It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Ahmad Khan Rahami wanted in connection to NYC bombings

page: 5
38
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: matafuchs



Is it time to say it was Islamic terror now?


I don't know. Is he Muslim?

?

The overwhelming majority of Afghans (about 99 percent) are Muslims. About 84 percent of Afghan Muslims are Sunnites and about 15 percent are Shiites (mostly the Hazaras and Tajiks). Small groups of Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis, and Jews are scattered in the towns.




posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66



There are those who would love to call Open Season.

That's why we cannot let this become equated with being Muslim ... or even being from a "Muslim country."

Because if we start bashing innocent shop owners in the head with sledge hammers, we're actually creating more radicals with every swing.


I am sorry you are 100% wrong here.

I agree with you that there are racists and bigots on all sides that will use tragic events as an excuse to spread their hate. However, what you are advocating here is censoring the truth because of these small amount of people. This is insanity.

We must always strive for the truth, even if it leads us to places we don't like. I refuse to tip toe around the truth because some person out there may use this an excuse to be a racist. How can we ever solve the problem if we can't even speak the truth? We will then deal with the bigots and racists as they arise. But to censor the truth for fear of these racists is what truly gives them power.

Also, I assume you are rallying against groups that say police are bad, or that the country oppresses blacks, or that the 1% are bad, or that men are more likely to commit violent crime, or that say huge percentages of their political opponents are irredeemable deplorables. All of this language could lead to someone from one of these groups being attacked right?
edit on 19-9-2016 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: introvert

It is not about the mosque being involved. It is about finding out more about this man and others he may be connected to. The Mosque in Islam is the 'main' place of worship as well as gathering as a people. You should know that....


Investigating his possible connections is much different than raiding a mosque...which is what you called for.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Terror durp durp durp..
Afghani you say ?

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Was the US bombing of this hospital in Afghanistan terror ? Were you as outraged then as you are now ? Was the bombing of the hospital breaking news in any western country ? The # it wasn't.
Listen. I'm not trying to justify this in any shape or form. But the world is not all black and white. You can stick your head in the sand and play the victim card all you want but the reality is different. The bombing of the Afghani hospital is terror as much as this, if not even more. But yeah, durp durp durp..Trump,islam,wall durp durp durp



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I am not advocating for censoring the truth in any way shape form or fashion.

If you're making the claim that being a Muslim makes one more likely to be a terrorist, YOU'RE the one ignoring the truth.

If you're claiming that it's okay for our government to target members of a religion, YOU'RE the one advocating that we trample the Constitution.

Your assumptions are your own; in relation to my opinions, they're generally misplaced.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

How? Where is the difference? A raid is a coordinated effort to enter an establishment during an investigation.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It appears that constitutional principles, such as religious freedom and due process, are inconvenient in times like this.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, they are part of the church. Just like 'Muslims' are part of the mosque.

What is the difference? You seem to think there is one.


What's the difference?

It's okay to go after someone for embezzlement or accuse them of it or think they are involved with it JUST because they go to church with you?



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Nope, but if you're reading the thread, you'll see plenty of calls to go after those darn Radical Islamic Terrorists™ wherever they are found.

Aside from that, quote me rather than rewording what I say next time if you want a response.


I did quote you - with the quote functionality on this forum, funnily enough.
Going after radical Islamic terrorists does not equate to going after shop owners. I don't even know where you would get that idea from.

There is no need to lump all Muslims in with comments about radical Islamic terrorists. It's the same as railing against criticism of white supremacists because it might upset white people. It's nonsense.


edit on 19/9/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: introvert

It is not about the mosque being involved. It is about finding out more about this man and others he may be connected to. The Mosque in Islam is the 'main' place of worship as well as gathering as a people. You should know that....


Again, something i have read rather than have experience of but i thought that the vast majority of radicalisation that has occured in mosques has been in private meeting rooms rather than in the main prayer hall?

In which case, it may be worth looking in to who has been booking out the meeting rooms!



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs
If he did it, kill him.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gryphon66

It appears that constitutional principles, such as religious freedom and due process, are inconvenient in times like this.


Can't let the Constitution get in the way of a good Muslim-bashing.

