Thursday, May 7, 2015

Were those killed by Islamist in Lindt cafe in Australia "asking for it?" To discover your rulers, simply find out whom you can't criticize-Pamela Geller, Time

5/6/15, "Pamela Geller: A Response to My Critics—This Is a War," Time, Pamela Geller

"Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and publisher of"

"Some are saying I provoked this attack. But to kowtow to violent intimidation will only encourage more of it.

Sunday in Garland, Texas, a police officer was wounded in a battle that is part of a longstanding war: the war against the freedom of speech. Some people are blaming me for the Garland shooting — so I want to address that here.

The shooting happened at my American Freedom Defense Initiative Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest, when two Islamic jihadists armed with rifles and explosives drove up to the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland and attempted to gain entry to our event, which was just ending. We were aware of the risk and spent thousands of dollars on security — and it paid off. The jihadis at our free speech event were not able to achieve their objective of replicating the massacre at the offices of the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine last January — and to go it one better in carnage. They were not able to kill anyone. We provided enormous security, in concert with the superb Garland police department. The men who took the aspiring killers down may have saved hundreds of lives.

And make no mistake: If it weren’t for the free-speech conference, these jihadis would have struck somewhere else — a place where there was less security, like the Lindt cafe in Australia or the Hyper Cacher Kosher supermarket in Paris.

So, why are some people blaming me? They’re saying: “Well, she provoked them! She got what she deserved!” They don’t remember, or care to remember, that as the jihadis were killing the Muhammad cartoonists in Paris, their friend and accomplice was murdering Jews in a nearby kosher supermarket. Were the Jews asking for it? Did they “bait” the jihadis? Were they “provoking” them?

Are the Jews responsible for the Nazis? Are the Christians in the Middle East responsible for being persecuted by Muslims?

Drawing Muhammad offends Islamic jihadists? So does being Jewish. How much accommodation of any kind should we give to murderous savagery? To kowtow to violent intimidation will only encourage more of it.

This is a war.

Now, after the Charlie Hebdo attack, and after the Garland attack, what are we going to do? Are we going to surrender to these monsters?

The attack in Garland showed that everything my colleagues and I have been warning about regarding the threat of jihad, and the ways in which it threatens our liberties, is true. Islamic law, Sharia, with its death penalty for blasphemy, today constitutes a unique threat to the freedom of speech and liberty in general.

Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can wreak havoc unopposed, while his opponents are silenced.

Putting up with being offended is essential in a pluralistic society in which people differ on basic truths. If a group will not stand for being offended without resorting to violence, that group will rule unopposed, while everyone else lives in fear.

Islamic law as it’s interpreted by extremists forbids criticism of Islam, the Quran, and Muhammad. If they cannot be criticized in the United States, we are in effect accepting Islamic law as overriding the freedom of speech. This would establish Muslims as a protected class and prevent honest discussion of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence.

Some say that “hate speech” should be censored. But what constitutes “hate speech” is a subjective judgment that is unavoidably influenced by the political perspective of the one doing the judging.

Allowing this sort of censorship would mean nothing less civilizational suicide. Many in the media and academic elite assign no blame to an ideology that calls for death to blasphemers — i.e., those who criticize or offend Islam. Instead, they target and blame those who expose this fanaticism. If the cultural elites directed their barbs and attacks at the extremist doctrine of jihad, the world would be a vastly safer place.

You can try to avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. The shootings in Garland, Paris, and Copenhagen targeting defenders of free speech, and the raging jihad across the Middle East, Africa, and Europe, are the disastrous consequences of avoiding reality.

I encourage all Americans to watch the videos of the Garland event and see what Islamic supremacists wish to silence: basic, elemental free speech arguments.

But we are unbowed. Even when the venue was in lockdown and hundreds of attendees were ushered down into the auditorium, the crowd was singing the Star Spangled Banner and G-d Bless America. In the face of fear, they were staunchly and uniquely American.

