Comment by celticninja
10 years 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-...
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.
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/ ) and "stop the islamization of america" according to the picture from the same site:
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?
How is a protest against "islam the religion as a whole" where people protest by wielding guns is acceptable?
The main theme is pretty clear here: "Against the islamization of America" And they're standing outside a mosque holding rifles.
The precise reason is written in the article: "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.
“They shut the illegal court down,” Wright said, incorrectly. “And then, they threatened to kill the mayor.”"
A bunch of gun-wielding lunatics that think mosques are setting up secret courts.
> How is a protest against "islam the religion as a whole" where people protest by wielding guns is acceptable?
My argument was, it wasn't "against Muslims" as a whole but just against "islamization" by supporting the candidate of protesters, that makes a big difference. For example, Ataturk was effectively against islamization of Turkey, as its top political leader, and made it much more modern and more secular state, ending sharia courts in 1924. Which was a worthy goal for anybody who wasn't an islamist.
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.
> 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."
3 replies →