
    Faith is number one. Both in the embracing of it, as well as the involvement in living it. Inward as well as outward. (the core of any individual is what is at stake).
    It begins with keeping it separate from law, as it wasn’t when Americans were still British subjects, the King being the Head of the church. A spiritual head.
    In keeping with our founders who felt this was imperious intrusion, which people living today would deem superseding against one’s own conscience, they meant to keep one’s own conscience an ‘unalienable right’, and worded it just so.
    The freedom to feel about something, sovereign. To one’s own self be true. By conscience towards a higher authority and not dictated to from a human source. (and this can go outside of faith as well).
    Then it moves into ‘freedom of speech’. Why? What we feel, is what we think. How we communicate one to another goes hand and hand with what we do in our daily lives. What we reverence, honor, care about, will die for, or what we will altogether disregard. Either way, freedom of movement is applied. This moves onto the expressed Word, thought, idea into printed matter. As all that surrounds any society, communication, whether it be to one’s own self, via the printed word, verbally, via mass media and so forth. Communication: speaking, inter coursing; the sharing of words, ideas one to another. Since we are not robots, we are doing this with ‘the fiber of our being’. our feelings and attitudes. (my father who fought in WWII used to have a saying: I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight for our right to say it).
    It so mattered to our founders, they made this their number one task. Or the first amendment would have been the 8th instead.
    Then the material goes into assembling and redress of petitioning. Again, why? What we think, by way of how we feel about something, the freedom of movement concerns our governance. They understood this very well.
    Again, our founders were laying down principles from their own experiences coming from a British background into a new territory of Utopia. They were doing everything they could think of, hammering out in context what could stand the test of time in the very best way they understood.
    Having said all that, where are we now?
    I began my discourse with ‘planned’ for purpose.
    We are now seeing the ‘aftermath’ of bills already signed into law that are preceding current events. You must understand, very little remains to engulf us as a people, as a nation. Our freedom of movement, in the matter of speaking out, against, or even for something, are now the number one target. But the bill NDAA is already placed, passed, but not yet enforced. Now we are being attacked, via hate speech, of any kind against our conscience, belief systems, or personal perspectives, when a bill is already in place to use whenever without provocation.
    The cart is before the horse. And for camouflage reasons. They always draw our attention over here somewhere, in order to do something over there, while no one is looking.
    I offer two sites:
    http://www.infowars.com/president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-i-have-the-power-to-detain-americans-but-i-wont/
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/ndaa-obama-indefinite-detention_n_2402601.html

    And I conclude that once this administration completes it’s agenda, detention is inevitable.
    We are fighting our own government.

  90. Bear-In-Mind says

    May 5, 2015 at 1:09 pm

    Taking a step back, one has to wonder why the Western left has such a strong affinity for Islam and Islamists… There is a huge gap between the left’s stated values and their actual actions vis-a-vis Islam and Islamists, who by all rights should be the Left’s worst enemy.

    But the left is astoundingly deferential to Islamism – routinely choosing to go after those who go after Islamism and for the most part ignoring the horrendous violations of human rights perpetrated by those Islamists.

    If the Left are what they says they are, then they would be going after Islam with a vengeance – instead they go after bakers and photographers…

    Observing the left’s actual actions and inactions relative to Islam, the relationship is functionally that of ‘an enemy of my enemy is my friend’.

    The Western Left’s unique affinity for Islam should be very worrying to all true freedom loving people – especially those in America and other Western nations.

    • Julius O'Malley says

      May 6, 2015 at 2:47 am

      All true, however it is a question of priorities: one issue trumping another. The Left is more committed to Multiculturalism and with it reflexively defending the “Other”, than it is to its once, nominally at least, core values of humanism and individual rights.

      I use nominally above because for the last century the Left has proven over and over again that it is perfectly comfortable sacrificing humanist values and individual rights in order to, eg “build Socialism”.

      What never ceases to amaze me is the conspicuous silence of Western feminists on Islam and the support Islam gets from the gay community. Why don’t these people realize that they have even more to lose from the defending and protection, that is the empowerment, of Islam than the balance of the Western community? It is beyond rational comprehension.

      • Lilithwept says

        May 7, 2015 at 12:38 am

        Does the left really believe the Taqiyyah of Muslims and apologists that Islam means peace, that it is a beautiful, peaceful religion?
        Have they not read the Islamic texts to discover for themselves how bloodthjrsty Muhammed was and how expansionist Islam is?
        Cant they see what will happen if Islam takes over the US? Do they honestly think that it will not at least try? That it isnt trying right now? Or are they just too arrogant to think that the mighty US could be toppled?

