home

Boston Terror Suspect's First Target Revealed

By Jeralyn, Section War on Terror
Posted on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 06:50:18 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

CNN reports that Usaamah Abdullah Rahim's first target was activist Pamela Geller, who staged the Garland, TX rally. (No link due to CNN's autoplay video on the article.) He later changed his mind and decided to target local police, apparently intending to behead one or more of them.

Rahim and his friend Wright's conversations were recorded. Here's the FBI Affidavit for the arrest of Wright. The third person with them is not named. According to the affidavit, Rahim planned to behead someone out of state and then decided police were an easier target.

After Garland, Pamela Geller asked for police protection. I don't think taxpayers should have to fund her protection. She brought this on herself. Let her organization pay.

Please keep your comments free of name-calling and personal attacks on Geller.

< Tuesday Open Thread | Rick Perry to Join Republican Fray for Nomination >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Boston Terror Suspect's First Target Revealed | 75 comments (75 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I do (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 08:09:34 AM EST
    not think Geller or anyone is entitled to any special protection for their speech. What makes her so unique? Should we provide extra police protection to all the hate talkers or just the ones who get their 15 minutes of fame? Should we protect Rev. Terry Jones or Westboro Baptist Church? The Haters from Stormfront or talk radio?

    Sorry there are way too many haters out there to protect them all and if you start allocating protection to some but not others there is no equal justice in that.


    I think the guideline (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 08:34:41 AM EST
    is, and should be, "credible."

    Radical islamists have proven that their threats are credible.

    But 'nuff said. I'll see you folks on the flip side.
    My game awaits.

    Parent

    Just as death threats against (none / 0) (#35)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 08:35:53 AM EST
    anyone who talks trash about Jesus Christ demonstrates the existence of radical Christianists.

    Parent
    I Guess Your Pledge... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 09:57:48 AM EST
    ...didn't take.

    Parent
    The one that Jeralyn (none / 0) (#60)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 12:30:21 PM EST
    deketed?

    I thought it meant she didn't want me to keep my pledge, but thanks for making it your business today.


    Parent

    Don't Get Mad at Me... (none / 0) (#65)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 01:32:06 PM EST
    ...I didn't declare, and tell other people, not to respond to Jim.  If you didn't want your business being commented on you should have put on the street.

    I just found it more than a little funny that neither of you wasted a single second getting right back to the work.

    Sorry, I wasn't trying to upset you, just making a note of something I found funny.

    Parent

    No, but if you want to be (none / 0) (#71)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jun 05, 2015 at 07:17:09 AM EST
    A busybody, you're off to a great start. You've certainly demonstrated why your neighbors, if any, would be well-advised to keep their curtains closed whenever you're around, scotty-boy.

    Parent
    So They Are One in the Same... (none / 0) (#47)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 09:56:30 AM EST
    ...threat, seriously Jim, one might not pose a greater danger than another ?

    Parent
    Am I saying that all threats by (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 10:53:31 PM EST
    radical islamists are the same??

    Nope, but they are the same in that the radical islamists have proven that they are capable of and willing to attack and kill people they disagree with.

    Parent

    Thanks for the report from (none / 0) (#72)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jun 05, 2015 at 07:17:48 AM EST
    under your bed.

    Parent
    "decided police were an easier target." (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 08:26:28 AM EST
    Nobody's mentioned the Darwin awards.

    Brought a knife to a gun fight (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by scribe on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 08:50:24 AM EST
    that alone qualifies him.

    Parent
    I Assumed... (none / 0) (#54)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 10:17:12 AM EST
    ...they were an easier target because there is a million of them, whereas there is only one Geller, who is probably not available for beheading most of the time.  Meaning that she probably impossible to track because of her schedule, whereas cops are hard to avoid, especially if you are black.

    Parent
    Let me see (3.50 / 2) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 10:28:21 PM EST
    You folks disagree with what Geller has to say because it raises the ire of the radical islamists to the point that they have tried to attack her and she fears they will again.

    Is that correct?

    Do you understand that what you are really doing is de facto implementing portions of Shariah law by saying a US citizen must not do something that insults the islamic radicals?

