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.

 

American Muslims Stone Christians in Dearborn, MI

page: 32
44
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by paratus

Watch the video, a bottle did not draw blood like that.


No where in the video is a rock shown...in the air...on the ground...or striking anyone.

Maybe you can direct me to that segment?

Given the indisputable goal of the protestors was to provoke violence and capture it on film in an edited, dishonest, fear mongering, hate propaganda piece...it is not out of the realm of possibility that the racist idiot whacked his head on one of the Mega-Signs calling Mohamed a child molester and then claimed he was struck by a rock.


edit on 27-6-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 





Fighting words


A very narrow definition. Westboro baptists do not even fullfill it. It would not really be a problem for my idea.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
If you think that someone has a right to use violence against someone they disagree with over a verbal debate, than you need to leave this country now please.

This country is founded upon the protection of rights.

You do NOT have a right to hit someone.

You DO have a right to argue back, or choose to IGNORE them.

Hitting someone makes you a criminal, especially if it's over beliefs.


Well, actually as many members have been trying to tell you, the Supreme Court has recently decided different from what you are saying. They happen to be the final word on this subject, and they do not agree with you. That is, words can cause physical harm and provoke one to retaliate physically. You are the one that is wrong. You are stating your opinion and how you want things to be. We are stating the way things are as ruled by the Supreme Court of the United States.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 


Just curious, if they were BEHIND the lines and remained behind the lines, what would be your view? Do they have a constitutional right to protest?

Also, why do you ignore the possibility of the Muslims coming to the lines to meet these protestors? Why do you assume they passed the line??? And to cite the deerborne newspaper article - a heavily Muslim town with a natural bias in favor of Muslims - is not objective.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
The "christian" group (loosely) should not have been there, they were looking for a fight/altercation.
The "muslim" group (loosely again) should not have reacted with force.
BOTH were wrong.
To attack the group was illegal and the film is evidence.
The cops pulling over the van afterwards was a **** move.
During the violence the cop says "we don't have enough officers to protect you"
Then in the traffic stop he has a bakers dozen standing around...
c'mon are they all that stupid?



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by Maslo
IMHO.


Would this be the same opinion that anyone who doesn't agree with your narrow view of the world should be jailed, deported, executed etc etc?

Not much of an opinion if you ask me.


What the hell are you talking about? Thats not my opinion. I dont even support exections..


Stop with the immature trolling and ad hominems already..


Apologies, I got the executions bit wrong. What you actually called them was vicious sub-humans who don't have a right to walk this earth.

Still not an opinion I listen to, I don't take extremist points of view like yourself.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 


No, not at all. In fact, by judging the animus of the Muslims - which is much greater than that showed by the Christians - it is easily as likely, or even more likely that they met them at the lines because they couldn't tolerate the presence of Christians in "their" Muslims town protesting their festival.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Indigo5


As Samuel Johnson once wrote..Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth, and every other man has a right to knock him down for it.


You believe in garbage than.

You have no right to hit me for what I say. If you do I will have to use full force to protect myself.



Easy there ...Fear much? Samuel Johnson uses the "knock him down" phrase in the literary sense...as in to respond verbally and take someone down a notch or call them on there BS.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 

There are more videos on the interwebs.
All of which could be used as evidence.
feel free to search

pics, and it DID happen



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
If you go into a bear pit with the intention of provoking a bear, chances are you'll provoke a bear.

Stupid is as stupid does.

All this crap about constitutional rights doesn't cover up deliberate provocative stupidity does it?



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by paratus
reply to post by Indigo5
 

There are more videos on the interwebs.
All of which could be used as evidence.
feel free to search

pics, and it DID happen


Provide one then...show me him actually getting hit by a rock....Until then I call BS.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
If you go into a bear pit with the intention of provoking a bear, chances are you'll provoke a bear.

Stupid is as stupid does.

All this crap about constitutional rights doesn't cover up deliberate provocative stupidity does it?



Sense doesn't seem to be applicable for many posters in this thread. Too much sense sends them into loops. Extreme sense, like your post above, literally makes their heads explode.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


They did not just have signs, nor were they peacefully standing around.... lol... they were dragging around a real pigs head tied to a pole, walking through the entire festival and yelling at the Muslims (through a megaphone) that their Prophet was a peodophile, a liar, and a murderer etc etc etc

He also called the Muslim children "demon possessed", yes, prize of Christianity and peaceful protesting there!
edit on 27-6-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
If you think that someone has a right to use violence against someone they disagree with over a verbal debate, than you need to leave this country now please.

This country is founded upon the protection of rights.

You do NOT have a right to hit someone.

You DO have a right to argue back, or choose to IGNORE them.

Hitting someone makes you a criminal, especially if it's over beliefs.


I guess Aaron Huey would disagree with you on founding part of your comment.

I agree that common sense tell us we should not do harm to other humans, but same common sense should tell us not to provoke someone based on religion or political believes.

Is it too much to have common sense?



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Those Christians are a bunch of idiots...they went to that festival to cause a reaction. The guy screaming "god is Jesus" into his megaphone is beyond ridiculous.


During a Muslim festival too...how disrespectful. I wonder how they would act if during their Easter festivities in church a bunch of Muslims ran in screaming "Allah akhbar!!!" over and over again. I'm sure those Christian church goers would remain all calm


By the way, the video was produced by United West, the guys in the video were probably even affiliated with them. The entire organization is massive clown operation based on racism and bigotry



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580


Whitney has been thoroughly discredited by later decisions. See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.


This could be read from two directions depending on who you are bias in favor of.

The pro-Muslim bias would say "The Christians provoked it"
The pro-Christian bias would say "The Muslims are violent".

And as a neutral bystander it's clear that the Muslims were trolled into violence too easily. If it's that easy to make them flip out, they will NEVER escape the "Terrorist" tag line.

By the way, stating your religious belief cannot be construed as provocational since you do actually have 100% rights to say it whenever and where ever you please.

Point is you can talk all the crap you want, but if someone gets violent it is technically criminal. In a public place during public gathering? Yeah, it's criminal all right.

If people cannot stand having someone disagree with them in public about religion, maybe they should move to China or Saudi Arabia where their Utopia really is?? Because the USA isn't like that.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
A bloody pigs head was stuck on a pole and waved at the Muslims while Christians screamed at little kids that...
"Youre going to Hell!"..and "Allah is Satan!"

I was there as an EMT and treated no injuries.
edit on 06-10-2010 by mysterioustranger because: grammar


Pictures or it never happened.


There are several pictures of the pigs head on a stake all throughout this thread.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 





What you actually called them was vicious sub-humans who don't have a right to walk this earth.


No, I called them violent subhumans, nothing more. And it was not meant for muslims, for your information. It was meant for those who react violently to insulting signs. And I stand by it.




Still not an opinion I listen to, I don't take extremist points of view like yourself.


Nothing extremist about it, if you really read what I wrote instead of what you think I wrote.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Whitney has been thoroughly discredited by later decisions. See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.


Thanks, I was looking for that. Finally we are getting somewhere 600 replies later!!



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Furbs
 


No, not at all. In fact, by judging the animus of the Muslims - which is much greater than that showed by the Christians - it is easily as likely, or even more likely that they met them at the lines because they couldn't tolerate the presence of Christians in "their" Muslims town protesting their festival.


So those Christians go there to scream "god is Jesus" into a megaphone like a bunch of retards and then wonder why people get mad and aggressive? What do you think would happen if a couple of Muslims barged into an Christian Easter parade like that screaming "Allah akhbar!!" over and over again?? They would probably end up getting shot by some idiot thinking they're terrorists because that clown Bachmann told them so



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join