So Why Hasn't The Media Shown This???????

Could it be because at least two of the policemen in charge were Muslims?


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/all...dly-stoning-christian-protesters-in-michigan/

Oh hey look, another sensationalized headline about Muslim violence.

I see your Muslim rioters and raise you Christian instigators.


**LANGUAGE WARNING**
[video=youtube;S7LTmLThIgw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7LTmLThIgw[/video]

I love the comments at the end of the article. They are precisely why I gave up on religion years ago. Nutbags all around.

* pops some popcorn * I'll take the same approach to this, as I do for the Gang problem, let them kill each other off, and I'll help clean up afterwards. Just leave me out of your Holy Wars, Gang Wars, War On (Insert Favorite Noun). If you can't leave me out of it, do not expect that I will go easily...

Jack House said:

Oh hey look, another sensationalized headline about Muslim violence.

I see your Muslim rioters and raise you Christian instigators.


**LANGUAGE WARNING**
[video=youtube;S7LTmLThIgw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7LTmLThIgw[/video]

Click to expand...

I would see this being no different if it were on the other foot....the Muslims exercising their rights while being assaulted by another mob. The problem I noticed was the lack of police presence in either video (although it's easy to play Monday morning QB) in such an explosive situation. Another huge issue IMO was the protesters being removed from the area at the end of one of the videos....which doesn't make much sense because it looks like the city of Dearborn lost a lawsuit in a similar situation last year to the tune of 100K. Were the Christians instigating? Probably....but they still didn't deserve to be assaulted by an angry mob.

BlueRidgeTrapper said:

I would see this being no different if it were on the other foot....the Muslims exercising their rights while being assaulted by another mob. The problem I noticed was the lack of police presence in either video (although it's easy to play Monday morning QB) in such an explosive situation. Another huge issue IMO was the protesters being removed from the area at the end of one of the videos....which doesn't make much sense because it looks like the city of Dearborn lost a lawsuit in a similar situation last year to the tune of 100K. Were the Christians instigating? Probably....but they still didn't deserve to be assaulted by an angry mob.

Click to expand...

In a general sense I agree with everything you said. Dearborn MI has the largest concentration of Muslims of any city in the USA. The Christians, by their very presence and proselytizing at an "Arab" gathering, probably made the Muslims uneasy. It was an event for "Arabs", and Arabs are primarily Muslims. In the narrow-minded Islamic countries, Christian proselytizing is not just unwelcome, it is illegal, hence their display of anger toward the Christian demonstrators. That's just my way of seeing the background of the confrontation, not an attempt to excuse the Muslim's assaults on the Christians. Activists of any kind, not just religious fanatics, must understand that they take, and accept, certain risks by their activism. There will frequently be counter-demonstrators, who feel just as passionately about their position as the activists do about their position. For example, there are the nutters at the Westboro Baptist Church who demean the funerals of our returning fallen military personnel, and they often find themselves faced with the Patriot Guard Riders. The PGR is a loose affiliation of motorcyclists with one but goal... to honor our fallen soldiers, and make the Westboro Baptist Church's efforts to disrupt the proceedings as unrewarding as they possibly can - within the legal boundaries. The PGR is often supported by the American Legion Riders as well, and sometimes even some of the "outlaw bikers" are in attendance. I have never heard of Westboro trying to get violent with a bunch of bikers, and the bikers haven't (to the best of my recollection) ever assaulted the nut-jobs. This example is one where violence isn't involved, but the potential for violence is generally very nearby - because of the passions of each side vs the other. I'm sure you can determine who the "good guys" and the "bad guys" are yourself. Pax...

BlueRidgeTrapper said:

Could it be because at least two of the policemen in charge were Muslims?


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/all...dly-stoning-christian-protesters-in-michigan/

Click to expand...

It's because our "fearless leader", BO, has identified Islam as "a religion of peace and love". Pax...

BlueRidgeTrapper said:

Were the WBC guys instigating? Probably....but they still didn't deserve to be assaulted by an angry mob.

Click to expand...

These "Christians" are no better than the WBC. They were clearly out looking for a fight, fighting with the people, hurling insults and derogatory remarks. They deserved an ass kicking and they got one. Yeah, the crowd didn't have to bow to their trolling, and maybe it wasn't the right thing to do. Never the less, this reaction wouldn't be limited to Muslims, and indeed there have been similar reaction to the WBC bigots.

Furthermore, they definitely were not stoned as the article kept claiming. Even if rocks were hurled at them, that does not constitute a stoning. That is rioters doing what rioters do. And even if you wanted to associate it with stoning, it's still not stoned, which is a specific type of execution. Since no one died, no one was stoned. At the very most, and this is being very liberal with words, it was an attempted stoning. But again, that's being liberal with words in an attempt to sensationalize the event while assuming that stones were in fact thrown. All I saw clearly were water bottles.

Sure the protestors said rocks were thrown, but they also said they were quiet and didn't do any instigating. They clearly lied about one thing, who's to say they ain't lyin now?

You also criticize the police, I'm not going to judge their actions because I wasn't there. I only have one heavily skewed version of events. But I do want to point out that instigating a riot is a crime, and that these protestors should have been arrested. But they weren't. Seems like a fair trade to me.

Note to self....keep Detroit on "Do Not Visit" list.

If the roles had been reversed the Christians would have been charged and jailed.

I think the Muslims should quit getting special treatment.

They all should have been arrested and charged.

The gov't should not "clamp down" on people who are exercising their freedom of speech. The Heller & McDonald cases highlighted that the 1st amendment has caused harm, probably more harm than our 2nd amendment.

