Allah:
Via Mediaite, you know he’s itching to drop a “hell no” here. Didn’t his boss once say that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”? Didn’t our own State Department, helmed by Hillary Clinton, drop $70 Gs in Pakistan a few years ago denouncing the “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube video? Hasn’t Obama’s Joint Chiefs chair been known todial up critics of Islam and ask them to stand down for the good of the war effort? Didn’t Obama himself say in February that defending a blasphemer’s right to free speech also“obligates” us to condemn the blasphemer? {What?}
Of course the White House thinks it’s inappropriate. But even they have the basic good sense not to say so after an attempted mass murder, when criticism of the event will be seen as blaming the victims. I wonder what Earnest’s answer would have been in an alternate reality where the cartoon contest came off without a hitch.
Oh, incidentally, the hot new theory on the left to justify blaming Pam Geller for what happened is that she might, just might, have wanted terrorists to try to kill her. You’ve heard of “suicide by cop.” Meet “suicide by jihad,” I guess.
There’s a moral theory, called the doctrine of double effect, that says you shouldn’t be blamed for foreseeable consequences that you don’t want. We sometimes rely on it, as in justifying collateral damage as a result of an otherwise morally correct use of force.
This moral doctrine of double effect has no place in evaluating a conscious provocation. Geller was trying to provoke a reaction. If the reaction was reasonably likely to be violent, she can’t hide behind the notion that she didn’t want anyone to get hurt…
If — and I say if — Geller intended to provoke violence, she did something much worse than giving offense. By willfully trying to provoke violence, Geller was trying to create a situation in which innocent people could have been harmed or killed. As it was, a security guard at the event was injured. (By the way, the guard who shot and killed the attackers counts as a hero who saved lives, regardless of Geller’s motives.) If Geller wanted violence to happen, her actions were morally culpable — even though she obviously didn’t commit it.
That’s an interesting conundrum for the left, acknowledged elsewhere in the piece by author Noah Feldman. Have we reached the point in western civilization where violent attacks on people who blaspheme Islam qualify as “reasonably foreseeable”? If you say no, Geller’s off the hook. If you say yes, you’re conceding that the threat of Islamic violence in response to images of Mohammed is now sufficiently great and steady that we should actually count on it happening in response to events like this, an admission that tends to undercut the “tiny minority of extremists” narrative.
Remember that no one from the left condemned Michael Brown’s ignorant step father for shouting “Burn this bitch down!” in the midst of the Ferguson riots. Now, looting, burning, injuries and even deaths were on-going and the situation definitely tense and charged; this moron’s exhortations definitely rose to the level of endangerment. Did this bother the left? Uh….. no.
The left supported the stupid concept that riots in Baltimore constitute freedom of speech. Property is destroyed, livelihoods ruined, lives endangered. Oh, well. Racist cops, blah, blah, blah.
The left’s outrage is characteristically selective. All about politics.
People forget.
Obama has been pushing a potential new International Law via the United Nations.
U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18.
Should it pass and Obama force it on us here in the USA the truth would no longer be an excuse for being arrested for offending someone.
See also:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396323/im-glad-obama-skipped-paris-andrew-c-mccarthy
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367132/coercing-conformity-andrew-c-mccarthy
Why have an NSA and FBI monitoring communications when they ignore the communications of shooters like these two?
Here’s what the FBI said was why they flew under the radar:
“There are so many like him that you have to prioritize your investigations.”
@Nanny G: Well, Nanny G, it all depends upon who you consider an enemy.
My 2 cents–Step dad’s statement incendiary. Baltimore rioters not “free speech”
Pam (I’m like Mother Teresa) Geller promoting a draw obscene pictures of Mohammed rally–beyond stupid.
People like Pamela Geller and intentionally insulting provocations such as the one she recently organized are likely useful recruiting tools for the Islamic extremists.
@Greg:
Two terrorists are dead because of Pamela Geller. More innocents are dead because of Al Sharpton (Freddie’s Fashion Mart). Pam Geller is not welcomed at the White House, Al Sharpton is.
Any questions?
@Greg:
Like GITMO was a recruiting tool for al Qaeda, when there was never any mention of GITMO until after the whining left had been claiming it was a recruiting tool? Why would the most posh prison on the planet be a recruiting tool?
What was the recruiting motivation for 9/11? How much less do radical Islamists hate us now that Obama has been bowing and kissing their asses for 6 years?
Too bad you liberals can’t sell your excuses for hard currency. At $5 apiece, we could pay off the national debt AND dump truckloads of cash in Baltimore for liberals to squander.
@Bill: Are you gonna put Pam (I’m like Mother Teresa) Geller up as a Conservative to emulate and admire?
@rich wheeler: I don’t suppose you bothered to read any of my posts on the matter of insulting religion just because one can?
@Bill:People Insulting religions just for fun. Suggest they get a life.
@rich wheeler:
What was ‘obscene’ about the pictures?
@rich wheeler: :
So you’ve ‘officially’ given up on the US Constitution?