    At what point will you be willing to say, "Hey! MYOB. We can insult anyone we please."

    After they demand no schooling for females?? After they demand that Muslim females suffer female circumcision??

    And back up their demands by threatening to kill anyone talks back??????????

    And yes CaptHowdy, if you organize any gay rights activity and get death threats then you should get police protection. Period. It is your right to demonstrate.

    And are you really defending the actions of the various Islamic theocracies? I find that puzzling when viewed through their actions against gays. And yes I know that many Christian fundamentalist condemn homosexuality....but there is a huge difference between being condemned from a pulpit and being stoned in the street.

    the topic is (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 10:51:45 PM EST
    Boston and Geller and police protection. Not gay rights. Please stay on topic.

    Parent
    Not correct Jim (none / 0) (#21)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 11:13:04 PM EST
     
    folks disagree with what Geller has to say because it raises the ire of the radical islamists to the point that they have tried to attack her and she fears they will again.
    I disagree with Geller's words and action's because she is squandering her freedom by spreading hate. In my opinion the foolish use of freedoms by individuals or groups  diminishes them for all of us.

    Hate breeds hate, that's a given, no matter what the race or religion. Geller of course is free to spread her hate but to hear her cry victim about the inevitable blowback makes me want to barf. She is also free to STFU but you know how haters are............

    Parent

    Squandering? She is squandering? So tell me, (3.00 / 3) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 12:57:06 AM EST
    how much freedom do we have?? A pint? A quart? Did our founders say, "We only have enough to last until 2015?"

    If Geller isn't free, then who is free?? What shall it be next week?

    I grew up in the segregated South. I watched black people being told they couldn't call a white person by their given name because blacks weren't equal according to the bible and it was offensive to the segregationist's beliefs. White boys were called "Master" and black's of all ages "Boy." The ability to suppress speech is the very foundation of thought control and hate.

    Remember the First Amendment isn't there to protect the speech we agree with. It isn't there to protect the speech radical islamist agree with. And if we aren't willing to use the police to protect speech we, and others disagree with, then someone will use the police to suppress free speech.

    I would agree that Geller stretches a point but that's the point. If we start imposing rules about what we can say about someone's religious beliefs because we fear what they will do, then we have been bent to their will.

    Parent

    Nobody (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 06:19:47 AM EST
    is taking any rights away from anybody.
    I said
    Geller of course is free to spread her hate
    unfortunately she is impeding others rights, my right to live in a peaceful, friendly country for one, Muslims right to worship without harassment for another.

    You seem to get the evil of hate speech with your analogy, but you can't connect calling all blacks boys and all Muslims terrorists, both are protected speech, both are corrosive and ugly.

    You once again misread the first amendment,

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Nothing in there are about "protecting" fools and bigots from the consequences of using that freedom.

    Parent

    No. You are opposing her right (3.50 / 2) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 07:54:34 AM EST
    to have police protection. This not only could suppress her right to free speech, but it sends a chilling message to everyone.

    If government is not supposed to protect people from the consequences of people doing foolish things....

    We should remove life guards from public beaches because we know that the ocean has sharks and undertows that drown. Only a fool would swim in the ocean.

    There should be no regulation of banks and other financial institutions because we know that people steal and lie. Only a fool would put their money in a bank.

    There should be no regulation of airlines because we know airplanes crash and airlines skip safety inspections, etc. Only a fool would fly.

    Women should be prohibited from having abortions because some nut cases from the far right have attacked clinics and killed innocent people and we shouldn't have to pay for police protection.

    And her comments re radical Islam, etc., does not impede in anyway Muslims worshiping.

    Let me know when that happens and I'll phone the police.

    Parent

    Not (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 09:00:02 AM EST
    opposing her right to the same amount of police protection as the rest of us get. Why should she get special treatment just because she gets to spew her hate on a national stage?

    We have lifeguards for the same reason we have police, the world is a dangerous place. It would be my right to go to the beach smear myself in seal blood, tie weights on my leg and go for a swim in shark infested rough surf, but it would not be my right to demand my own personal life guard.

    I am amazed that the same people who extol the need for personal responsibility and small government are the first to demand help when their own actions cause them trouble.

