Home » Charlie Hebdo cartoonists disavow Pam Geller connection

Comments

Charlie Hebdo cartoonists disavow Pam Geller connection — 36 Comments

  1. Yea, some “hard movement”–ads in subways and drawing contests. In fact, she is using pretty ild methods. What the Left, ultimately, does not like about her is the she refuses to be intimidated.

    I do wonder if some of the distaste for her merely stems from the fact that she is apologetically Jewish, and understands that above all this is not a war of “Causes”, but an actual and real war of which jews are a primary target.

  2. So if being against one religion is hateful, doesn’t that make being against all religions MORE hateful?

    Of course, he really just wants to reassure his fellows on the left that he’s one of them. Since holding secular leftist beliefs is what in their eyes makes you good. Not your actions.

    Which makes them a lot like Jihadists.

  3. She is apologetically Jewish????
    To me she seemed to flaunt It, not apologize for it.

  4. Bedfellows are not in made in bed. That the clowns who have all the courage it takes to setting bags full of shit afire to watch the rubes stomp should dissociate themselves from those heroic who would defend their (the shit bags’) freedom says volumes. Who would have with them, in a foxhole or at the front line, someone for whom everything was bullshit and to be mocked. Say what you will freely, and I’ll say what I will; those who will only sneer at everything are less than useless.

  5. Regarding France’s weak free speech tradition.

    If some of you can read French (there probably is no English translation), I recommend this book, it is very short but it mentions all of the major developments in censorship laws over the last century and half:

    http://www.amazon.fr/r%C3%A9gression-intellectuelle-France-Philippe-Nemo/dp/2960047397/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1430856970&sr=8-1&keywords=La+r%C3%A9gression+intellectuelle+de+la+France

    A quick and entertaining read, but of a chilling sort.

  6. I do think they are different, too. After doing a little digging on Hebdo, I consider them pretty much a secular version of islam, which just including islam as just another enemy. I guess their leftist brand didn’t get the memo that friends of their enemies are friends. At their core, they are people haters, not freethinkers, artists, or such. Both groups, really. One just has the balls of their convictions, the other are just mealy-mouthed punk malcontents if with evil intent.

  7. It appears the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo have learned their lesson and will be good little dhimmis from now on. Undoubtedly in the future they will continue to speak truth to power with inflammatory cartoons attacking Christians and Jews while carefully preserving the sensitivities of their Islamic overlords.

  8. Pam Geller is a classic liberal — right down the line.

    Her activities have always been aimed at the hypocrisy of the modern Left — which is, de facto, supporting the EXTREME hard right — Islamism.

    Her recent court victory WRT the bus adverts is an example.

    They merely restate the standard, orthodox, Islamic position on Jewry.

    Nothing more, nothing less.

    The hard Left then suffers cognitive dissonance.

    Of course.

  9. hattip, 3:18 pm — “I do wonder if some of the distaste for her merely stems from the fact that she is apologetically Jewish, . . .”

    Ray, 3:37 pm — “She is apologetically Jewish???? To me she seemed to flaunt It, not apologize for it.”

    I am reasonably sure hattip meant to be saying UNapologetically Jewish. To be unapologetically something is a common expression, but to be apologetically something would be a very unusual way to express adherence to that something.

    — — — — — —

    While we’re at it, I imagine many of us have seen Donald Trump’s criticism of Pamela Geller as unnecessarily “provoking” our dear muslim adversaries to violence.

    Was Rosa Parks “provoking” the 1950s southern bigots by refusing to sit in the back of the bus?

  10. Yet another terrific Ace “rant” on the matter — it’s all about keeping one’s distance from an “unacceptable” person like Pam Geller.

  11. “If you believe in defending free speech, you believe in defending it even for speech with which you disagree” neo

    The Charlie Hebdo cartoonists have never been actual advocates of free speech. They are leftist populists, graphic artists catering to the prejudices of those on the Left, from whom the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists seek approval.

    I can think of no one on the Left who is in favor of free speech for those who disagree with them. Liberal fascists do not support free speech, they support furtherance of the agenda.

    The criticism of Pamela Geller as unnecessarily “provoking” jihadist radicals to violence is one part moral cowardice and one part a refusal to admit what in their heart of hearts they know to be true, that regardless of the majority’s ‘moderation’, theologically, Islam is not a “religion of peace”.

    For such as they, Gellar’s gravest sin is that she insists upon publicizing that the core issue for the West is that Islam is a totalitarian ‘religion’ of violent aggression. People like Gellar threaten the meme that Islam is inherently a peaceful religion.

    Implicit to acknowledging that Islam is a violently expansionist, totalitarian ideology that wraps itself in a facade of religious pretense is that jihadist radicals are simply Islam’s cannon fodder. And that, the acquiescence* of the Muslim majority to the jihadists makes them complicit and therefore culpable in Islam’s violence.

    *Some Muslim organizations occasionally speak out against the violence but where are the anonymous Muslim voices on the internet deploring and rejecting jihadist violence?

    They are silent because they know that the ‘radicals’ hold Islam’s theological ‘high-ground’.

  12. “…he said it ‘was a question of criticizing’ all religions, not Muslim people ‘in particular.'”

    Then the more fool him. There’s only one letter on those ridiculous “Coexist” bumper stickers that has a problem living with the others.

  13. Ann Says:
    May 5th, 2015 at 6:44 pm

    Yet another terrific Ace “rant” on the matter – it’s all about keeping one’s distance from an “unacceptable” person like Pam Geller.

    I read that earlier. It’s a brilliant post, and deserves to go viral.

  14. Let’s bring in a bit of Noel Coward (the following ditty was one of Churchill’s favorites, and was banned by the BBC):

    Don’t let’s be beastly to the Germans,
    When our victory is ultimately won,
    It was just those nasty Nazis who persuaded them to fight,
    And their Beethoven and Bach are really far worse than their bite.
    Let’s be meek to them,
    And turn the other cheek to them,
    And try to bring out their latent sense of fun.
    Let’s give them full air parity,
    And treat the rats with charity,
    But don’t let’s be beastly to the Hun.

    Pam Geller is passionate about fighting the jihad movement and saving Israel and America. My observation is that people who dislike her are those who realize she shows up their cowardice in confronting the problem and the danger head-on.

    May God keep her and Robert Spencer safe.

  15. At the gym I caught part of CNN’s interview with Geller – boy, did that CNN idiot make my blood boil! Basically, she was saying that Geller “asked for it.”

    But, what I loved was that Geller held her own and was the more intelligent of the two – by a long shot!

    And, wow, that Ace posting is spot on – their attacks on Geller are about class!

  16. Actually, Rosa was looking for trouble. She worked for an activist org and that was what paid her bills. So, yes, she was looking for it. At least know what you are talking about before yapping off like a typical elitist fool or one of their mouthpieces.

    From what I can tell, segregation was a lot better, and is being enacted by all races anyway, currently, right over the feds. So you are wrong on several counts right there. Stop while you are way behind.

  17. The act of blaming the victim has become ubiquitous in our society. Not only are people who speak the truth about Islam accused of “asking for it,” but many victims of crime have been brainwashed into thinking their victimization was somehow their fault. It is a mindset that accepts crime/jihadi attacks as inevitable and caused by something the targets have done rather than seeing crime and jihadism as unacceptable under any circumstance. It eventually leads to a society that is unwilling/unable to defend itself against the orcs. And that is where we are headed.

  18. France was attacked by their allies. In that sense, there is no comparison to Geller, who were attacked by her and our common enemy.

  19. The jihadis are undoubtedly, inescapably correct about America. This country is morally almost bankrupt, it is materialistic, hedonic, slaughters its infants, antireligious against all the People of the Book except Islamists because they are feared, and prostrate in its cowardice.

    I suspect it’s Obama’s cringing obsequiousness and crawling feebleness abroad they find most repelling. That his given names are mideastern is a joke. His first name might as well be “Toilet” and his middle name “Paper” as far as ISIS and Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan and the Sauds are concerned.

    The Islamists will of course be repelled by a beautiful and brave Jewish lady, Pamela Geller, who mocks and taunts them, despises them for the vicious bullies all Islamists are. She is disrespected by people allegedly conservative like Laura Ingraham and The Donald who find her “unnecessarily” provocative and in so doing they dishonor the Bill of Rights and its most precious First Amendment.Not the types to defend to the death Pamela’s right to speak out.Cowards pretending to be prudent.

    I believe ISIS has more plans for us, thanks to the disgusting failure of our southern border to be anything more than a wet trickle in the sands and rocks.I believe they are here now.

    I think Geller is wonderful.

  20. Rush played Little Chrissy Matthews’ insane rant from Monday’s Hardball re-Geller and her ‘mob’. The Left is becoming more and more a Parody of Itself. Pathetic.

    Islam’s views on women and homosexuals don’t faze the blathering f*****s for a second. Radical Islam’s views on those and on liberal-leftism doesn’t stop the pinheads of the NYTimes, LATimes, MSNBC, etc. for a nano-second.

    GOD BLESS TEXAS COPS and their Solution for Radical Islam!! Love it!!

  21. Objectivity is excluded categorically from leftist thinking. It is impossible to engage them intelligently. Not being intellectually engaged is part of their “thinking” process. This necessarily means (like moslems) everything is provisional except winning.

    Beverly @ 9:42 – – Spencer might be the most valuable unheralded defender of freedom and the West. He (and PG) are courageous almost beyond comprehension. Pray God for their safety and continued effectiveness.

  22. Good note, Neo, and the Charlie Hebo folk are mostly wrong, like you say above.

    Yet they are worse than wrong. Their anti-Christianity is as strong as their anti-Islamism, or stronger, so they equate peaceful prayer vigils (as Christians did in opposing communism) with violent beheadings and killings and terrorist murders, as the Islamists commit today.

    They support atheism, and like communist dictators, might be against the Islamist terrorists, but as much because the terrorists are religious as because of the crimes committed.

    Christianity is far better than Islam or secular communism/ socialism.

  23. “The criticism of Pamela Geller as unnecessarily “provoking” jihadist radicals to violence is one part moral cowardice and one part a refusal to admit what in their heart of hearts they know to be true, that regardless of the majority’s ‘moderation’, theologically, Islam is not a “religion of peace”. ”

    Was watching the first 5 minutes of O’Reilly last night and he said basically the same thing with the added invective that what Geller did was “stupid”. I immediately turned him off. I refuse to watch that show anymore. Megyn yes, O’Reilly is a jerk.

  24. Here’s a thought?

    Some of the MSM that is attacking Pam Geller even though they agree with her in principle about the free speech issue is not willing to go out on that limb for financial reasons. If they do that would put a target on their back and they know they would have to pay untold amounts of money for security which they don’t now.

    In that sense “free speech” is not free and they are not willing to pay the price.

  25. Let’s not forget the biggest difference: Charlie Hebdo’s security hid under desks and begged the attackers to stop in the name of Allah, while Pam Geller’s security returned fire.

    There are at least twelve other differences that can be traced back to that difference alone.

  26. Tatterdemalian:

    No, that’s not correct. The security forces at Charlie Hebdo did not hide under desks nor beg for their lives. You are confusing several different things.

    The staff of the magazine (some of them, anyway) hid under chairs and/or desks. The security guard (there was only one, and he was a bodyguard for Charbonnier) Franck Brinsolaro was killed because the two terrorists gained access to the building from threatening a staff member and her child and making her key in the security code. I believe that there was too much reliance on security at the door, and not enough guards, because apparently the terrorists surprised the guard by bursting into the room and killing him before he could draw his weapon (reports on this are spotty, but that’s what I have gleaned). In addition, there was a policeman outside who seems to have been not part of the security detail but an ordinary cop on patrol, Ahmed Merabet. These were the circumstances of his death:

    After being shot the first time, the gunmen wearing balaclavas and holding Kalashnikov rifles are seen running past the police officer — who had his hands up in surrender — and shot in his direction again at point-blank range as he was lying on the pavement outside the offices.

    The masked gunmen is heard asking the police officer “Do you want to kill me?” before he allegedly replied “No, it is OK chief” before one of them shot him a second time…

    He was a Muslim, and after he was wounded he seems to have been trying to persuade them not to kill him, but I haven’t seen any mention of Allah. It’s not even clear whether he knew about the Charlie Hebdo attacks at the time.

    The reporting on the security aspect of the story is very murky indeed, but nowhere is anything like your scenario described.

  27. Tatterdemalian:

    Another thing—

    It is all very well and good to laud the security forces in the Texas incident. They did an excellent job. But the circumstances were very different than with Charlie Hebdo. In Texas, one unarmed cop was shot first, and very fortunately the terrorists had poor aim and only shot him in the ankle. That would have alerted the other guards (and note that there were many other guards, not just one) as to what was happening and cued them to fire to kill. That’s what happened. They had a moment’s warning and the chance to defend themselves, unlike what appears to have happened in France.

    Security forces have to be skilled. But they have to be lucky as well.

  28. Megyn yes, O’Reilly is a jerk.

    When O R and the other collaborators or Leftists get their head cut off or blown off, we should all say “that was stupid” of the media.

    Hit em where it hurts. Punch them back twice as hard. Never let it go, and never forgive the evils they do.

  29. I stopped making jokes about the French some odd years ago.

    There was little point to it, since I might as well have been talking about America.

  30. Neo-neocon,

    Do you really think security is supposed to start and end at the door? The difference in social structures in France and Texas are a part of that security as well, underappreciated by those to whom it’s invisible. If the gunmen had captured Pamela Gellar and threatened to kill her if she didn’t help them pass security, do you think she would have done it? The gunmen apparently didn’t even bother to try that tactic, probably because they knew there was no point. Literally all the other differences you also attribute to “luck” I happen to consider part of the security infrastructure of a state that, unlike the security infrastructure of France, is dedicated to keeping the peace and protecting its citizens, rather than forcing them all to do whatever the enlightened intellectual circles see as appropriate.

  31. Tatterdemalian,

    No, I certainly don’t believe security begins and ends at the door, nor did I indicate that I did. In fact, I explicitly said otherwise, when I wrote of the Charlie Hebdo fact situation:
    “I believe that there was too much reliance on security at the door…”

    You have no idea which parts of the situation I ascribe to “luck,” either, because I didn’t say which ones. I said forces have to be skilled and they have to be lucky as well (meaning, for example, that if two guards are dealing with, let’s say, 10 armed terrorists at once, that’s some bad luck right there). The single guard in the Charlie Hebdo case dealt with two armed terrorists surprising him because there was inadequate security elsewhere down the chain (and a women let the terrorists in after they threatened her and her child, who happened to be with her). The single guard would have had to have been very lucky to have dealt successfully with those terrorists; they were likely to be able to surprise and kill him, under those circumstances. I think the entire Charlie Hebdo office was inadequately guarded at every step of the way, unless there was some extra security there about which I’m unaware.

    By the way, at the time of the Charlie Hebdo murders, I wrote a rather lengthy piece about the choice faced by the woman who let the killers in. See this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>