Don't be fooled by Pamela Geller

[Zarvan]

• Haroon Moghul: Pamela Geller says she is for American values, but she subverts them. Individual responsibility is an American value
• He says she's been banned in Britain, her anti-Muslim rhetoric widely denounced. American Muslims wisely ignore her provocations

Haroon Moghul is a fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. He is an author, essayist, and public speaker. Follow him on Twitter @hsmoghul. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN)It's possible you'd never heard of Pamela Geller before Sunday night's tragic attack in Garland, Texas. You might think she's taking a brave stand for free speech, for American values, and that by supporting her, you're supporting America.

I'm here to disabuse you of that notion. While Geller claims to stand for American values, much of what she does undermines our values.

Haroon Moghul
Sunday night, two gunmen opened fireoutside an anti-Muslim event in Texas, and were quickly shot dead. Security prevented what could have been a far greater tragedy, and I am thankful for that, and for those authorities who put their lives on the line to protect our freedom of speech. But this isn't only about free speech — which, it should go without saying -- is a right for all Americans. It's also about how some people use freedom of speech to subvert other American values.

I am Muslim, and after attacks like these, folks always ask, "Do you condemn terrorism?" Or they throw up their hands and say, "Where are the Muslims!" Well, to be blunt: Not at the event. In fact, every major mosque in the Garland, Texas, area not only shrugged off the anti-Islam event happening in their backyard, but also declined to exercise their equal right to peacefully protest it.

It appears from early reports that the suspects were not currently involved with a mosque. This is because American Muslims -- our mosques and our leadership -- reject radicalism out of hand.

There's a reason ISIS uses the Internet to propagandize. Jihadists won't gain traction in American mosques.

• 
  

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/04/opinions/moghul-texas-shooting-gellar/index.html#


So why did Geller claim that the attackers represent large numbers of American Muslims — as she puts it, "your everyday, run of the mill moderates praising mind-numbing savagery" — although her only evidence for that are a few Twitter accounts linked to ISIS, one of which may have belonged to one of the attackers, and none of which represent any American Muslims?

It's not as though Geller ever lets facts get in the way of a good opportunity: After the attack, she didn't call for dialogue, for understanding, for bringing people together, which is what real leaders do.

Instead, she went on Fox news and called it a war. And that appears to be what she wants. That's why she's dangerous, not brave. She's not celebrating hate speech for the sake of free speech, but to provoke reactions that polarize America, set people at odds, and alienate Muslims, who are American citizens and often first in line to report planned terrorist attacks. (American Muslims are allies, not enemies.)

And plenty of people know this, not just American Muslims, who might be presumed to be partial.

Anders Breivik, the Norwegian who killed dozens of fellow Norwegians and published a long, rambling screed justifying his murderousness, cited Geller repeatedly to justify his terrorist actions. The UK's conservative, right-wing government even banned her from the kingdom (along with her colleague Robert Spencer). Because they know what the Southern Poverty Law Center knows: She's using one democratic value to subvert other democratic values.

Democracy requires free speech, but it also requires individual responsibility. That's at the heart of what makes this country work. So what happens when they clash? What happens when a person uses free speech to stigmatize an entire people? Even though American Muslims condemn terrorism, it's unfair to be expected to. Collective responsibility? Guilty until proven innocent? That's what it means to ask us all to condemn actions, when we have nothing to do with those actions.

• 
  

There are other American values, too, which deserve mentioning: Exercising your freedoms with responsibility. Yes, we have the right to say things, even offensive things. But should we? Should we act with no consideration of the consequences? Should Geller have hosted an event she knew would draw a violent reaction? Should she put up advertisements in New York with the beneath-contempt claimthat killing Jews is obligatory for Muslims?

Note, too, how Muslims responded: With levity and humor. But maybe making this about Islam prevents people from seeing the bigger picture here, the reason American Muslims are rightly and justifiably offended by Gellar and her ilk: Should white activists line up to drop the n-word "to support American values" of free speech? Or perhaps march into Ferguson, Missouri, or Baltimore waving Confederate flags? You have every right to. But should you?

And should you be surprised if a few people react violently, even if that violence is unacceptable? (Which it is.) What if you kept doing it, over and over again? For what possible reason would you want to?

Don't let Pamela Geller fool you. She might use an American value to defend her work, but it's merely a means to an end, and you won't like where she's taking us.

Correction: An earlier version of this story misidentified the pundit who David Cameron said made him "choke on his porridge."

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.

Read CNNOpinion's Flipboard magazine.
Don't be fooled by Pamela Geller - CNN.com

 

[Jungibaaz]

She's a nut case.

Rabid dog. Worst part is, she will never admit that she is inciting hatred. She and her handler this shifty little turd.
Are absolutely despicable people. Vile human beings, they lie, cheat and weasel into debates with idiots who don't properly represent us and then spend the rest of their days fueling hatred through propaganda which they know full well to be biased and false.

In fact, Anders Breivik, the mass murderer and terrorist in Norway.... In his demented work, he cited Robert Spencer and his ideology many times with regards to Islam, the religion itself and it's place in Europe.

It has emerged that Anders Behring Breivik lifted words from 'Unabomber' Ted Kaczynski and took inspiration from a range of other American right wing and anti-Islamic groups in his rambling 1,500 page manifesto discovered after Friday's attacks.

The fantasist also referenced co-founder of Stop the Islamisation of America, Robert Spencer, more than 50 times.

Spencer - who is synonymous with organising protests against the proposed Islamic centre near Ground Zero - has frequently written and spoken against the 'threat' of Islamic fundamentalists.

In one such article Spencer wrote: 'Traditional Islam contains violent and supremacist elements.'

In a further endorsement, Breivik wrote that Spencer would also be an 'excellent choice' for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Norway shooting: Anders Behring Breivik 'inspired' by Robert Spencer and Unabomber | Daily Mail Online

His thinking on these issues is clearly influenced by Robert Spencer of “Jihad Watch”, who also calls for a new “Crusade” against Islam in his books. Much of what Breivik says in online comments comes straight out of Spencer’s thinking on these issues: e.g. that the leftists/multiculturalists are the greatest threat to Western civilisation, because they are facilitating the “Islamisation” of Europe:

Google Translate

In these comments Breivik cites Spencer’s “Jihad Watch”, as well as Pamela Geller’s anti-Islam/anti-leftist hate-site “Atlas Shrugs”, as sites that all Europeans should read.

Pamela Geller and Co. Connected to Norway Bomber Anders Behring Breivik? | loonwatch.com

By contrast, he quoted the American and European counterjihad writers by name, notably Mr. Spencer, author of 10 books, including “Islam Unveiled” and “The Truth About Muhammad.”

Mr. Breivik frequently cited another blog, Atlas Shrugs, and recommended the Gates of Vienna among Web sites. Pamela Geller, an outspoken critic of Islam who runs Atlas Shrugs, wrote on her blog Sunday that any assertion that she or other antijihad writers bore any responsibility for Mr. Breivik’s actions was “ridiculous.”

..........................

His manifesto, which denounced Norwegian politicians as failing to defend the country from Islamic influence, quoted Robert Spencer, who operates the Jihad Watch Web site, 64 times, and cited other Western writers who shared his view that Muslim immigrants pose a grave danger to Western culture.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/us/25debate.html?_r=0

On Friday, anti-Islamist blogger Pamela Geller pounced on news of a massacre in Oslo. "Jihad in Norway?" she asked. She posted a second item—"You cannot avoid the consequences of ignoring jihad"—and linked to a previous one: "Norway: ALL Rapes in Past 5 Years Committed by Muslims." As the Oslo body count grew, she piled on: "if I hear another television or radio reporter refer to muhammad as 'the Prophet Muhammad,' I think I am going to puke. He's not your prophet, assclowns."

Then things went horribly wrong. It turned out that the suspected terrorist in Norway wasn't a Muslim. He hated Muslims. And he admired Geller.

In a manifesto posted online, the admitted killer, Anders Behring Breivik, praised Geller. He cited her blog, Atlas Shrugs, and the writings of her friends, allies, and collaborators—Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch, Islam Watch, and Front Page magazine—more than 250 times. And he echoed their tactics, tarring peaceful Muslims with the crimes of violent Muslims. He wrote that all Muslims sought to impose "sharia laws" and that "there are no important theological differences between jihadists and so-called 'peaceful' or 'moderate' Muslims." He reprinted, as part of the manifesto, a 2006 essay by "Fjordman"—a blogger whose work appears frequently on Geller's site—which argued that "radical Muslims and moderate Muslims are allies" and that because Islam teaches deception, no Muslim who claims to be moderate can be trusted.

Scan Geller's blog and her friends' sites, and you'll see how thickly these ideas pervaded Breivik's online world. Jihad Watch says "Islam is intrinsically violent." Islam Watch asserts that "terrorism … is the real Islam," that "Islam is beyond alteration," and that "it needs to be emasculated, marginalized or eliminated altogether." Geller has published Fjordman's views—"I do not believe that there is such a thing as a moderate Islam"—with her own proud note that "I have long derided the 'moderate Islam' meme as a theory with no basis in reality or history." Four days before Breivik opened fire, she posted an item headlined, "Moderates vs. Radicals—What's the Difference?" She joked that "one straps one on, and the other covers for jihad." She concluded that "there really is no difference between muslims and radical muslims."

Geller has pursued this line of attack most aggressively against Faisal Abdul Rauf, the imam who wants to build an Islamic community center two blocks from the site of the 9/11 attacks. Abdul Rauf, accused of radicalism by Geller and Republican politicians, has done everything possible to refute the charge. He has denounced al-Qaida as un-Islamic. He has said, "I condemn everyone and anyone who commits acts of terrorism. And Hamas has committed acts of terrorism." He has invited the U.S. government to vet potential funders of his center. He has rejected the idea that Sharia overrides civil laws. And when U.S. forces killed Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan, the imam declared: "I applaud President Obama for his resolute efforts in the war against terror, including bringing Bin Laden to justice."

Despite these statements, Geller continues to depict Abdul Rauf as a terrorist sympathizer. Her evidence is a series of secondhand, thirdhand, and nonexistent connections. "Rauf is an open proponent of Islamic law, Sharia, with its oppression of women, stonings, and amputations," she asserts, falsely. He "was a prominent member of the Perdana organization, a leading funder of the jihad flotilla launched against Israel in 2010 by the genocidal Islamic terror group, IHH." One of his books was supported by the International Institute of Islamic Thought and the Islamic Society of North America, which are "Muslim Brotherhood fronts," and ISNA "was named an unindicted co-conspirator" in a "Hamas terror funding case." Another Abdul Rauf book was promoted in Malaysia at a meeting of an organization that's been banned in some countries.

You can use this guilt-by-association tactic against anybody. To take the simplest case: President George W. Bush sent Abdul Rauf to the Muslim world as an informal ambassador. That makes Bush a supporter of a supporter of terrorism. But the new poster child for guilt by association is Geller herself. She has been implicated in the Norwegian massacre.

On Friday, Charles Johnson, an anti-Jihadist blogger, posted a headline calling Breivik a "Pamela Geller fan." He cited evidence that Breivik was influenced by Geller and Spencer and had given "a great deal of money to the far right 'counter-jihad' movement." Next came an item titled, "Oslo Terrorist Linked to … European Branch of Pamela Geller's Hate Group." Then a sharper accusation: "Breivik is a product of the groups and causes Pamela Geller continues to promote." Johnson concludedthat "in the Norway atrocities, the responsibility is far more evident and direct. People like Fjordman and Pamela Geller and the right wing blogosphere who spew apocalyptic rhetoric and refuse to denounce the extremists among them now have the very real blood of children on their hands."

Geller is outraged. "Attempts to link us to these murders on the basis of alleged postings by the murderer mentioning us are absurd and offensive," she writes. Breivik "is responsible for his actions. He and only he." She adds: "Watching CNN and BBC coverage about Norway, I found very disturbing to hear the number of times they use the word 'Christian.' They would never dare refer to religion when it is jihad, and this attack had nothing to do with Christianity."

Now you know how it feels, Ms. Geller. When the terrorist is a Christian—in his own words, a "Crusader" for "Christendom"—and when the preacher to whom he has been linked is you, you suddenly discover the injustice of group blame and guilt by association. The citations you didn't create, the intermediaries you didn't recognize, the transactions you didn't know about, the violent interpretations you didn't condone—these exonerating facts suddenly matter.

And the hypocrisy doesn't end with Geller. It permeates the Republican presidential field. Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, and Newt Gingrich agree with Geller that no mosque should be built near Ground Zero. Herman Cain, in the style of George Wallace, just went to Murfreesboro, Tenn., to support local bigots who want to stop the construction of a mosque there. Rick Santorum told a Christian school audience: "The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical." And Michele Bachmann defended a congressional inquiry into Muslim violence by pointing out that recently,

Two of our soldiers were gunned down in Germany, and the fellow who shot them shouted "Allah Akhbar" before he did that. And just the week before that, we had a 20-year-old from Saudi Arabia, here on a student visa in Dallas, who had accumulated all of the chemicals necessary to create a bomb on the order of the Oklahoma City federal building bombing. … If we don't understand that there are Sharia-compliant terrorists in our midst … we will make ourselves more vulnerable.

Well, now we have a Crusade-compliant terrorist who has accumulated explosive chemicals, blown up a federal building with a bomb on the order of Oklahoma City, and gunned down scores of civilians. Don't hold your breath waiting for Bachmann or anyone else in Congress to investigate the Christian angle.

The vindictive part of me wants to blame Geller and her ilk for what happened in Oslo. But then I remember something Abdul Rauf said: "The Quran explicitly states that no soul shall be responsible for the sins of another. Terrorism, which targets innocents who had no part in a crime, fundamentally violates this Quranic commandment." That principle—that no one should be held responsible for another person's sins—is the moral core of the struggle against terrorism. It's the reason I can't pin the slaughter in Norway on bloggers who never advocated sectarian violence. I just wish those bloggers, and the politicians who echo them, would show Muslims the same courtesy.

Anders Breivik's Christian Terrorism in Norway: Are Pamela Geller and other anti-Islamist bloggers responsible?


Here they are the two clowns, who may now have some contribution to a mass murder. It's no surprise these two LUNATICS, were banned from entering the UK.

 

[gau8av]

She's a nut case.

Rabid dog.

yes, but then guys like Nadir Soofi waging holy jihad against these people actually provide her hate group with legitimacy.

Please, tell me honestly who you think is worse.. her, or the radical islamists who would have, in the absence of any security, murdered hundreds/thousands? of attendees at the event. You know they would have, the jihadis would have shot and killed/murdered everyone there because they got offended by a cartoon.

How about Anjem Choudhary, they took his passport but he's still a free man, free to speak his mind, and he sure does !

The Europeans/Americans allow free speech, even if it is offensive.. that's the whole purpose of their rights that guarantee it.. good will and happy blah does not need protection, free speech which might offend others does, even if you're offensive toward the government.

In the US, even rabidly anti establishment conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones and his Infowars platform can broadcast freely and are allowed to flourish, that's a good thing, freedom and free speech are good things.

I totally get why people would be offended if you're mocking their gods etc but they're also not going to survive in the free world if they're such sissies that they would resort to murder at the slightest provocation..

basically, to all al qaeda/ISIS mentality people... get out of the kitchen if you cant take the heat

please, go live in Saudistan and put a garbage bag on your woman and prey 50000000 times a day.. oh wait, the saudis don't grant citizenship to immigrants, hell, they wont even allow anyone to marry their woman, but please remember to send your jawans to die for their sectarian wars of aggression on dirt poor nations like Yemen

takbir...

 

[Jungibaaz]

It's a shame you were banned, I'd love to grill you for that post you were banned for and in the light of that post what you have said here...

yes, but then guys like Nadir Soofi waging holy jihad against these people actually provide her hate group with legitimacy.

There is no legitimacy of their group or groups that are the source of violence. Get that through your head.

Please, tell me honestly who you think is worse.. her, or the radical islamists who would have, in the absence of any security, murdered hundreds/thousands? of attendees at the event. You know they would have, the jihadis would have shot and killed/murdered everyone there because they got offended by a cartoon.

Some distinction needs to be made here. A terrorist, and militant extremist is that who kills and acts on his ideology, these are the lowest of the low.

The extremist, may also fit into the above category or may only keep their radical ideas from becoming a reality.
Pam Geller, and terror apologists in the Muslim world are the same. The SAME!

Both promote violence, both excuse it, and both add to those hundreds, thousands and hundreds of thousands of deaths you mentioned. Case in point, very Islamic nation on earth, case in point, Breivik's massacare. Less obvious examples involve generally disenfranchising Muslims from both ends of the spectrum.

How about Anjem Choudhary, they took his passport but he's still a free man, free to speak his mind, and he sure does !

The guy is b@stard.

I made a vow, if ever he or one of his followers crosses my sight, I will beat and assault them.

The Europeans/Americans allow free speech, even if it is offensive.. that's the whole purpose of their rights that guarantee it.. good will and happy blah does not need protection, free speech which might offend others does, even if you're offensive toward the government.

In the US, even rabidly anti establishment conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones and his Infowars platform can broadcast freely and are allowed to flourish, that's a good thing, freedom and free speech are good things.

I totally get why people would be offended if you're mocking their gods etc but they're also not going to survive in the free world if they're such sissies that they would resort to murder at the slightest provocation..

There is a BIG difference between freedom of speech, and incitement of hatred and violence. Many, many, critics of Islam are very vocal about their views on it, and I have no issue with them, their beliefs are their own, none of my business.

Charlie Hebdo's work offended me more than Pam and Spencer's. But I still say, Charlie Hebdo should be allowed to do whatever they want, as they have been doing, it's freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

However, Pam and Spencer's blogs are now KNOWN to incite violence, the mass murderer Breivik cited their work some 50 times in his writings!!!

So, freedom of speech and expression? Fine, carry on.
Inciting hatred and violence? This is neither protected by law or tolerated by common decency.

Hence why These two lunatics are banned from entering the UK.

basically, to all al qaeda/ISIS mentality people... get out of the kitchen if you cant take the heat

Just who the hell are you to address me or anyone else with these tags?

please, go live in Saudistan and put a garbage bag on your woman and prey 50000000 times a day.. oh wait, the saudis don't grant citizenship to immigrants, hell, they wont even allow anyone to marry their woman, but please remember to send your jawans to die for their sectarian wars of aggression on dirt poor nations like Yemen

takbir...

Enjoy another month's ban.

Maybe it will give you time to cool down and collect yourself. I've seen this method employed successfully with angry toddlers.

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

I worked for a company that did security for one of her events her group co-organized with another.

This lady is not the brightest or "smartest tool in the shed". Without advance knowledge of questions that would be asked of her, she has no idea what to answer back. An attendee of one of her events asked how America was being Islamized, she

While she's going on a crusade to defend the Judo-Christian values of America, she' divorcee with 4 kids who jumped on the anti-Islam bandwagon after 9/11. Thankfully, the Brits and various American Civil Rights groups have labeled her an "extremist".

Every community has it's nutjobs. Sadly in America they can hide behind a vial of the 1st Amendment.

Oklahoma became the first state to ban 'Sharia Law' after groups like Pamela's lobbied the broke state government to do so, on fears that the may 15,000 or so Muslims would demand it in the state. While sadly these same people will on the other side lobby governments to band abortion, death-sentences to murderers, and continue to be stupid.

While I don't agree with Pamela's views, I will defend her right to be stupid. Sadly her stupidity makes more money for her than my education for me.

 

[fallstuff]

She knows if she says certain things at the appropriate decibel to a receptive audience , it will bring her money. She makes a load of money doing this. She is an expert so much so that she gets invited to offer her opinion on Islamic extremism, which she happily obliges.

She is doing just fine.

She is going to write a book about this, " attempt on her fearless life, but she remains standing strong with American values wrapped all around her " !!!

 

[Retd. Irshad Hassan]

Hate mongers belonging to any country, faith or race are the lowest form of human race! No one in their right state of mind would pay a heed to what this wretched woman Pamela has to say. She is notorious for such flagrant behavior.

 

[Tiger Genie]

This is a disgusting vicious cycle. Some idiot blows up a jihadi bomb, some idiot such as this woman starts a website sounding all patriotic and then that inspires some lone loser somewhere to the next event. The mullah anti-infidel speech and this sort of anti-moslem sharia speech both have the exact same effect . It doesn't matter who started it. Put a lid on it and send all these nuts to the same island. They can all practice their anti- whatever there

 

[gambit]

Be fooled by the likes of Pamela Geller or be fooled by religious nutjobs. The latter is far worse, as history consistently showed.

 

[Kambojaric]

Be fooled by the likes of Pamela Geller or be fooled by religious nutjobs. The latter is far worse, as history consistently showed.

Both are horrible but I would say the former given history's recent track record is more dangerous. The Nazis singled out Jews as the community behind everything wrong in Germany. We all know what happened subsequently. This woman too hates and singles out Muslims as the source of all evil. She openly supports for example the EDL, a racist organization that inspired Breivik to commit his massacre in Norway. Members of the EDL have subsequently hailed Breivik as a hero (British far-right extremists voice support for Anders Breivik | UK news | The Guardian These people hold the same mindset as Neo-Nazis but conveniently are able to portray themselves as champions of freedom of speech and western values when people question how their actions and speeches incite racial and religious hatred.