    Parent

    So, what you're saying is that (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 09:21:51 AM EST
    if Person A is an a$$hole, and that causes Person B to threaten Person A with death, that the response from law enforcement to Person A should be, "well, what did you think would happen?  Good luck, you're on your own!"

    You object to police protection for Gellar because you don't agree with her actions or her speech, and if she didn't want to get death threats, she should have censored herself.

    What if Gellar was an abortion rights activist, who held an event or gave a speech or led a march that infuriated some anti-choice group to the point where one of their members threatened to kill her?  

    Here's my take: refusing someone protection against actual threats, by telling them it's their own fault and they should have known better, is a way to suppress someone's free speech rights, isn't it?

    Parent

    What (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 10:49:02 AM EST
    I am saying is that self censorship is part of the equation that everyone seems to forget. Freedom of speech is all fine and dandy but if we want to live in a decent society we must refrain from being A$$holes to each other as much as possible.

    Geller is trolling for threats, she is free to do that. If someone breaks the law by threatening her they should by all means be prosecuted, but no one should get extra protection for being a jerk and misusing their rights.

    For the whole concept of freedom of speech to work the government must remain neutral neither suppressing nor supporting anybody's speech. Speech has consequences and by providing Geller with anything more then the protection offered to any citizen the government would be supporting her rights over the rights of other citizens.

    Parent

    I don't think anyone is saying (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 09:40:58 AM EST
    she should not have the same protection everyone else has.  Personally I agree with what was said in the post the taxpayers should not be stuck with the bill of providing some kind of special Geller patrol just to make sure she, who by the way can certainly afford her own protection and in fact has personal security, can promote events with the expressed purpose of offending an entire religion.

    One, btw, not known for taking offense well.

    I don't no.  If she see strangers on her lawn she should call the cops just like me.

    Parent

    My bad (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 09:53:44 AM EST
    aparrently someone is saying that.  

    I am not.

    Parent

    The First Amendment is there to (2.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 06:45:05 AM EST
    ensure that we can speak free of government interference.

    No one's saying the government should prevent Geller from speaking, but what is the government's obligation when threats follow her - or anyone else's - speech?  

    It seems to me that the government steps in to protect people all the time from consequences that flow from things they've said, and I don't see how this is different.  I'm pretty sure that if two people get into it, and one threatens the other with some kind of bodily harm, the police do not tell the person who's threatened that, too bad, that's what happens when you're an a$$hole.

    It may be galling to have to allocate precious resources to protect the life and health of someone with an odious point of view, but I just don't see how Geller isn't entitled to protection, even if she was the one who provoked the threats.

    [mark this day down, jim - it could be one of the few times i've agreed with you!]

    Parent

    Well, I thought I felt the earth move (2.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 07:31:23 AM EST
    and I thank you. People seem to forget that it was the government who suppressed blacks.

    Parent
    See above my comment to redbrow (none / 0) (#26)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 07:27:50 AM EST
    I don't see how she is entitled to protection, any more than if she said Christ was a fake and received death threats based on that kind of free speech.

    Parent
    Here's a little education on the (none / 0) (#28)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 07:48:49 AM EST
    doctrine of Fighting Words, folks:  

    Chaplinsky decision
    Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, had purportedly told a New Hampshire town marshal who was attempting to prevent him from preaching that he was "a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned fascist" and was arrested. The court upheld the arrest and wrote in its decision that

    There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

    -- Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942

    Now, it goes on to say that the doctrine has been narrowed over the years, but I think some of you folks are bright enough to understand how it applies here.

    Parent

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but Geller (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 08:19:39 AM EST
    isn't asking for protection against the mean and nasty things these people are saying about her, she is asking for protection because there are apparently threats against her life.  Saying mean and nasty things may not be against the law, but threatening to kill someone, for whatever reason is - isn't it?

    Let's say this was a domestic dispute, or a workplace situation that got out of hand, or a road rage incident, and all involved some action or speech by one person that caused the other person to threaten death or bodily injury.  How is the person threatened not entitled to the intervention of law enforcement and the courts?

