5 ms·

"a pogrom against Muslims in some southern states" That's just untrue. A pogrom is an organized massacre of an ethnic group - it's not happening, in southern

by steve_g 11y ago

"a pogrom against Muslims in some southern states" That's just untrue. A pogrom is an organized massacre of an ethnic group - it's not happening, in southern states or anywhere else in the US.

acqq 11y ago
littletimmy, how about citing sources for these extraordinary claims ("a pogrom against Muslims in some southern states")? I can't believe it wouldn't be widely known in the current "politically correct" environment. Even if you are now aware that "pogrom" wasn't the right word to describe something "against Muslims" that is worrying you, please do write what that is.
- celticninja 11y ago
  your reply was not to littletimmy so he may not answer you. However it is possible he was talking about things like this: http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2015/11/armed-protesters-set-up-outside-islamic-center-of-irving.html/ http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2015/11/armed-protesters-... Whilst not a pogrom it certainly does lay the ground for some future issues. All you have to is consider the reaction if Muslim Americans decided to use their 2nd ammendment rights to protest christian or jewish churches, whilst covering their forces and armed with semi automatic weapons.
  - acqq 11y ago
    Was it a protest "against Muslims" as persons of the religion as whole, or just against the goals or actions of just some militant or extremist Muslims? The messages of the protest were "solution to islamic terrorism -> ted cruz" (obviously a call to the solution of the assumed problem through voting, that is, politically, they refer to: https://www.tedcruz.org/ https://www.tedcruz.org/ ) and "stop the islamization of america" according to the picture from the same site: http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/files/2015/11/pan.jpg http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/files/2015/11/pan.jpg Isn't even filing such event as something "against Muslims" (implying "in general") a big misinterpretation? Who benefits from such misinterpretations? And did the protesters break any law?
    - celticninja 11y ago
      I never said they broke any law, I asked you to consider a parallel situation and consider the outcome of that theoretical situation. If it wasnt a protest against muslims why were they protesting outside a mosque? If they wanted to protest extremism is being an extermist yourself the best way to do that? Surely they should be protesting against someone who is espousing extremist beliefs and not just the nearest collection of muslims who have not been accused of any extremism. Is america really becoming islamized? is there any evidence of this? Or does their definition of islamisaztion mean any muslims living in America at all? Could the same protests be carried out without face masks and weapons? These seem to be included just to cause fear.
      - acqq 11y ago
        > Surely they should be protesting against someone who is espousing extremist beliefs and not just the nearest collection of muslims who have not been accused of any extremism. But, per article, they actually believed they had an information about the specific extremism happening exactly in this mosque, so it's not "just the nearest collection of muslims" it appears they did exactly what you suggest to do: "he was convinced that Irving’s mosque had established the country’s first Islamic court earlier in the year—a false rumor that started online but grew in popularity after Mayor Beth Van Duyne made it the focus of speeches to Tea Party groups."
        celticninja 11y ago
        >it appears they did exactly what you suggest to do well that is entirely subjective, given that the following line states that it was a false rumour that started online it could have been started by anyone, including these armed militants, as reason to wander round intimidating people. Also a moderate amount of research online indicates that not only was it an unsubstantiated rumour but it was debunked in July of this year. So had these individuals done any actual research they would not have protested this venue for the reasons they said they were protesting. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/jul/16/chain-email/chain-email-muslims-tried-open-nations-first-shari/ http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/jul/16/chain... Thats just the first link I clicked which gives the date of July. 3 or 4 links down is the snopes article. http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/shariatexas.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/shariatexas.asp So defending them by saying they had legitimate reason to protest is untrue and anybody wanting to check this could have done so in a few minutes on the internet. They either checked and protested anyway because it was never really about protesting (but about intimidation) or they did check, found their claim was false and protested anyway because protesting was always just a cover for intimidation.

by steve_g 11y ago

"a pogrom against Muslims in some southern states" That's just untrue. A pogrom is an organized massacre of an ethnic group - it's not happening, in southern states or anywhere else in the US.

acqq 11y ago

littletimmy, how about citing sources for these extraordinary claims ("a pogrom against Muslims in some southern states")? I can't believe it wouldn't be widely known in the current "politically correct" environment. Even if you are now aware that "pogrom" wasn't the right word to describe something "against Muslims" that is worrying you, please do write what that is.

celticninja 11y ago
your reply was not to littletimmy so he may not answer you. However it is possible he was talking about things like this: http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2015/11/armed-protesters-set-up-outside-islamic-center-of-irving.html/ http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2015/11/armed-protesters-... Whilst not a pogrom it certainly does lay the ground for some future issues. All you have to is consider the reaction if Muslim Americans decided to use their 2nd ammendment rights to protest christian or jewish churches, whilst covering their forces and armed with semi automatic weapons.
- acqq 11y ago
  Was it a protest "against Muslims" as persons of the religion as whole, or just against the goals or actions of just some militant or extremist Muslims? The messages of the protest were "solution to islamic terrorism -> ted cruz" (obviously a call to the solution of the assumed problem through voting, that is, politically, they refer to: https://www.tedcruz.org/ https://www.tedcruz.org/ ) and "stop the islamization of america" according to the picture from the same site: http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/files/2015/11/pan.jpg http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/files/2015/11/pan.jpg Isn't even filing such event as something "against Muslims" (implying "in general") a big misinterpretation? Who benefits from such misinterpretations? And did the protesters break any law?
  - celticninja 11y ago
    I never said they broke any law, I asked you to consider a parallel situation and consider the outcome of that theoretical situation. If it wasnt a protest against muslims why were they protesting outside a mosque? If they wanted to protest extremism is being an extermist yourself the best way to do that? Surely they should be protesting against someone who is espousing extremist beliefs and not just the nearest collection of muslims who have not been accused of any extremism. Is america really becoming islamized? is there any evidence of this? Or does their definition of islamisaztion mean any muslims living in America at all? Could the same protests be carried out without face masks and weapons? These seem to be included just to cause fear.
    - acqq 11y ago
      > Surely they should be protesting against someone who is espousing extremist beliefs and not just the nearest collection of muslims who have not been accused of any extremism. But, per article, they actually believed they had an information about the specific extremism happening exactly in this mosque, so it's not "just the nearest collection of muslims" it appears they did exactly what you suggest to do: "he was convinced that Irving’s mosque had established the country’s first Islamic court earlier in the year—a false rumor that started online but grew in popularity after Mayor Beth Van Duyne made it the focus of speeches to Tea Party groups."
      - celticninja 11y ago
        >it appears they did exactly what you suggest to do well that is entirely subjective, given that the following line states that it was a false rumour that started online it could have been started by anyone, including these armed militants, as reason to wander round intimidating people. Also a moderate amount of research online indicates that not only was it an unsubstantiated rumour but it was debunked in July of this year. So had these individuals done any actual research they would not have protested this venue for the reasons they said they were protesting. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/jul/16/chain-email/chain-email-muslims-tried-open-nations-first-shari/ http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/jul/16/chain... Thats just the first link I clicked which gives the date of July. 3 or 4 links down is the snopes article. http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/shariatexas.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/shariatexas.asp So defending them by saying they had legitimate reason to protest is untrue and anybody wanting to check this could have done so in a few minutes on the internet. They either checked and protested anyway because it was never really about protesting (but about intimidation) or they did check, found their claim was false and protested anyway because protesting was always just a cover for intimidation.