Conundrum

Interesting conundrum that Pam Geller revealed in her "Draw Mohammed" contest.  They're talking about it over at Hot Air, and because they are better wordsmiths than I am, I'll let them lay it out for you.

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.

So, let me see if I can break it down.
Do we believe that violent attacks on persons that blaspheme Islam are reasonably foreseeable?
If no, then no one could have foreseen the attack on Sunday, and Geller is off the hook. She could not have foreseen the violence, because Islam is basically peaceful.
If yes, then we agree that Islamic violence is sufficiently great that we can count on it happening in response to events (which gives lie to the "tiny minority of extremists" argument.

So, if we blame Geller for hosting the event, we can agree that Islam is sufficiently violent that a violent response is almost certainly expected.

Interesting conundrum.