    Can you find me some rulings - any ruling - that says that a person is not entitled to protection from death threats if the threats were the result of something the person threatened said or did?

    Parent

    Death threats aren't protected speech (none / 0) (#34)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 08:34:45 AM EST
    So you go after the threateners:

    An upstate wingnut's alleged death threats to Rep. Carolyn Maloney are not protected political speech, a Manhattan judge ruled Monday.

    Ronald Buchanan, 40, of Elmira, made several hate-charged calls to Maloney's office on April 2, police said, and he was arrested about two weeks later.

    "That stupid c*t needs to stay away from my Second Amendment right...I hate that stupid bch...I hope that fking ct dies of cancer.... I want that b*ch dead," the arms enthusiast said, according to authorities.

    The words crossed the line, Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Erika Edwards ruled in a decision filed Monday.

    Fighting words doctrine. If you can't remember that concept, please don't bother me about the police protection for Ms. Gellar.  She chose to paint and insult all those who believe in Islam as a whole, and she doesn't deserve police protection for a problem she created for herself in the first place.

    Parent

    I think it's you who isn't getting it. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 09:10:10 AM EST
    Is there anyone who's saying that death threats are protected speech?  I know I'm not saying that.

    If it is not legal to threaten someone with death or bodily harm, does it not follow that the person who is threatened not only has legal recourse against the threatener, but also has a right to protection?

    Your excerpt re: the threats against Carolyn Maloney are Exhibit One for that very concept.  She is threatened with death, and the threatener is arrested.  Are you telling me that Maloney would not deserve protection because her position on the 2nd Amendment provoked those threats?

    I don't think so.

    Does George Zimmerman deserve to be protected from Apperson, even if Apperson threatened Zimmerman because of something Zimmerman did or said that provoked it?

    Parent

    Nope, you don't get it still (none / 0) (#39)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 09:13:56 AM EST
    If I make disparaging remarks about Christianity, would you support me getting police protection because of my speech?

    Answer that question, if you can.

    Parent

    Is it illegal to threaten someone's life? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 09:39:39 AM EST
    I believe it is.  People get arrested for doing it.  People get convicted and punished for doing it.

    If you make disparaging remarks about Christianity, and someone is so offended by it that he or she threatens your life, I believe you are entitled to some protection against that threat.  In our world, "police protection" doesn't usually come in the form of actual police presence/bodyguarding, but in the form of protective/restraining orders, that carry some kind of penalty for violating and are supposed to be about reducing the risk of actual harm.

    In the world of public figures, protection against threats goes to the next level.  That's why you see police at marches and rallies, when the Westboro Baptist Church shows up or the KKK, or either or both sides of the abortion issue.  Do we not protect the Klan from harm, even when giving speeches that disgust and repulse us?

    I do not disagree that Gellar did everything she could to provoke a reaction, but that still doesn't make the death threats against her okay, and it shouldn't deny her some level of protection.


    Parent

    Nope, if I say things that are deliberatively (2.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 09:48:52 AM EST
    provocative, as in the Gellar case, I don't deserve police protection.  

    Parent
    That's ridiculous (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 09:52:33 AM EST


    Parent
    If you're the one making the threats, (none / 0) (#45)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 09:53:11 AM EST
    that's true, but that's not the case here, is it?

    Parent
    Sorry, but you still (none / 0) (#48)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 09:57:24 AM EST
    haven't convinced me.

    She's a hate monger whose tactics have blown up in her face.  That you can't see that isn't my problem.

    Parent

    Just so I understand this (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 10:02:39 AM EST
    are you actually saying that there are things that a person can say that would disqualify them from ANY police protection.

    Surely that's not what you are saying.

    If it is please take a moment to ask yourself who decides what things those are.  Because you understand that there are plenty of people who would love to kill, for example, Bill Maher for things they believe are just as offensive as anything Geller has ever said.  That would seem a can of worms better not opened.

    But that's just me.

    Parent

    When has Bill Maher (none / 0) (#51)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 10:04:05 AM EST
    asked for police protecttion?  

    Parent
    I miss last weekend (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 10:04:51 AM EST


    Parent
    Non-sequitur (none / 0) (#57)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 10:36:38 AM EST


    Parent
    No it's not (none / 0) (#63)
    by sj on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 01:04:59 PM EST
    I think once someone has read a bit of the thread it's pretty d@mn sequitur.

    I miss last weekend (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 09:04:51 AM MDT

    Parent | Reply to This | none 1 2 3 4 5  

    Non-sequitur (none / 0) (#57)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 09:36:38 AM MDT



    Just sayin'


    Parent
    Well, I certainly wouldn't' (none / 0) (#69)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jun 05, 2015 at 07:12:00 AM EST
    Miss a few hand-wringers around here.

    Parent
    Once again (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 10:25:21 AM EST
    You are confused.  The Doctrine of Fighting words applies to whether her speech should be protected, i.e. can she be fined or arrested for her speech. In this case, I don't see how you make an argument that her speech shouldn't be protected just because it's offensive to you and some others (see the "F*ck the Draft" case).

    It has nothing to with whether her physical person should be protected or not, which you are arguing that she does not deserve.  Guess you feel the same way about DeRay McKesson or Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning.  I mean, they brought death threats upon themselves by their actions, which many people found offensive.  Tough luck for them, under your rules.

    Parent

    Ms Atlas Shrugged shouldn't get (none / 0) (#62)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 12:52:49 PM EST
    any more genuine protection than the kids who live in our worst city neighborhoods get.

    Since she's such a firm believer in social Darwinism, she can just roll the dice and take her chances with the rest of us.

    Parent

    Yes, let her do something really (none / 0) (#70)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jun 05, 2015 at 07:13:47 AM EST
    courageous for a change, instead of using hate and fear as fund-raising tools for her despicable "non-profit" organization.

    Parent
    It's beyond laughable to compare (none / 0) (#61)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 12:46:24 PM EST
    the status of the cosseted, abetted, and shielded-by-money-and-connections Geller with that of blacks in the Jim Crow South.

    Beyond laughable, stupid, and borderline offensive..

    Geller's "speech", bolstered by a succession of neocon sugar daddies, will always be more  "protected" and given a platform in this pay-to-play society; unlike the voices of disenfranchised blacks in the Jim Crow South.

     

    Parent

    There's not much difference (none / 0) (#64)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 01:20:46 PM EST
    between being beaten to death by vicious crackers inspired by an intolerant, fundamentalist christian culture and being "stoned to death in the street".

    Is there?????????

    Also, it's worth mentioning that Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik claimed Pamela Geller as a major influence.

     

    Parent

    Is anyone surprised by this? (none / 0) (#1)
    by scribe on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 07:21:01 PM EST
    I mean, really.

    She brought this on herself? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Redbrow on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 07:25:57 PM EST
    It is well known that Islam does not tolerate homosexuality.

    For example the homeland of Islam, Saudi Arabia, regularly punishes GLBT citizens with imprisonment, fines, corporal punishment, capital punishment, whipping/flogging, and chemical castrations. The treatment of LGBT people in the Saudi Arabia is the worst of any country.

    Are Muslims who engage in forbidden activity and punished also guilty of "bringing it on themselves" by knowingly provoking the Muslim establishment?

    Yes! (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 08:04:16 PM EST
    She did.

    Parent
    They Don't Want to Kill 99.9999% of Us... (none / 0) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 10:09:31 AM EST
    ...only the one who can't stop themselves from spreading hate.  So yes, I agree 100% she brought this on.  But she is getting what she deserved, living in fear for her life because of her words.  The cops ain't gonna protect her forever and radicals don't have the ability to just let it go.

    But that is her decision to make, and to me she should be protected, otherwise we are going to have the government backhandedly deciding, by who they protect, what speech is is acceptable.

    Parent

    Interesting point (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 10:29:18 AM EST
    they will not forget.  They have long memories.   She might have asked Salman Rushdie about this.

    She deserves no SPECIAL protection from the state.  If she sees a black mask in her rose bushes she should call the police just like everyone else.  

    IMO

    Parent

    A little advise (4.20 / 5) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 07:32:56 PM EST
    don't try feigning concern for the LGBT community to rationalize your baths!t

    Parent
    A little adviCe (none / 0) (#7)
    by Redbrow on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 07:53:14 PM EST
    First, advice is speed with a "c".

    Second, don't presume to know who is part of the LGBT community, let alone who has concern for it.

    Parent

    Of what relevance is homosexuality to a (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 08:07:39 PM EST
    threat to behead Geller or a law enforcement officer?

    Parent
    none at all, though it might be (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by scribe on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 08:40:46 PM EST
    that our friend Redbrow is, um, projecting a little.

    That, and our friend has a wonderfully eponymous, no, descriptive screenname.  Needs to dial back the pressure 'fore he blows a gasket.

    Parent

    I just subscribe to the radical notion (2.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Redbrow on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 08:55:39 PM EST
    That people are born with certain unalienable rights.

    The freedom of expression being chief among these rights, including the right to express your sexuality as you choose and draw comics of whatever you please without being punished or executed by the government, religious groups or anybody else.

    Parent

    Good (none / 0) (#25)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 07:24:54 AM EST
    try standing outside any church property after a service and tell them the congregation they believe in sky gods and invisible beings and see how they respect your free speech rights.

    Parent
    Damn spell check (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 08:20:18 PM EST
    never there when you need it.  

    As for the other if you are trying to say something just say it.   We are all friends here.   Otherwise you just sound like whatshisnameNY with I might be black.

    Parent

    Btw (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 07:37:25 PM EST
    i posted comment #3 before I read this.

    Parent
    Yup. (none / 0) (#16)
    by scribe on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 08:38:28 PM EST
    Take a stick to a hornet's nest and you're gonna get stung.  She's been at it for years and now her chickens are coming home to roost.

    Parent
    The Geller thing (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 07:29:19 PM EST
    is so ridiculous it's almost funny.   I wonder how she and her supporters would react if, for example, I started organizing nude gay pride events in church parking lots throughout the south and then demanded police protection when I started getting death threats.

    I have nothing to say on this subject (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 07:52:53 PM EST
    If the house rule is, "Please keep your comments free of name-calling and personal attacks on Geller," then there is hardly any choice but to be remain silent.

    Parent
    It was difficult (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 08:12:31 PM EST
    but I love a challenge

    Parent
    I assume there was a strong law enforcement (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 08:09:58 PM EST
    presence in Skokie when the Klan marched there.

    Do you think it was (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 08:13:52 PM EST
    to protect the klan?

    Parent
    Yes, and everyone else there. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 08:23:53 PM EST


    Parent
    Perhaps (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 08:28:33 PM EST
    i suspect it was more about everyone else.  In any case what Geller is asking is like the klan demanding 24 hour protection by the police after the March was over.  

    Parent
    I believe the NAACP accepted the membership (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 06:58:00 PM EST
    Of the KKK.  It's about principles.  We are a nation of laws.  Gellar deserves the same protections from possible harm we all deserve.  I'm not sure she's going to be happy with the standard protections everyone else would receive in this case :). And she'll be upset on Fox News about it :)

    Parent
    Since she brought on herself, (none / 0) (#59)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 12:25:36 PM EST
    She should be denied a carry permit as well.  Why prior to her art exhibition in Texas radical Islam was known only for peaceful protests. That art exhibition must have been a humdinger to cause such notoriously peaceful behavior to be driven to violence.

    I totally agree... why no radical islamists (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 10:55:18 PM EST
    have ever attacked anyone.

    Parent
    People who often play with fire (none / 0) (#73)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jun 05, 2015 at 07:20:53 AM EST
    get burned.  The Shrieking Harpy is no exception to that rule.

    Parent
    It is (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jun 05, 2015 at 08:02:37 AM EST
    amazing how many people can ignore basic truisms of human behavior such as "you reap what you sow" when it is convenient for them.

    Geller publically spews her hate continuously and  voraciously toward a billion Muslims in the world and then cries victim when the inevitable blowback occurs.

    Parent

    She wanted to stir up hatred and fear (none / 0) (#75)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jun 05, 2015 at 08:05:30 AM EST
    Mission Accomplished!

    Parent
    Boston Terror Suspect's First Target Revealed | 75 comments (75 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment