4 ms·

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 aga

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.
  - acqq 11y ago
    "They either checked" (...) "or they did check" That's an interesting approach to the covering of the real possibilities. No further comment.
    - celticninja 11y ago
      Apologies if you did not understand what I was trying to say. Evidently I mistyped but I think it was clear what I was trying to say, but on the basis that you were not able to understand due to my error please let me clarify. They either didnt check the veracity of their information and protested something they didnt fully understand. Which to me means they didnt really mind what reason they were using to protest there i.e. they didnt believe in the reason given, but that didnt mater as it was just an excuse to use as to why they were doing what they were doing. OR They did check and find it to be false but protested anyway because the reason for the protest was never really anything other than an excuse to wander round intimidating people. In both cases my point was that the reason given was just an excuse, whether it was true or not was not important to the protestors.

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.
- acqq 11y ago
  "They either checked" (...) "or they did check" That's an interesting approach to the covering of the real possibilities. No further comment.
  - celticninja 11y ago
    Apologies if you did not understand what I was trying to say. Evidently I mistyped but I think it was clear what I was trying to say, but on the basis that you were not able to understand due to my error please let me clarify. They either didnt check the veracity of their information and protested something they didnt fully understand. Which to me means they didnt really mind what reason they were using to protest there i.e. they didnt believe in the reason given, but that didnt mater as it was just an excuse to use as to why they were doing what they were doing. OR They did check and find it to be false but protested anyway because the reason for the protest was never really anything other than an excuse to wander round intimidating people. In both cases my point was that the reason given was just an excuse, whether it was true or not was not important to the protestors.