To learn who rules over you, simply find out whom you cannot criticize. If the international media had run the Danish cartoons back in 2005, none of this could have happened. The jihadis wouldn’t have been able to kill everyone. But by self-censoring, the media gave the jihadis the power they have today.

We must take back our freedom."

"Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance." via Free Rep.


At Lindt cafe two were killed including a mother of three, several injured by Islamist:
12/16/14, "Sydney cafe siege: Killer Man Haron Monis filmed YouTube videos of attack and forced hostages to use social media to relay demands," UK Independent, Sydney, Kathy Marks

Islamic flag in window of Lindt cafe, 12/14

"The world was introduced to "terrorism 2.0" in Australia yesterday as an Islamist extremist attempted to use hostages and the international media to further his demands.

As the 16-hour siege at the Lindt Chocolat Café in Sydney’s city centre was followed across the world, the hostage-taker Man Haron Monis, an Iranian self-styled cleric, tried to use social media to extend his messages and demands. Audio recordings of the hostages were released after an initial attempt by Monis, 50, to have his messages broadcast by Australian media.

When that failed to elicit a response, four YouTube videos appeared online apparently framed, filmed and uploaded by his hostages.

By lunchtime in Britain, four videos were viewable, each containing short, desperate messages from those inside. Standing in front of a black Islamist flag and the Lindt café logo, each laid out their kidnappers’ list of demands. They included the delivery of an Isis flag; a blanket broadcast from the media stating that the siege was an Islamic State attack on Australia and a conversation with Prime Minister Tony Abbott via a “live feed” in return for some hostages. One hostage questioned why the demands appeared so difficult to meet adding: “Our Isis brother has been very kind to us.”...

Until 2.11am, Australian police – and everyone else – had hoped the hostage crisis might end without bloodshed. Then gunshots rang out from inside the cafe. After the police Swat teams had stormed in, shot dead Monis, and rescued those who remained inside, the toll was clear. Two hostages, a 34-year-old man and a woman aged 38 [mother of three], were dead, and four were injured. A police officer had been shot in the face. The deceased pair have since been named as Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson."...

Image caption: "Two hostages appear at the window holding a black flag with white Arabic script," UK Independent

Flag in Lindt window is type used by other Islamic groups:

12/16/14, "Flag being held by Lindt Chocolat Cafe hostages is not an Islamic State flag," Sydney Morning Herald, David Wroe and James Massola

"The flag appears to be a Shahada flag, which represents a general expression of faith in Islam, but has been co-opted by various jihadist groups....

The translation of the flag is: "There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah."...

That means it doesn't help confirm or rule out that the hostage-takers' affiliation is with Islamic State or any other group....

The Shahada is the testament of Islamic faith, which is one of the five pillars of Islam.

A translation by Fairfax Media has established that the script on the flag is very precise, classical Arabic. Mass-produced flags typically skip over the more complex grammatical notation - such as short vowel signs - because they are hard to reproduce.

This one is very precise in detail, suggesting it is not mass-produced....

Dr MacQueen said the flag looked "like the black banner which was used in the 1990s - it is not the Islamic State flag per se - it has been used in recent times, for example, by Chechen groups."

"The black symbolises the second caliphate - it is to say we [IS] are re-creating the caliphate," he said.

"A lot of Islamic states have used the black. In Afghanistan at the turn of the 20th century for example, they had just a black flag.""...


12/17/14, "Sydney siege: Killed hostages identified as lawyer Katrina Dawson and Lindt cafe manager Tori Johnson,", by Lucy Carter and staff

1/16/15, "Insult those who behead others," sign at Free Speech Rally in Garland, Texas (Jan. 2015)

1/16/15, "SomethingFromMy $160million machine which I'll take 2 the GarlandTX

Jan. 17, 2015 Free Speech Rally in Garland, Texas


Comment: At the very least, beheading must be insulted. Remaining silent or making excuses for it obviously haven't worked.


No comments: