General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: No, the shootings are in no way excusable [View all]Oktober
(1,488 posts)Doens't mean that she has to meet some higher and loftier set of standards.
Swap the groups and instead of Geller's group it was the ACLU or NAACP or Code Pink or whatever you want.
They got loud, they said that their opposition was full of liars and miscreants. Really got em riled up and that group of right wing wackadoddles decides to blow up an office or take shots at an event.
The goal of shooting or blowing up a specific person is secondary to the fear and intimidation they are trying to create. They don't want those groups to keep doing what they are doing and believe that using violence this one time will stop them in the future.
It's classic terrorism.
That doesn't mean that the local chapter president of that group who was blown up or shot at has to be physically present and in danger. The primary threat was against their organization as a sign that future speech will result in more violence so shut the hell up.
That's why they are a victim and your obvious hatred of Pam Geller has blinded you to logic and ethics.