        The response I keep getting to my posts from apologists is ” Do I think every muslim in the US is out to get get every person in the US?” And ” Why am I painting every muslim with the same brush?”
        It is so darn frustrating!

        • rev g says

          May 7, 2015 at 2:13 am

          I typically counter the broad brush allegation by asking if they think all Christians believe in Jesus,or the ten commandments as rules for living. Then accuse them of painting Christians with a broad brush.
          Same idea, most religious people accept the validity of key tenets of their faith, even if they may not do well at following those tenets.

  91. neversink says

    May 5, 2015 at 2:04 pm

    I wish you had noted, when condemning Sarah Chayes and her article in the LA Times, that at the time when the State Department had blamed the video on the Benghazi uprising and attack of the US Embassy, that the State Department failed to recognize that this video put on You Tube only had six (6) views when the US Embassy in Libya was attacked.

    • TheCountess says

      May 5, 2015 at 2:29 pm

      Good point…

  92. Andy says

    May 5, 2015 at 2:16 pm

    Oh what a good idea. Let’s surrender our civil rights, and become like the Christians in the Middle East because then the Muslims won’t kill us just like they don’t kill Christians in the Middle East.

  93. infidel Task Force says

    May 5, 2015 at 2:17 pm

    Orwell once said: “Freedom of speech is the right to tell someone what they do not want to hear.”
    What is Freedom Of Speech? It means you can tell someone something they do not like. There are no restrictions on saying things because the person it is said to will be offended. There are really good examples of this today with restrictions on the way religiion is spoken about in case people are offended. This is a restriction on freedom. The other obvious example is laws against racist incitement – racism is abhorrent but it is a restriction on freedom to stop people expressing racism. Note the other famous quote ” I hate what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. Once you start restricting what can be said as people may be offended or unhappy you are starting to restrict freedom itself and it is a slippery path. George Orwell had a good grip on what freedom meant and how it might be lost .. this is an apt quote.

  94. jewdog says

    May 5, 2015 at 2:35 pm

    Yes, the gunmens’ actions certainly will draw attention to their “hateful” message. He’s right about that, but not about the nature of the message. As they say in law, res ipsa loquitor: The thing speaks for itself.

    • Julius O'Malley says

      May 6, 2015 at 3:05 am

      Staggering that the MSM is critical of the cartoon competition attendees with nary a thought to the horrific reality that two Muslim maniacs sought, unsuccessfully, to inflict mass carnage on the peaceful, law-abiding, convention attendees.

      The story should be: why is it that such a planned attack even take places in American? And: isn’t it a wonderful thing that a mere traffic cop had the marksmanship skills to kill both of them with his pistol before they could kill anybody. Truly great news – he’s a hero. Yet we don’t even know his name as far as I’m aware. Will he be getting the Presidential Medal of Freedom? I doubt it. One can be certain that if they hadn’t already shot the security guard, that traffic cop would be demonized as a trigger-happy racist and his career would be in jeopardy.

      Instead CNN for example ran a piece by a Muslim who blithely asserted the monumental falsehood that radical Islam doesn’t get preached in America’s mosques. Any of them. I suppose he figured: If I assert it a proportion of people who don’t know better will believe it. Scandalous that a major media outlet would even publish such mendacity.

      • dumbledoresarmy says

        May 6, 2015 at 5:13 am

        You wrote – “And: isn’t it a wonderful thing that a mere traffic cop had the marksmanship skills to kill both of them with his pistol before they could kill anybody. Truly great news – he’s a hero. Yet we don’t even know his name as far as I’m aware. Will he be getting the Presidential Medal of Freedom?”

        I suspect the authorities may be withholding his name so as to protect him and his family. Because …he obliterated two wannabe jihadi mass-murderers. If the Ummah – the Mohammedan Mob – get his name they may well send assassins out after him…or, more likely his family if he has one.

        Re the Presidential Medal of Freedom – I don’t know what people have to do to qualify for it, since I’m not American and haven’t looked it up.

        But if what he did is the sort of thing that *does* normally qualify people to get it: it’s up to *you* and other Jihadwatchers who think similarly, to start a push for him to receive it. Write to your elected representative/s and raise the matter with them. For in every sense of the word that cop was defending Freedom. He made it possible for other people to exercise their First Amendment rights and stay alive while so doing.

  95. john spielman says

    May 5, 2015 at 2:47 pm

    I will NEVER stop telling peole that, according to the Bible ( per St Paul) islam is a doctrine of demons, and muhammed pbuh* was a demon possessed mass murderer thief liar misogynist and pedophile pervert!!
    pbuh* perpetual banishment unto hell!
    Thank you Jihad Watch for the forun to do this

  96. TH says

    May 5, 2015 at 3:16 pm

    How far things have gone when a host of media moguls, academics are defending the supposed right f dangerous criminals to not only be offended by whatever they decide offends them, but to go out and kill the supposed offenders.
    Were those present at the event calling for muslims to be killed? Obviously not.
    Were they defaming and calumniating anyone? No, of course not.