They're all probably in on it together someway you know.

We just have to find the connections, right?

#retch



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: introvert

How? Where is the difference? A raid is a coordinated effort to enter an establishment during an investigation.



A raid requires a warrant, indicating the investigators have a reason/evidence to raid the building.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: introvert

How? Where is the difference? A raid is a coordinated effort to enter an establishment during an investigation.



A raid requires a warrant, indicating the investigators have a reason/evidence to raid the building.


So? Get a warrant then.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Nope, but if you're reading the thread, you'll see plenty of calls to go after those darn Radical Islamic Terrorists™ wherever they are found.

Aside from that, quote me rather than rewording what I say next time if you want a response.


I did quote you - with the quote functionality on this forum, funnily enough.
Going after radical Islamic terrorists does not equate to going after shop owners. I don't even know where you would get that idea from.

There is no need to lump all Muslims in with comments about radical Islamic terrorists. It's the same as railing against criticism of white supremacists because it might upset white people. It's nonsense.



You quoted something I said and then proceeded to act like I said something I didn't.

Going after Muslims means going after Muslims. If the religion is the tag, then anyone so tagged is fair game.

Going after TERRORISTS doesn't require that we damn their religion and every member of it.

You butted into a conversation you apparently didn't bother to understand the context of.

We cannot demonize the religion of Islam because of the actions of some supposed adherents. Period.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Can I derail this conversation a bit?

How did they find this guy, in like 24 hours, merely from surveillance video? I'm sure if you had video of me doing something, it would take longer than that to figure out who the heck I was.

How do they ID this guy that fast? Has anyone seen these videos? He must have been staring right into the camera.

Smells fishy.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: introvert

How? Where is the difference? A raid is a coordinated effort to enter an establishment during an investigation.



A raid requires a warrant, indicating the investigators have a reason/evidence to raid the building.


So? Get a warrant then.


You have to have evidence or a reason to go in to that building for a judge to sign the warrant. What evidence do we know of that would justify such an action?



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

But thats not what you said. You said we can not let this be about him being Muslim or from a Muslim country. But if thats where the evidence leads, then we must do that.

This is the mindset of many of our leaders. This poisons the investigation before it begins. The are so worried about the facts going against their narrative that they often spin or just don't report facts.

Look at the New Years sexual assaults in Germany. We are now finding out that police and members of the press were asked to not report the severity of the attacks because it went against the narrative of peaceful immigrants. How many women were put at risk because of this?

Not saying its you Gryphon, but why is that so many people are worried about a backlash to Muslims if we say a terrorists is Muslim, but at the same time are willing to call half of Trumps racists, or men more likely to be criminals, or 1%ers evil, or police violent, etc. This seems like a double standard to me.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Nope, but if you're reading the thread, you'll see plenty of calls to go after those darn Radical Islamic Terrorists™ wherever they are found.

Aside from that, quote me rather than rewording what I say next time if you want a response.


I did quote you - with the quote functionality on this forum, funnily enough.
Going after radical Islamic terrorists does not equate to going after shop owners. I don't even know where you would get that idea from.

There is no need to lump all Muslims in with comments about radical Islamic terrorists. It's the same as railing against criticism of white supremacists because it might upset white people. It's nonsense.



You quoted something I said and then proceeded to act like I said something I didn't.

Going after Muslims means going after Muslims. If the religion is the tag, then anyone so tagged is fair game.

Going after TERRORISTS doesn't require that we damn their religion and every member of it.

You butted into a conversation you apparently didn't bother to understand the context of.

We cannot demonize the religion of Islam because of the actions of some supposed adherents. Period.


It was you who raised bashing shop keepers. I still have no idea what you were referring to.
People are rightly going after radical Islamic terrorists as it is a real problem. The whole issue is one driven by a radical view of the Islamic religion.
In the same way, white supremacy is driven by a radical view of race and cultural superiority and protection.

The only people widening out the issue of radical Islamic terrorism are those that seem offended by perceived attacks on Muslims when there are none.

edit on 19/9/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   
News is saying his family owned the 'American Fried Chicken' restaurant shown in the exterior 'raid' images.




top topics



 
38
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join