The cops should not have forced people out ... even it was creating a "public safety hazard", that is not enough to over-ride the 1st amendment.

davidmcbeth said:

The gov't should not "clamp down" on people who are exercising their freedom of speech. The Heller & McDonald cases highlighted that the 1st amendment has caused harm, probably more harm than our 2nd amendment.

The cops should not have forced people out ... even it was creating a "public safety hazard", that is not enough to over-ride the 1st amendment.

Click to expand...

I was waiting for somebody to come up with the 1A argument, as it had crossed my mind also. Yes, they were exercising their "freedom of speech, expression and assembly" rights. BUT... at what point do we, the common folk, believe the exercise of those rights cross the line into "inciting to riot", and (of course the lovely new catch-all crime) "hate speech", which apparently is not protected by 1A?

Another question arises: "Did either the actions of the Christians, or the response to those actions by the Muslims, meet the standard definition of "terroristic threat" or terrorism itself?" In an attempt to find the answer to that question, my research indicates that, essentially, there is no "standard definition". Here's what I found at www.terrorism-research.com (whoever they are):

The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” Within this definition, there are three key elements—violence, fear, and intimidation—and each element produces terror in its victims. The FBI uses this: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." The U.S. Department of State defines "terrorism" to be "premeditated politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

Click to expand...

I know there are some who will find that blurb to be very profound. So, I went to the left-wing ACLU's web site for their biased interpretation of the so-called "Patriot Act" and the definition of "Domestic Terrorism":

A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

Click to expand...

Now here, I see the possibility that both sides were engaged in "acts intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population". One party by their mere presence at the event, and the other party by their response to that presence. Any thoughts? Pax...

"Hate speech" shouldn't be a crime. As for your terrorism argument, no one is accusing anyone of terrorist actions? It's kinda irrelevant. The relevant argument would be screaming fire in a crowded theater. Agree with it or don't, but please don't make arguments regarding irrelevant subjects.

Jack House said:

"Hate speech" shouldn't be a crime. As for your terrorism argument, no one is accusing anyone of terrorist actions? It's kinda irrelevant. The relevant argument would be screaming fire in a crowded theater. Agree with it or don't, but please don't make arguments regarding irrelevant subjects.

Click to expand...

Assault would be a valid charge based on this video.

I loved how the muslims proved the protesters to be correct in this video.

The protesters were being jerks but not violent, the muslims were being violent.

Jack House said:

"Hate speech" shouldn't be a crime. As for your terrorism argument, no one is accusing anyone of terrorist actions? It's kinda irrelevant. The relevant argument would be screaming fire in a crowded theater. Agree with it or don't, but please don't make arguments regarding irrelevant subjects.

Click to expand...

I completely agree that "hate speech" shouldn't be a crime, Jack. Nor should "the state of mind" of an individual when committing a crime of violence against a member of any minority group or subculture. The "crime" is in the act itself, not in why it was committed, and "why" should not be a consideration in charging or punishing. The government has yet to establish an enforcement unit like the one portrayed in the movie "Minority Report", but if one's state of mind is of any relevance in establishing a "hate crime", then we are not far from seeing the arrival of the Thought Police.

As for "irrelevant subjects", no one is accusing anybody of anything, and that may be a problem in itself. Throwing solid, weighty objects (stones/rocks or whatever) into a crowd of people is "dangerous to human life", and could easily be interpreted as an act of terrorism (the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof...). The bottom line - as I see it - is that neither side was blameless in this confrontation, and at least a few people from one side or the other - or perhaps both sides - should have been arrested and charged... even if it was something as innocuous as "disturbing the peace", "unlawful assembly" or "simple assault". And, "relevance" is as subjective a term as the word "terrorist" - one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. And, what is relevant to one person may be irrelevant to any number of people. The only unnecessary position our current government administration seems to be lacking is that of "Relevance Czar". Pax...

If you want to demonstrate at the funeral of a fallen soldier, you have every right. If you are a Christian among Muslims IN Michigan, you are forced the Hell out of there. What the Hell is this country coming to? Where were the cops with the tear gas and riot gear? Better not piss off the Muslims. It's like we fell into a rabbit hole. Up is down, down is up.

Jack House said:

"Hate speech" shouldn't be a crime. As for your terrorism argument, no one is accusing anyone of terrorist actions? It's kinda irrelevant. The relevant argument would be screaming fire in a crowded theater. Agree with it or don't, but please don't make arguments regarding irrelevant subjects.

Click to expand...

Yet they don't stop the Westboro Church from protesting our great soldiers funerals!

Look I don't really agree with the tactics of this group of Christians. However, I expect my 5 year old daughter to be able to ignore speech she finds irritating and annoying. If her two year old brother is bothering her by singing an irritating song and she hits him, she will be the one disciplined. In a civilized society you must be able to walk away from speech you despise and not assault people. When people act less than civilized (throwing rocks at people they disagree with and are annoyed by) I expect the civil authority to restrain them. This bad part about this video is not that people act uncivilized, it is that they were not restrained by the civil authority (the police). Instead of telling everyone to move on and carry on with their day, they walked away and let people exercising their first amendment rights be assaulted. That is unacceptable behavior by people who are supposed to be a part of a civilized society, and unacceptable behavior by the police. The crowds did not like what those signs said...they were free to shout at the men, make bigger signs, engage in verbal dialog, etc. What they were not free to do was to commit assault. When they did that the police should have been compelled by their duty to at minimum stop the assault and keep the peace.

Note to self....place Michigan on "Do Not Visit" list.