    Why not apply the same criteria to the Mafia. Suppose a journalist had specialized in covering mobster activities and their killings. You would expect the mob to be offended and probably try to eliminate such a journalist. But would you expect that the media, politicians and academia to come out and condem the journalist if he had been attacked by the mob for provoking its attack and say that “he got what he desrved”?
    How is it that in that Islamic thugs have to get favorable treatment from the press, academia and politicians and not the Mafia? Perhaps because Islamic thugs are more likely to kill than the Mafia. What kind of moral reasoning is applied here?

  97. Victoria says

    May 5, 2015 at 3:36 pm

    Really, this editorial makes me want to burn the paper down. How could the writers expect a different reaction? They suggest tearing down America; I feel like responding with a Molatov cocktail. By their reasoning, they should immediately cease and desist printing (or thinking) such rubbish because it could predictably incite violence by anti-jihadists against jihadist enablers.TAR. FEATHERS. What is the modern equivalent?

  98. Lee says

    May 5, 2015 at 4:19 pm

    With this type of thinking churches across the land will have to remove all pictures of God; cartoons of God will not be allowed; etc. as Torah states you are not to make an image of God. If it’s good enough for the Muslims, it’s good enough for the Jews.

  99. Alarmed Pig Farmer says

    May 5, 2015 at 5:04 pm

    Did McLatchy’s piece suggesting limits on free speech mention a need to hold a constitutional convention to modify the First Amendment, or is this to be done by the FCC through regulatory policy?

  100. TruthWFree says

    May 5, 2015 at 7:54 pm

    I’d say that two dead Muslim terrorists is a good ending to this story marred only by the wounded police officer. Islam should be outlawed in this country and the world. Islam is a cancer on mankind.

  101. TruthWFree says

    May 5, 2015 at 7:55 pm

    Forgot to thank you, Robert, and Pamela, for your courageous stand against this evil called Islam.

  102. David Hogan says

    May 5, 2015 at 10:30 pm

    This is a question for Robert,
    When did this belief that picturing Muhammad image become so offensive that Muslims feel a need to resort to violence as a response? I do not think this is in the Qur’an. I certainly may be wrong. Or is it contained in one of the Muhammad’s Hadiths?
    Even Fox’s O’Reilly did not recognize that suggesting not to characterize Muhammad’s image is only playing into Islam’s tactic of suppressing any criticism of any part of Islam.

    • Crusader says

      May 7, 2015 at 1:57 am

      If you look online you can see many images made of Muhammed by muslims in centuries past. Earlier ones sho his face but later images of Muhammed show his face covered with a white veil.
      Some Scholars think that the problem with images comes from the fear that some Muslims will begin to worship Muhammed if his image is readily available. And shirk or worshipping anything with Allah is the worst sin a Muslim can commit. As we all know Muslims venerate Muhammed almost to the point of worship.
      Muslims dont like images in general because polytheists and Christians create images ( of saints, Jesus, and for Hindus, different gods) and worship them. Muslim clerics have come to the understanding that some types images are necessary for things like ID cards etc. I read on one site , featuring questions Muslims ask an expert in Islam, that photos are considered the same as reflections in a mirror and since Muhammed didnt forbid mirrors, photographs are allowed.
      There is nothing in the Quran that forbids images. But then again a muslim cant practice the 5 pillars of Islam using just the information in the Quran…..so you really need to look atvthe Hadiths for more info.

      In the Hadiths there are accounts of a story that says once Muhammed stopped getting his revalations from the angel Gabriel….Muhammed was very upset but couldnt discover what was wrong. Then when housecleaning his child wife discovered a puppy had come into Muhammeds house and died under a bed. Muhammed was then told by Gabriel that Angels would never enter a house where there were dogs or images. Muhammed hated images of any human acording to the Hadiths, and would not allow them in his house and would destroy them where ever he saw them. Because of the possibility that these images could end up being worshipped or because people would think thatbit was ok to make images and thise could be worshipped. Muhammed was fanatical about not allowing anythimg or anyone to be worshipped along with Allah.

      Today, I think that its more that Muslims fear that any representations of Muhammed, especially by non muslims, would be disrespectful, mocking , a caracture of Muhammed. And we all know for Muslims,the feelings they have towards Muhammed are just one step below Allah.

      There are lots of verses in the Quran (and accounts in the Hadiths) that show what happens when someone makes fun of, laughs at, makes a poem mocking Muhammed. Muhammed send assasians to kill people who had “disrespected” him.
      It also states in the Quran 33:57 ” Lo! Those who malign Allah and his messanger , Allah hath cursed them in this world and the Hearafter and hath prepared for them the doom of the distained.
      Quran 33:61 ( continued from above) Accursed they will be seized wherever found and slain with a fierce slaughter”

      Hadith Muslim vol 3 no. 5268(p.1160) Muhammed said ” those who,paint pictures would be punished on the day of Resurrection and it would be said to them ” Breath soul into what you have created”
      This prohibition was not just against idolators who made pictures or even Muslims who made pictures for other reasons but for anyone who made pictures.
      I could give more quotes but this post is too long already….
      And under Sharia , those that insult Allah or Muhammed are to be executed.

      It seems that Muslims expect us non muslims here in the US and Europe, to live as tho we were Muslims, to respect and obey Sharia law, at least in some instances like not distespecting Muhammed, and in some places, like those “no-go” zones. This is one of the things that bothers me about Muslims. They immigrate to our country, being a tiny minority, begin demanding, under threat of violence, that we give them special treatment that we do not offer to other religions, demand, under threat of violence, that we obey their religious laws as if they were laws of our land.

  103. Les says

    May 5, 2015 at 11:42 pm

    I listen to these Imams say how Islam is a religion of peace and peace to the prophet Mohammed like he was some saint. I have yet to see anyone including Mr Spencer call Mohammed for who he was which was a murdering, pedophile rapists. Why?

  104. Cartimandua says

    May 5, 2015 at 11:58 pm

    The cop who killed the killers who wanted to kill 200 in the venue should be commended. Imagine if those two hideously ugly bastards had killed 200 People at an art show in Texas. The USA would have exploded, but THE WHITE HOUSE HAVE SAID ANYTHING. I am wondering if the White House Can do anything. Does the Us have a president. I have been wondering about the devastation in Baltimore, haven’t you.. I have been told the President is black, what is he doing for Baltimore. What I see is any whitets leaving. Congratulations Baltimore, you got what you wanted. Everybody black. You have succeeded in driving out anyone white, nice going,. You now have feral city. I would like to say to every cop, why bother, #pply for uy elsewhere. We would liv.ke Baltimore cops. Come to a decent city or. Small town, where you wouldn’t need to even hirnk of this anymore. 🙂 You and your families could live a lovely life. Change your job now, Crazy, come to Canada, we would love your skills. To all of the wives of all those officers who are treated like crap, consider all of those skills are needed. I say Canada is where your husband should be. He would be valued as a team, you would be liked. This what I see.. I would welcome all cops from Baltimore.

  105. Chuck says

    May 6, 2015 at 12:27 am

    Robert, speech “that might make people who oppose it behave violently” is a poor choice of words. As is “an innocuous activity that others find so provocative as to commit murder.” Such phrasing displaces the blame from the people who commit violence to, in the first instance, the speech itself, which allegedly MAKES people do violent things. Speech does not MAKE anyone do anything, and using such phrasing essentially cedes the argument to the anti-free speech crowd.

    In the second instance, we should not say or imply that the activity itself is or could be provocative. Doing so displaces the blame for violence from the violent actors to the innocuous activity, again ceding the argument to the enemies of free speech.

    These may seem like subtle points, but they are extremely important. Common usage of terms often embeds meanings that prod the listener toward particular conclusions that, upon closer examination, are false. Arguments stand or fall through the terminology used to make them. We must be painfully precise in our phrasing and terminology so as to never allow them to undermine our case.

    • Lilithwept says

      May 7, 2015 at 2:06 am

      Extremely well said and a good reminder for all of us. We must think very carefully about what we say or write so as not to ceed any tiny advantage to those that would use any advantage in their war on our freedoms and our way of life.

  106. jay says

    May 6, 2015 at 2:32 am

    RIP America. I’m glad I got to see you and grow up in you before you decided to just finally go full retard and surrendered to sand flies after 9/11.

    • gravenimage says

      May 6, 2015 at 4:19 pm

      Jay, did you miss hearing about the Muhammad Art show? This was an assertion of freedom of speech. How can you say America is dead in the face of such heroism?

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • gravenimage on Erdogan: ‘Turks must defend the rights of Jerusalem, even with their lives’ for ‘the honor of the Islamic nation’
  • gravenimage on Erdogan: ‘Turks must defend the rights of Jerusalem, even with their lives’ for ‘the honor of the Islamic nation’
  • Walter Sieruk on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
  • gravenimage on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • James Lincoln on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.